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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6898788" data-attributes="member: 2067">I dunno that those are nerfs, but they're absolutely part of what I imagine more dev time will do to it.Sorry, but that's a rather limited view of how other tables play the game. "Officialness" or "Publishedness" doesn't seem to be a huge barrier to use in practice.Before the Recent Crash, there was a poll up on which beyond-Core options you've seen use in a game for > 1 month. UA material and "other homebrew" material exceeded everything except, I think, the Swashbuckler, which pulled even with them. If there's some representativeness in that sample (which is debatable), it points to more D&D tables having seen something from UA or DM's Guild than have seen ghostwise halflings or winged tieflings or battlerager barbarians, despite those later options being "officially published" and the former options being decidedly not.Based on that (limited, and imperfect) sample, I'd imagine that a lot of folks who want to use a spell-less ranger, folks are using <a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes" target="_blank">it, or something like it, even if it's not in a hardcover</a>. Not that this means that WotC shouldn't at some point publish those rules more broadly or something, just that we've seen more discussion about artificers and psionics than we have about these alt-ranger rules, so it seems that a lot of tables that need such rules already have the rules they need and they're working OK enough. If WotC wants to publish them more broadly, that points to the course being to not re-inventing the wheel. Maybe refining what exists in UA, but nothing as drastic as the OP suggests.Heck, if they're going to re-publish the ranger anyway, sticking the text of that UA article (or something substantially similar) into the same book would certainly be welcome!</blockquote>

Verification