Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5567229" data-attributes="member: 82106">Of course there is going to be plenty of Arcane stuff in here, are you kidding Aegeri? lol.Furthermore it is irrelevant which keywords have been applied to what things in the past. Just because classes that happen to be 'arcane' have plenty of support doesn't mean that good solid concepts that are thematic don't deserve to be present. It would be stupid of WotC to say "Oh, we're making a Feywild book, but all we can support are Runepriest and Seeker because we have to fill out some checkbox for them." I'm 100% certain that Mike Mearls could care less about anyone's checkboxes.I won't even speculate on what will be in the book, other people already have and honestly all I care is that it is cool and useful. However, it is pretty easy to imagine that magic, and thus arcane, is going to be a significant factor. Druids seem thematic, and the Feypack Warlock is a gimme. I'd think maybe they'll also revisit the whole 'feytouched' concept that was touched on several times in Dragon articles and such. So maybe a race/theme based on that, or at least some kind of add-on. I think a feytouched theme would be the best. Anyway, you're setting yourself up for disappointment Aegeri, and there's no reason for it. A good solid new thematic mage school is just as good as anything else. Maybe Seeker was just a crappy idea to start with (or crappy execution). Maybe it really just doesn't deserve support. So what? Not every little bit added to the game has to be elaborated on, some things are experiments that are better moved on from.I could almost see some way to work in some Runepriest action though. Cyclopses seem a lot like the guys that would know some fun runes... OTOH I don't think it will happen, it is just too fiddly a class.</blockquote>

Verification