Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5532897" data-attributes="member: 82106">Don't mean to sound like this is picking on you, but after going through some of the thread over at the D&D community and then I see the same thing here. I think people aren't looking at it in context. Were they supposed to dedicate HoS only to the Runepriest and the Seeker???!!! I somehow doubt anyone would have been satisfied with that. I suppose the other possibility would have been to just not put out HoS and start over with a supplement for these classes and put that out instead.I mean I think everyone agrees that Seeker and Runepriest are undersupported. That is kind of inarguable really. OTOH is there really a huge pent up demand for that support? Nobody was clamoring for these classes (well maybe some clamor for a weapon-based controller) before PHB3, but they sure as heck have been demanding Shadow stuff from day one.So it seems to me that answer #1 makes pretty good sense in context. They WERE going to do HoS. They DON'T want to release tons of new classes. They're saying they would like to finish up with the ones they have out there now vs creating a whole other slew of new ones that probably will be at the end of a reasonably long queue for support.I mean think about what needs more support right now. Not only Seeker and Runepriest, but there are a number of other classes that really need better PPs, some fixes, etc. I'd say Sorcerer, Shaman, at least some Swordmages, various other builds (Ruthless Ruffian, Swarm Druid, etc). I mean they really need a good 8 or 10 solid articles on various classes to round things out, and that's going to take a decent amount of time and effort to churn through. Note too that Mike said he was open to more Shadow classes like a pure shadow Necromancer. I think they really just felt that HoS should address what could be addressed while adding as little more support burden as possible.</blockquote>

Verification