Let's help Mouseferatu with the APG

[Mouseferatu]

Well, it's a pity but I understand. Thanks for clarifying it anyway

Well, for the record, if WotC ever offers me the chance to do the official 4E shadowcaster, I'll jump at it. So it could still happen.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I don't want this book to just be a "bridge" until material comes out down the road. I want it to be useful in tandem with official material. If I can accomplish everything I want to accomplish, you'll be able to use my version of Class X in the same campaign, or even the same party, as WotC's version of Class X, and while they'll both definitely be Class X, they'll also be different enough that the two players really feel like they're not stepping on each other's toes.

In that case (and this might be better directed to Orcus) I'd suggest you use somewhat different names for the APG classes ie berserker instead of barbarian, troubadour instead of bard. In this way people can play both the APG and Wizards version of the class without any confusion about which class is which.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, for the record, if WotC ever offers me the chance to do the official 4E shadowcaster, I'll jump at it. So it could still happen.

Write Ravenloft articles for the DI (a setting in which Shadowcaster could definitely have a solid place). I think they'd be fools not to run with it.

 

[Campbell]

Eh? I thought the Druid was introduced in 2e via kits.

The Druid class was originally introduced in OD&D's Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, and was a core class in 1e.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In that case (and this might be better directed to Orcus) I'd suggest you use somewhat different names for the APG classes ie berserker instead of barbarian, troubadour instead of bard. In this way people can play both the APG and Wizards version of the class without any confusion about which class is which.

Oh, don't worry, I've taken that into account. The intro of my class section includes a list of alternate names.

 

[Glyfair]

Uh, there were indeed druids in 1E. Right there in the PHB, even.

Indeed, one of my favorite druid pictures was from the 1E days

Oh, don't worry, I've taken that into account. The intro of my class section includes a list of alternate names.

I was hoping this would be something done (although I was have alternated them, myself). Avoid the confusion of the 3E days when a campaign used 3 or 4 of the variations on rangers and called them all rangers.

 

[Nylanfs]

In that case (and this might be better directed to Orcus) I'd suggest you use somewhat different names for the APG classes ie berserker instead of barbarian, troubadour instead of bard. In this way people can play both the APG and Wizards version of the class without any confusion about which class is which.

I would like to second that speaking from a software point of view. What way we don't have to have wonky work arounds like Druid and Druid (APG) or such.

 

[tsadkiel]

Artificer: For those Eberronites starving until '09.

I know it's really not within the book's mission statement, but man, an artificer class would make me happy.

 

[Roman]

This:

..in those few cases where WotC has made their plans public (such as their discussion of some of the classes in the Races and Classes book), I'm deliberately trying to go in different directions. This partly ties into my first goal, as above, but there's a better reason for it.

I don't want this book to just be a "bridge" until material comes out down the road. I want it to be useful in tandem with official material. If I can accomplish everything I want to accomplish, you'll be able to use my version of Class X in the same campaign, or even the same party, as WotC's version of Class X, and while they'll both definitely be Class X, they'll also be different enough that the two players really feel like they're not stepping on each other's toes.

And this:

Oh, don't worry, I've taken that into account. The intro of my class section includes a list of alternate names.

....

I would not mind if the classes appearing in the first PHB eventually received the same alternate treatment.

 

[Bluenose]

Whatever you do, please don't broaden the wizard's "spell" list much. I'd like to see specialist wizards who can actually do some things that a generalist can't. Since you're aiming for a 1st edition feel, remember that the Illusionist could do spells the Magic User couldn't. It wasn't just a name for someone who threw a few more spells around, as 2nd and 3rd edition made him.