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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5576279" data-attributes="member: 78116">We can easily get rid of a mage and hexblade build for this. Easily. But incenjucar has the entire point correct. Wizards aren't going to convince anyone that they are supporting "pre-essentials" by publishing mage, warlock (please no more binders, unless Wizards actually makes them have *something* that makes them just not a crappier warlock) and warpriest builds. They need to show they are still supporting non-essentials classes, otherwise yes, they will just be viewed as "essentials" books (however fair or unfair that will seem). Tangentially supporting the original classes by token stuff that covers essentials classes will not do it.I want to see something real, like powers for the artificier or a build for that class (who again, could use it). Or a new Runepriest build (possibly in Elemental Heroes Handbook, elemental runes have been hinted at in the fluff). Or a build that gives the seeker back some teeth with an exotic throwing weapon worth taking (a good heavy thrown weapon that doesn't suck would go a *long* way). This is the kind of support *I* want to see. It is very easy for me to say "Just sacrifice YAFW" for this easily. Unless you actually like buying the same stuff over and over and over. Especially when the "new" stuff isn't even that good in the first place. You might do, but I'm going to get sick of that REALLY fast. Reading around and just generally talking to people, there is a heck of a lot riding on this book for Wizards. They have to impress: I don't think another mage, another warpriest and another hexblade, with a linear railroad class with no choices anywhere is going to do that. I hope that isn't what the book contains, but one has good reason to be skeptical these days.</blockquote>

Verification