Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 5709726" data-attributes="member: 18182">I don't see it quite the same way.&nbsp; I think the runepriest class was pretty cool and never &quot;needed&quot; additional support to make it playable, it works just fine as is.&nbsp; I think more support would be cool, but it doesn't bother me that there hasn't been much.&nbsp; &quot;Runepriest&quot; is simply not a central archetype to D&amp;D like &quot;Fighter&quot; or &quot;Wizard&quot; is.&nbsp; Player's don't write to WotC in droves requesting more Runepriest support (not that there aren't a few loud individuals who do), and freelancers aren't submitting Runepriest articles in big piles, and WotC isn't frantically looking to fill the Runepriest &quot;void&quot; . . . it's simply not as popular as a class because it just doesn't scream &quot;D&amp;D&quot; like the classic classes do.&nbsp; WotC prints what it believes the majority of its customers want, and it isn't Runepriest articles.That doesn't make the Runepriest a bad class or a bad idea, just not one central to the D&amp;D mythos.&nbsp; I'm glad it was published and is a part of the game, I'm happy to see new articles expanding the concept (like the one we'll see this month), but the complaints that WotC is shafting player's of the class I think are overwrought.&nbsp; Not all options need to be central to the D&amp;D mythos to be a valuable contriution to the game, but not all options need or require equal support down the road to keep them viable.This works with races too.&nbsp; The Shardmind is cool, but you're never going to see it get equal support as the Elf, and you shouldn't.&nbsp; IMO, it's kinda silly to expect otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 5709726, member: 18182"] I don't see it quite the same way. I think the runepriest class was pretty cool and never "needed" additional support to make it playable, it works just fine as is. I think more support would be cool, but it doesn't bother me that there hasn't been much. "Runepriest" is simply not a central archetype to D&D like "Fighter" or "Wizard" is. Player's don't write to WotC in droves requesting more Runepriest support (not that there aren't a few loud individuals who do), and freelancers aren't submitting Runepriest articles in big piles, and WotC isn't frantically looking to fill the Runepriest "void" . . . it's simply not as popular as a class because it just doesn't scream "D&D" like the classic classes do. WotC prints what it believes the majority of its customers want, and it isn't Runepriest articles. That doesn't make the Runepriest a bad class or a bad idea, just not one central to the D&D mythos. I'm glad it was published and is a part of the game, I'm happy to see new articles expanding the concept (like the one we'll see this month), but the complaints that WotC is shafting player's of the class I think are overwrought. Not all options need to be central to the D&D mythos to be a valuable contriution to the game, but not all options need or require equal support down the road to keep them viable. This works with races too. The Shardmind is cool, but you're never going to see it get equal support as the Elf, and you shouldn't. IMO, it's kinda silly to expect otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification