Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5533135" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sorry, I don't think you really grasp what is going on here. This is a simple clarification of nomenclature.The PHB1 Warlord could be unambiguously referred to as 'Warlord', unless you needed to refer to a specific one, in which case you could informally use its build name (IE Resourceful) or in rules text to the corresponding class feature choice. Now, if WotC released an Essentials Warlord it would be named something, lets say 'Battle Master' or whatever. It would still be a Warlord. To reference the OLD Warlord specifically, unambiguously and in general, it would need a name wouldn't it? That name is Marshal. Same goes for Weapon Master for the Fighter, etc. There's no blinking conspiracy. They just need unambiguous names so they can write rules text (not that that has always stopped them in the past, but still...). It is nice that they are releasing them online. OTOH it is really a fairly trivial thing since they aren't really new content. It ALMOST made sense to release them as a softcover book since it would put them out in a format everyone could get and  was not in a book full of unupdated rules. Released online? I guess they might as well, and any errata are welcome enough, but it isn't very exciting. I hope they spend just about zero time on it vs doing almost anything else. Yeah. Ossassin was an oddball though. It was DDI-only, so if they released updates for it they'd have either had to release the whole class (which they said they wouldn't do), or have a chunk of the book only useful to subscribers. I think releasing the new Assassin was sort of a middle way. Maybe not satisfying to all, but they were in sort of a bind there.I will say I think you are quite likely to be correct. Though at least indications lately are that maybe they're starting to hear people asking for Seeker support. Dunno what will come of that, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a couple articles on it in Dragon at least.Yeah, I think Runepriest will only ever show up with support on DDI. I kind of agree too. It is a neat concept and the implementation is clever, but it is a VERY complicated class to actually run, and the whole STR focused part of it never quite worked for me. Lots of good ideas and it works, but I also kind of feel like it was a very narrow basis for a whole class. I really would have made a rune based Invoker myself...</blockquote>

Verification