It just seems kind of weird to get a new source book with a single subclass, specially when three were clearly planned. This isn't like the strixhaven incident where the subclasses completely changed how they worked to fit the themes, these were some pretty basic subclasses and I really don't see why they wouldn't of been in this book when they both have monster counterparts appearing in the bestiary. Any ideas?
I don’t believe they ever give an official explanation for why any given UA doesn’t make it through. But they’ve long had the general rule that things need 70% approval to go through. If it didn’t meet the threshold, or if there was some other reason, we probably won’t ever know.
The Wizard one lives on through the Rune Carver background and Rune Shaper feat, that was obvious after the second UA regarding these options. Basically the main feedback I heard was 'Wizards don't need another subclass' and 'This feels like more of an Artificer subclass then Wizard.' So I guess they just went the feat option instead. I assume the original subclass also scored poorly leading to those and the final changes.
Same would likely have happened to the Druid subclass. I think a lot of people liked the concept of the subclass, but the execution just didn't do it for a lot of people. I guess it was easier to scrap it than try and fix it, especially with the limited time between that UA and the book needing to be ready. Maybe we'll still see it pop back in the future, there are references to it in the art and stat blocks, but they may have just been stuff already in the works and they decided to make use of them in someway.
I don't know the druid, really. But I guess the wizard didn't come out because people voted against it. And why did they vote against? Well, in my opinion, and remembering the posts that were opened those days, because people preferred that this subclass was Artificer and not Wizard. I think that they could have solved that by changing the name (since it was what many detractors appealed to say that in their head that subclass should belong to the artificer). Anyway, WoTC didn't publish that subclass because people voted against it in the poll. And if people don't want it, the rational thing to do is not publish it so it doesn't take up unnecessary space in the book. I've read people saying that the subclass "is" in the feats. But that's not true. The subclass had some mechanics that are not in any feat of the book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It just seems kind of weird to get a new source book with a single subclass, specially when three were clearly planned. This isn't like the strixhaven incident where the subclasses completely changed how they worked to fit the themes, these were some pretty basic subclasses and I really don't see why they wouldn't of been in this book when they both have monster counterparts appearing in the bestiary. Any ideas?
I assume the Druid one didn’t make it because it was better or at least too similar to the Ranger Beast Master.
As for the Wizard I don’t think it was well received.
I mean it was tankier sure, but no breath weapon and couldn't fly. how was it better?
I don’t believe they ever give an official explanation for why any given UA doesn’t make it through. But they’ve long had the general rule that things need 70% approval to go through. If it didn’t meet the threshold, or if there was some other reason, we probably won’t ever know.
I'm pretty sure that the only people who actually know have NDAs.
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.
The Wizard one lives on through the Rune Carver background and Rune Shaper feat, that was obvious after the second UA regarding these options. Basically the main feedback I heard was 'Wizards don't need another subclass' and 'This feels like more of an Artificer subclass then Wizard.' So I guess they just went the feat option instead. I assume the original subclass also scored poorly leading to those and the final changes.
Same would likely have happened to the Druid subclass. I think a lot of people liked the concept of the subclass, but the execution just didn't do it for a lot of people. I guess it was easier to scrap it than try and fix it, especially with the limited time between that UA and the book needing to be ready. Maybe we'll still see it pop back in the future, there are references to it in the art and stat blocks, but they may have just been stuff already in the works and they decided to make use of them in someway.
I don't know the druid, really. But I guess the wizard didn't come out because people voted against it. And why did they vote against? Well, in my opinion, and remembering the posts that were opened those days, because people preferred that this subclass was Artificer and not Wizard.
I think that they could have solved that by changing the name (since it was what many detractors appealed to say that in their head that subclass should belong to the artificer).
Anyway, WoTC didn't publish that subclass because people voted against it in the poll. And if people don't want it, the rational thing to do is not publish it so it doesn't take up unnecessary space in the book.
I've read people saying that the subclass "is" in the feats. But that's not true. The subclass had some mechanics that are not in any feat of the book.