A book on weaponry. More weapons, expanded features for weapons, and more magic items including bows and something like the 4e ki focus that applies an enchantment to unarmed strikes/wielded monk weapons.
Some kind of mechanic that lets you make a meaningful character choice in the mid to high levels. Like a prestige class or paragon path from older editions.
If I had a wish I’d wish for an official D&D book on the Feywild & Shadowfell.
I know that there’s an adventure book for the Feywild (The Wild Beyond the Witchlight), but I want to be able to make and run my own adventures in those realms, and having an official sourcebook with locations & NPC’s & and maybe even more monsters too for both The Feywild and the Shadowfell would be completely awesome!
I guess you could use WBtW as a guide to create an adventure in The Feywild, but what if you want to play that adventure?-A sourcebook would work a lot better than just having an adventure to look at and see how it’s done. Also, I don’t think the Shadowfell has an official adventuring book in 5e, and even though the Feywild does, as mentioned above, wh not have both (a sourcebook and an adventure)?!?
If I had a wish I’d wish for an official D&D book on the Feywild & Shadowfell.
I know that there’s an adventure book for the Feywild (The Wild Beyond the Witchlight), but I want to be able to make and run my own adventures in those realms, and having an official sourcebook with locations & NPC’s & and maybe even more monsters too for both The Feywild and the Shadowfell would be completely awesome!
I guess you could use WBtW as a guide to create an adventure in The Feywild, but what if you want to play that adventure?-A sourcebook would work a lot better than just having an adventure to look at and see how it’s done. Also, I don’t think the Shadowfell has an official adventuring book in 5e, and even though the Feywild does, as mentioned above, wh not have both (a sourcebook and an adventure)?!?
Now that you mention it, a book centered around the City of Brass would be neat imo. It's one of the major commercial hubs in the Great Wheel cosmology, the efreet are my favourite type of genie, and the City of Brass has ties to devils and the Nine Hells, which I also like.
If I had a wish I’d wish for an official D&D book on the Feywild & Shadowfell.
I know that there’s an adventure book for the Feywild (The Wild Beyond the Witchlight), but I want to be able to make and run my own adventures in those realms, and having an official sourcebook with locations & NPC’s & and maybe even more monsters too for both The Feywild and the Shadowfell would be completely awesome!
I guess you could use WBtW as a guide to create an adventure in The Feywild, but what if you want to play that adventure?-A sourcebook would work a lot better than just having an adventure to look at and see how it’s done. Also, I don’t think the Shadowfell has an official adventuring book in 5e, and even though the Feywild does, as mentioned above, wh not have both (a sourcebook and an adventure)?!?
It's not quite a Feywild book, but when WBtW was released, WotC also put out Domains of Delight on DMsGuild (it's "official" just not in print, it's even cited/promoted in WBtW with the Talespinner spider art). It's sorta like VRGtR's guide to Domains of Dread, but the Domains of Delight being the Feywild version (and that's weird because the book does explain how some of the Domains of Delight are pretty gloomy); but you also get I think a stronger overview of how the Feywild functions as a mirror or echo plane of the Prime Material.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The artificer gets balls for support because it isn't really a WotC developed class. It was made for an officially licensed campaign setting, Eberron, and WotC responded to some people loudly screaming for it to be official by saying "Yeah, sure, it's official." It's homebrew with a rubber stamp on it, barely a half step above like Mat Mercer's Blood Hunter and the various subclasses from the CR Exandria books. WotC doesn't make Blood Hunter subclasses or class-exclusive spells because they didn't make the Blood Hunter class and the same goes for the Artificer.
If you want more Artificer stuff, go petition Keith Baker to write something for it in a new Eberron supplement because that's the only way you're likely to get it.
The artificer gets balls for support because it isn't really a WotC developed class. It was made for an officially licensed campaign setting, Eberron, and WotC responded to some people loudly screaming for it to be official by saying "Yeah, sure, it's official." It's homebrew with a rubber stamp on it, barely a half step above like Mat Mercer's Blood Hunter and the various subclasses from the CR Exandria books. WotC doesn't make Blood Hunter subclasses or class-exclusive spells because they didn't make the Blood Hunter class and the same goes for the Artificer.
If you want more Artificer stuff, go petition Keith Baker to write something for it in a new Eberron supplement because that's the only way you're likely to get it.
There are artificer subclasses in his book Exploring Eberron, which is on the DM's Guild, so we don't really have to.
To be honest, if someone is an Eberron fan, I'd recommend getting that book regardless.
The artificer gets balls for support because it isn't really a WotC developed class. It was made for an officially licensed campaign setting, Eberron, and WotC responded to some people loudly screaming for it to be official by saying "Yeah, sure, it's official." It's homebrew with a rubber stamp on it, barely a half step above like Mat Mercer's Blood Hunter and the various subclasses from the CR Exandria books. WotC doesn't make Blood Hunter subclasses or class-exclusive spells because they didn't make the Blood Hunter class and the same goes for the Artificer.
If you want more Artificer stuff, go petition Keith Baker to write something for it in a new Eberron supplement because that's the only way you're likely to get it.
That's a rather bold claim. Do you have any actual proof to back it up?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It was first published in 3.x Eberron books, not a book that was written in house by people on WotC payroll. It was not included in the 5e PHB when that was written, so WotC clearly didn't think enough of it to include in the new edition like they very specifically did do with the warlock, which originally published in an official 3.5 supplement that was written and published in house by WotC writers and designers.
5e was specifically designed to have the main source of different character builds being subclasses and, to a lesser extent, backgrounds. Core classes are more of templates that you add those options onto rather than a complete level 1-20 plan around a clearly defined set of core abilities. Subclasses also fully supplanted prestige classes which were generally even more specific than subclasses in their focus on particular skillsets. WotC has not thrown three new core classes at us with each of a series of books forcused on the four original core archetypes like they did in 3.5 with the Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, and Complete Adventurer (focusing on "skilled classes" like rogues, rangers, and bards). The hexblade, swashbuckler, samurai, scout, and favored soul (renamed divine soul for 5e) were also core classes from those supplements that eventually became official 5e subclasses with clearly similar themes and features. Numerous of the literal scores of official 3.5 prestige classes have been adapted partially, fully, or in a conglomerated manner into 5e subclasses as well. WotC clearly planned on not adding extra core classes from the beginning of 5e.
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
They (WotC) wrote a new subclass for it (Armorer), published in Tasha's. Also, no new subclasses for any class have been published since Tasha's.
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
They (WotC) wrote a new subclass for it (Armorer), published in Tasha's. Also, no new subclasses for any class have been published since Tasha's.
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft had one for Bard (College of Spirits) and Warlock (Undead).
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had one for Ranger (Drakewarden) and Monk (Way of the Ascendant Dragon).
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
They (WotC) wrote a new subclass for it (Armorer), published in Tasha's. Also, no new subclasses for any class have been published since Tasha's.
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft had one for Bard (College of Spirits) and Warlock (Undead).
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had one for Ranger (Drakewarden) and Monk (Way of the Ascendant Dragon).
oh, yeah, fair. Though that's still nowhere near "subclasses for everything except the artificer."
It was first published in 3.x Eberron books, not a book that was written in house by people on WotC payroll. It was not included in the 5e PHB when that was written, so WotC clearly didn't think enough of it to include in the new edition like they very specifically did do with the warlock, which originally published in an official 3.5 supplement that was written and published in house by WotC writers and designers.
5e was specifically designed to have the main source of different character builds being subclasses and, to a lesser extent, backgrounds. Core classes are more of templates that you add those options onto rather than a complete level 1-20 plan around a clearly defined set of core abilities. Subclasses also fully supplanted prestige classes which were generally even more specific than subclasses in their focus on particular skillsets. WotC has not thrown three new core classes at us with each of a series of books forcused on the four original core archetypes like they did in 3.5 with the Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, and Complete Adventurer (focusing on "skilled classes" like rogues, rangers, and bards). The hexblade, swashbuckler, samurai, scout, and favored soul (renamed divine soul for 5e) were also core classes from those supplements that eventually became official 5e subclasses with clearly similar themes and features. Numerous of the literal scores of official 3.5 prestige classes have been adapted partially, fully, or in a conglomerated manner into 5e subclasses as well. WotC clearly planned on not adding extra core classes from the beginning of 5e.
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
Eberron was an official D&D setting created specifically for D&D. The rights to it are owned by WotC. And always have been. It is not and never has been somebody's homebrew that got popular enough to receive an official campaign setting book, WotC held a contest for people to submit their ideas for a new campaign setting.
It is not like Exandria which started as someone's personal homebrew and got popular before receiving a splatbook.
And as for the claim that WotC never intended to add any new classes outside of the PHB? That's pure conjecture without any actual evidence to support it. If a "screeching minority" was enough to sway WotC's actions, the Mystic and Revised Ranger would both have been published and there wouldn't have been any lore changes to orcs or drow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That would be pretty cool. I'd love to see the Nezumi (ratfolk) as a playable race, and maybe have a ninja subclass in the book as well should it happen.
It would also be neat to see all the rules for the magi-tech stuff that planeswalkers like Kaito use, and maybe get rules for the speeder bikes used on that world. (Or are there rules for that already?)
Unfortunately, it probably wont happen since Wizards usually announces MTG->D&D crossovers around the time the set happens if remember right, but it would still be pretty neat if we could get a Kamigawa setting book.
1. A book of all terrain maps (300+ pages)
2. Artificer story plots like those found in XGTE for every other class
3. More Artificer Subclasses
…& a few other things I, myself, will eventually try to develop & pitch to WoTC 😉
Feel free to add to this list as I’m curious to see other ideas
A book on weaponry. More weapons, expanded features for weapons, and more magic items including bows and something like the 4e ki focus that applies an enchantment to unarmed strikes/wielded monk weapons.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Some kind of mechanic that lets you make a meaningful character choice in the mid to high levels. Like a prestige class or paragon path from older editions.
The artificer having spells of its own could be neat. Clerics having a more comprehensive spell selection at higher levels would also be nice.
If I had a wish I’d wish for an official D&D book on the Feywild & Shadowfell.
I know that there’s an adventure book for the Feywild (The Wild Beyond the Witchlight), but I want to be able to make and run my own adventures in those realms, and having an official sourcebook with locations & NPC’s & and maybe even more monsters too for both The Feywild and the Shadowfell would be completely awesome!
I guess you could use WBtW as a guide to create an adventure in The Feywild, but what if you want to play that adventure?-A sourcebook would work a lot better than just having an adventure to look at and see how it’s done. Also, I don’t think the Shadowfell has an official adventuring book in 5e, and even though the Feywild does, as mentioned above, wh not have both (a sourcebook and an adventure)?!?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Now that you mention it, a book centered around the City of Brass would be neat imo. It's one of the major commercial hubs in the Great Wheel cosmology, the efreet are my favourite type of genie, and the City of Brass has ties to devils and the Nine Hells, which I also like.
It's not quite a Feywild book, but when WBtW was released, WotC also put out Domains of Delight on DMsGuild (it's "official" just not in print, it's even cited/promoted in WBtW with the Talespinner spider art). It's sorta like VRGtR's guide to Domains of Dread, but the Domains of Delight being the Feywild version (and that's weird because the book does explain how some of the Domains of Delight are pretty gloomy); but you also get I think a stronger overview of how the Feywild functions as a mirror or echo plane of the Prime Material.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
4. More male, female & surnames/clan names in XGTE for all Human ethnicities in Færûn 🙃
I like the artists used in the official modules
Though I haven’t seen many modules’ maps as I’ve been focused on running DoIP
I’ve taken a peek at a couple modules I own & the artwork looks the same
Maybe I’ll try to find the actual map makers who created the maps in DoIP & ask them for personal creations 🗺 🤔
The artificer gets balls for support because it isn't really a WotC developed class. It was made for an officially licensed campaign setting, Eberron, and WotC responded to some people loudly screaming for it to be official by saying "Yeah, sure, it's official." It's homebrew with a rubber stamp on it, barely a half step above like Mat Mercer's Blood Hunter and the various subclasses from the CR Exandria books. WotC doesn't make Blood Hunter subclasses or class-exclusive spells because they didn't make the Blood Hunter class and the same goes for the Artificer.
If you want more Artificer stuff, go petition Keith Baker to write something for it in a new Eberron supplement because that's the only way you're likely to get it.
There are artificer subclasses in his book Exploring Eberron, which is on the DM's Guild, so we don't really have to.
To be honest, if someone is an Eberron fan, I'd recommend getting that book regardless.
That's a rather bold claim. Do you have any actual proof to back it up?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It was first published in 3.x Eberron books, not a book that was written in house by people on WotC payroll. It was not included in the 5e PHB when that was written, so WotC clearly didn't think enough of it to include in the new edition like they very specifically did do with the warlock, which originally published in an official 3.5 supplement that was written and published in house by WotC writers and designers.
5e was specifically designed to have the main source of different character builds being subclasses and, to a lesser extent, backgrounds. Core classes are more of templates that you add those options onto rather than a complete level 1-20 plan around a clearly defined set of core abilities. Subclasses also fully supplanted prestige classes which were generally even more specific than subclasses in their focus on particular skillsets. WotC has not thrown three new core classes at us with each of a series of books forcused on the four original core archetypes like they did in 3.5 with the Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, and Complete Adventurer (focusing on "skilled classes" like rogues, rangers, and bards). The hexblade, swashbuckler, samurai, scout, and favored soul (renamed divine soul for 5e) were also core classes from those supplements that eventually became official 5e subclasses with clearly similar themes and features. Numerous of the literal scores of official 3.5 prestige classes have been adapted partially, fully, or in a conglomerated manner into 5e subclasses as well. WotC clearly planned on not adding extra core classes from the beginning of 5e.
Artificer is the anomaly, and it was included in Tasha's to placate the screeching minority and possibly as an experiment to see if there was a tangible benefit to adding additional core classes instead of just making new "branches" for the existing ones. Since then they've continued their original model of releasing additional subclasses for everything except the artificer and no new core classes. The artificer is the redheaded stepchild that WotC designers clearly never wanted.
They (WotC) wrote a new subclass for it (Armorer), published in Tasha's. Also, no new subclasses for any class have been published since Tasha's.
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft had one for Bard (College of Spirits) and Warlock (Undead).
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had one for Ranger (Drakewarden) and Monk (Way of the Ascendant Dragon).
oh, yeah, fair. Though that's still nowhere near "subclasses for everything except the artificer."
Eberron was an official D&D setting created specifically for D&D. The rights to it are owned by WotC. And always have been. It is not and never has been somebody's homebrew that got popular enough to receive an official campaign setting book, WotC held a contest for people to submit their ideas for a new campaign setting.
It is not like Exandria which started as someone's personal homebrew and got popular before receiving a splatbook.
And as for the claim that WotC never intended to add any new classes outside of the PHB? That's pure conjecture without any actual evidence to support it. If a "screeching minority" was enough to sway WotC's actions, the Mystic and Revised Ranger would both have been published and there wouldn't have been any lore changes to orcs or drow.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I want proper Psionics.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A campaign setting book based on Kamigawa.
That would be pretty cool. I'd love to see the Nezumi (ratfolk) as a playable race, and maybe have a ninja subclass in the book as well should it happen.
It would also be neat to see all the rules for the magi-tech stuff that planeswalkers like Kaito use, and maybe get rules for the speeder bikes used on that world. (Or are there rules for that already?)
Unfortunately, it probably wont happen since Wizards usually announces MTG->D&D crossovers around the time the set happens if remember right, but it would still be pretty neat if we could get a Kamigawa setting book.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.