Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7027570" data-attributes="member: 37579">Devoting 100 pages of a 256-page book and making that the largest chapter would be pretty "center stage". Like the monster section of Volo's Guide to Monsters.Devoting 150 pages to subclasses and feats would be an amount of content comparable to the PHB. It's almost doubling the content for the game. It's more content than will ever be used at most tables. I'd rather see 100 pages of new PC content, and a couple other 75-page sections that are fluff and advice heavy, with some DM content as well. Content that will be fun to read. Content that will be interesting in 5 or 10 years, or interesting for players of any edition (or even Pathfinder players). Like the lore of Volo's Guide to Monsters or the world info of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. After all, a book that's all rules options appeals only to fans of crunch. A book that's 50% rules 50% lore appeals to fans of crunch and fans of fluff. I agree that a few of the options will be declared "not ready for primetime" and dumped. But there's also likely a few options that were solid out the gate and didn't need the mass feedback of the public concept test that is Unearthed Arcana. The "obvious" stuff that was just given directly to the friends & family private playtesters. The existence of a phoenix sorcerer, the execution of a treachery paladin, or the concept of a warlock that makes a pact with an item need a little feedback to see how people feel. But the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was a very different book. It was a world book that had a dash of bonus crunch. Like Volo's Guide to Monsters is a monster book that has a dash of player crunch. A rules expansion book should have as much expansion of rules as SCAG had FR world lore. They're different books with different needs. . Well… no. We know nothing apart from Mearls saying they're working on "the first major rules expansion". We have no information one way or another. That and the wave of UA means we're presuming the Fall 2017 book will be crunch heavy. But it might not be. Yup.Because there's not some secret repository of news or tell-all interview that didn't make it onto the front page of ENWorld. And no one has broken their NDA. We're not holding out on ya, man. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Getting back to your OP:That does seem to be the case. They seem to have been outright renamed. Based on the current (and thus in flux) design, it looks like most conclaves will be designed for both, having an optional 5th level feature (currently Extra Attack).I think the design of the revised ranger was explicitly done to ensure compatibility between subclasses *shrug*You know as much as I do. I think they're testing the scout as a fighter and/or rogue subclass to replace the spell-less ranger.</blockquote>

Verification