Tony Vargas
Legend
Heh. To be clear, my personal preference /is/ for the slow pace of releases (I've felt that way since around '95 when I gave up on 2e because it was bloating so horribly), I'd just like to see the players options rounded out. Right now they're too skewed towards 2e-emulating support and way, way too skewed towards PC caster options.Sure, I don't disagree with [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] as far as preference. I don't blame anyone for wanting the kinds of material we've all come to expect...player options, setting books, and so on. I'm sure we'll get those kinds of options before too long.
I was just stating my preference given that I want to see this edition succeed and last. And I think the shift they've shown in slowing the release schedule from prior editions is the key to their early success. I want a slow release schedule, not a non-existent one.
It wouldn't take much:
- A a pair of non-caster classes, one of them the Warlord, obviously (the could be something like the Warblade perhaps) - or even just the Warlord re-imagined as more than just a 'leader' with a lot of archetypes and many more new non-supernatural Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger (and maybe even Monk) archetypes. Some sort of Bo9S supplement, for instance, or, to keep to the SCAG model, a lower-magic setting supplement. That would go further towards enabling 4e-supported styles than a mere tactical module.
- A solid, flexible (both magic & not-magic takes entirely workable, old-school sci-fi/Freudian weirdness an option) take on Psionics - more than just the Mystics and assumptions of a Far-Realms link, but basically in the pipeline as we speak.
- A module for magic-items/wealth-by-level assumptions, the Artificer class (and Alchemists and other high-magic/magic-as-technology/pervasive-magic goodies), and more granular player options like PrCs - an obvious place for it would be an Eberron supplement - and that'd make 3e, player-empowering styles more practical.
Three books spread over 3 years, and there'd be little left to complain about beyond missing little niche things like specific PrCs or obscure non-PH classes.
I'd prefer both: the game rounded out /and/ players being more accepting of homebrewing (because that's really the stumbling block, most DMs are OK with wielding the banhammer, adopting non-core things /they/ like, or making up their own stuff - it's when players, particularly those accustomed to the 3e style of player 'entitlement' - dig in their heels at deviating from the RAW that there are problems). There's nothing about them that's innately exclusive. Indeed, more opt-in options puts the option of homebrewing more solidly in the DM's court by creating the expectation that different things will be available at different tables.Given that, I'd prefer if players and DMs embraced homebrew ing and third party material.
I've done it a lot over the years, and, when I'm inspired, I can bang out something halfway decent in a matter of hours. When I'm inspired. What I'm inspired to make is not always what my players need, though.I don't think it's generally as difficult as many make it out to be, or as time consuming as folks think.
The rules are a place to start, but right now that place is way over on the side of everyone playing a caster in a high-magic world where you have 6-8 encounters every day, and it's along uphill walk in the snow to anyplace else.