Let's help Mouseferatu with the APG

[Goobermunch]

Why would people be interested in this product if they know WotC will release those races and classes anyways in the near future. I'd rather just wait for the official product instead of ending up with redundant material.
Wouldn't it be better for the 3rd parties to stay away from Wotc's path?

Maybe, maybe not.

If you've got a campaign that's been going since 2e (or god forbid 1e), and are contemplating the transition, this gives you the opportunity to avoid the dark year between the PHB and PHB2. You can transition when the APG comes out.

Also, if you do transition, you may find that you like the Mouse's version better than that of WotC. If they can get it out early enough, generate enough interest, and design it well enough, they may be able to "steal" the gnome and the bard from WotC. That would be quite the feat for Necromancer.

--G

 

[Monkey Boy]

Because there are times when the 3rd party class or rules are much better, balanced and playable than the 'official version.' 3E Ranger anyone? It is a common perception that the 3.5 samurai is also a sad joke. There are quiet a few examples where WOTC just got it wrong.

In addition it could be years is WOTC get round to some of the classics if ever.

3rd party products are good, you should check some out.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well...

I'm dancing on the edge of saying too much, so I really can't go into much detail. But what I can say is this much:

I'm not interested in competing with, or trying to "steal" anything from, WotC. There's no doubt in my mind that, if/when they do versions of classes that aren't in the first PHB, they'll be excellently designed.

What I'm trying to do is twofold:

First, given that I'm designing for Necromancer, I'm trying to keep things closer to their 1E roots. Thus, if I do Class X, and WotC later does Class X, they're going to feel very different. One may be better, the other may be better, it may be an issue of taste--but they'll be different.

(The "1E feel" is also why I'm focusing primarily on classic classes, and not on newer stuff like the shadowcaster [not that I even have the rights to the shadocaster].)

Second, 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 for the record, no, I do not have any inside knowledge of WotC's plans for further classes beyond the PHB. I can only judge their future plans by stuff they're already said.)

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm trying to keep things closer to their 1E roots.

This is the key difference between what the APG is focusing on, and what any future "classic" classes/races WotC releases will focus on. Necromancer and their people want to take the nostalgia of 1e, give it a 4e makeover, without changing fundamental assumptions about the classes/races in question (as Wizards has shown they are more than willing to do). So, the Bard/Barbarian/Druid/Sorcerer/Whatever in the APG could be worlds away from where the "official" versions end up, because they have different philosophies behind their design.

The best of luck to you and your colleagues on this, Ari.

 

[Rechan]

This is the key difference between what the APG is focusing on, and what any future "classic" classes/races WotC releases will focus on. Necromancer and their people want to take the nostalgia of 1e, give it a 4e makeover, without changing fundamental assumptions about the classes/races in question (as Wizards has shown they are more than willing to do). So, the Bard/Barbarian/Druid/Sorcerer/Whatever in the APG could be worlds away from where the "official" versions end up, because they have different philosophies behind their design.

The best of luck to you and your colleagues on this, Ari.

But there weren't any druids or sorcerers in 1e. I don't get it. If something doesn't have any roots in 1e, how do you 1e-ize it?

 

[Mouseferatu]

But there weren't any druids or sorcerers in 1e. I don't get it. If something doesn't have any roots in 1e, how do you 1e-ize it?

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

As for the sorcerer, I'm not so sure that one's going to make it into the book anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

 

[Set]

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.

That sounds very cool. I've always loved the idea, presented way back in the 2E Complete Necromancers Handbook, of having a party that included a Specialist Wizard - Necromancer, a Cleric of a Death God, a Death Master, etc. With stuff like the Green Ronin Necromancer and Death Knight classes, the Heroes of Horror Dread Necromancer, etc. one could make an entire party of 'necromancers' and each be unique and distinct.

 

[Rechan]

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

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

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

Nope. They're in 1E. In fact, they're even in the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia as something of a proto-prestige class.

And they weren't a kit in 2E. They were an example of a specialty priest--again, in the PHB.

 

[wykthor]

(The "1E feel" is also why I'm focusing primarily on classic classes, and not on newer stuff like the shadowcaster [not that I even have the rights to the shadocaster].)

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