|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 12:35PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
Hi,
Can anyone provide a link to or the text substance of the Warlord article that is listed in the previews section of the website as appearing in the January issue of Dragon. I can't find the link. I would also appreciate a link to the warlock pacts article from the December issue.
Thanks in Advance.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 2:00PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
Hi,
Can anyone provide a link to or the text substance of the Warlord article that is listed in the previews section of the website as appearing in the January issue of Dragon. I can't find the link. I would also appreciate a link to the warlock pacts article from the December issue.
Thanks in Advance.
The warlord article hasn't shown up yet. We're still waiting for it.
The warlock article is downloadable along with the rest of that issue, but I'd have to look around for a link.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 6:44PM
#3
|
|
|
Its not entirely obvious, but many of the things they promised in that preview (back in December, I believe?) have yet to materialize. I seem to remember somethig about rules for epic binders  . For better or worse, it seems WotC is focused almost exlusively on the 4e launch at this time, which means any "promised" Dragon articles have been put on the back burner. Once 4e launches, perhaps the online mags will pick up. Unfortunately by then, they'll be using 4e rules and the 3.5 articles will have been effectively "lost" to us  . WotC is looking forward, not back, which is good for them but meanwhile we're out some nifty 3.5 articles.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 7:03PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
For better or worse, it seems WotC is focused almost exlusively on the 4e launch at this time, which means any "promised" Dragon articles have been put on the back burner.
Once 4e launches, perhaps the online mags will pick up. Unfortunately by then, they'll be using 4e rules and the 3.5 articles will have been effectively "lost" to us . WotC is looking forward, not back, which is good for them but meanwhile we're out some nifty 3.5 articles.[/quote]
Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 7:20PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....
Ditto. That is an amazing gap given that the article was slated for January. I also can't find the warlock pacts article slated for December. I did find a very short article that I had seen last fall. I dont't think they are the same.
Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 2:56PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2008
|
Of course, given that 99% of the missing articles are previews of 4e you'd think they could put those out on time....
Agreed. It's really just copy and paste after all. Hard at work on 4E they may be - and we all appreciate that, we really do - but why can't some intern be given a pile of articles to post? What, is EVERYONE in the office too busy?
Ah, enough *****ing from me. I don't know the pressure they're under. If they can't sort Dragon out after the launch then we'll all be voting with our feet anyway.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 5:33PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
Agreed. It's really just copy and paste after all. Hard at work on 4E they may be - and we all appreciate that, we really do - but why can't some intern be given a pile of articles to post? What, is EVERYONE in the office too busy?
Ah, enough *****ing from me. I don't know the pressure they're under. If they can't sort Dragon out after the launch then we'll all be voting with our feet anyway.[/quote]
Weren't the Elf and Rogue entries literally cut-and-paste from the PHB? It isn't like they're writing this from scratch. It wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't promised us this, but since they have, the least they can do is Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 7:46PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Warlord article is up now.
I like it.
Though they really have to think who they are presenting this stuff to. The sports references left a bad taste in my mouth.
To quote Gamers (the movie, not "The Gamers", the other movie)...
"Heh,..sports."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 11:50PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
"I love the name of the warlord class. I supported using the name instead of the original "marshal" name we'd drafted from 3rd Edition. But some players' first impression on hearing the name "warlord" is that the class must be tougher than all the other characters, the nastiest battlefield hack-and-slasher in the game."
Hey, ROB HEINSOO, you've missed the point completely. People don't dislike the name because they think it *sounds* powerful. 'Warlock' sounds powerful, people don't dislike that. People hate the term 'Warlord' because it is the ONLY core class whose name implies rank.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 15, 2008 - 4:30PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
Thanks to Rob for posting this long awaited and much anticipated article. Warlords look cooler all the time.
|
|
|
