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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6842813" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I have no problem with this in general, depending on the format in which it's done. If it's similar to the UA articles about the ranger, that would be fine. But any kind of published product I would hope would not be revisiting material we've already received. Especially with the presence of the DMs Guild and the fact that problems with a specific class or subclass is going to be highly subjective, even given that there seems to be some consensus on a few examples.I'd much rather any published material be new material. Class tweaks and the like can stay in UA. Splatbooks are no better than any of that stuff, except they're deemed "official". But as I said in my earlier post, there is generally a small amount of useful stuff in most splatbooks. Most gaming groups will never ever come anywhere close to using all the options that are given in books like that. I much prefer they keep it simple. Especially since the DMG of this edition is designed to help DMs and player groups come up with anything they'd like....that book is there to help you change anything about the game that you might want....from new races and classes to setting changes such as increased technology to rules options to add complexity to combat and so on.I find it hard to believe that someone who wants, let's say a Cavalier class or subclass, would spend the resources to purchase a book and read it to get that class, rather than simply looking at the DMG already sitting on their shelf and coming up with the class themselves. The amount of time it would take to do so doesn't really seem that extreme, so to those who argue they have no time to create content, I feel that's a bit silly. My time's limited, too....but if I don't have the time to create a little content for the game, then chances are I don't actually need more content than what I have.</blockquote>

Verification