Necromancer Games Goes 4th Edition! Planned Product Updates!

[thundershot]

With Wizards officially doing Barbarian, Druid, and Bard in the PHB2, maybe you should consider at least altering the names a little bit, so they can be separate classes. Otherwise they'll become obsolte within a year... I'd rather not have to choose between versions of a class...



Thanks
Chris

 

[Darkwolf71]

Then again, a name change can be the easiest thing in the world to houserule. Or you can have two different cultures of 'barbarian'. Perhaps from different climates. Same for bards and even druids. Flavor text is the easiest thing in the world to fudge.


Clark,

With the news about the GSL not allowing support of both 3.5 and 4e, any changes possible in your desicion to not do a 4e Wilderlands?

 

[Flynn]

With Wizards officially doing Barbarian, Druid, and Bard in the PHB2, maybe you should consider at least altering the names a little bit, so they can be separate classes. Otherwise they'll become obsolte within a year... I'd rather not have to choose between versions of a class...

It's my understanding that there's a list of optional class names at the beginning of the Classes Chapter, in order to allow players to use other designations for the APG classes once any official versions come out. Also, I understand that it was a design requirement that the classes be sufficiently distinct in their creation that they could viably be played alongside the likely direction that WOTC could take classes inspired by the same sources, so that you still have room for the APG "bard" alongside a WOTC bard once those are released.

In other words, IIRC, it seems that you can have both versions in your game and still have a viable game, without having to make choices like you are describing above.

Then Again, I Could Be Misremembering,
Flynn

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's my understanding that there's a list of optional class names at the beginning of the Classes Chapter, in order to allow players to use other designations for the APG classes once any official versions come out. Also, I understand that it was a design requirement that the classes be sufficiently distinct in their creation that they could viably be played alongside the likely direction that WOTC could take classes inspired by the same sources, so that you still have room for the APG "bard" alongside a WOTC bard once those are released.

These are both correct, more or less.

I assigned myself certain design requirements. One of those was "If we know what WotC's plans are for a certain class (such as the druid, which they talk about in Classes and Races), then the version I create for APG should go a different route."

Fortunately, this was pretty easy to do, since it dovetailed nicely with my "try to keep the flavor of older editions, as per Necromancer's company policy."

And yes, I do suggest alternate names at the start of the chapter.

My hope is, although I know most people will buy this book to "fill in the gaps," that they'll continue to use these classes once the "official" ones are out--not instead of the official versions, but in addition to 'em.

 

[thundershot]

These are both correct, more or less.

I assigned myself certain design requirements. One of those was "If we know what WotC's plans are for a certain class (such as the druid, which they talk about in Classes and Races), then the version I create for APG should go a different route."

Fortunately, this was pretty easy to do, since it dovetailed nicely with my "try to keep the flavor of older editions, as per Necromancer's company policy."

And yes, I do suggest alternate names at the start of the chapter.

My hope is, although I know most people will buy this book to "fill in the gaps," that they'll continue to use these classes once the "official" ones are out--not instead of the official versions, but in addition to 'em.

SOLD!

Having 'official' alternate names makes a big difference to me. Thanks!

 

[Darkwolf71]

SOLD!

Having 'official' alternate names makes a big difference to me. Thanks!

Hehe...

You know how silly that is, don't you?

 

[thundershot]

"Official" Alternate names, or the fact that my players won't play a class in a book once Wizards does their version of it? I'd rather have them as different classes than competing classes, because WotC will always win in a competition when it comes to what's official.



Chris

 

[Darkwolf71]

This specifically:

Having 'official' alternate names makes a big difference to me.

Since none of the reasoning behind it was posted, it sounded like a decision based solely on the inclusion of alternate names.

Ya know, decideing to buy/not buy a book on the basis of a couple dozen words that have no direct impact on the content as a whole... it sounded silly.

In any case, I was just pokin' fun.

 

[JoeGKushner]

"Official" Alternate names, or the fact that my players won't play a class in a book once Wizards does their version of it? I'd rather have them as different classes than competing classes, because WotC will always win in a competition when it comes to what's official.



Chris

Doesn't depend on which they play first?

I've seen so many versions of the swashbuckler, ranger and mage-blade (dusk blade, etc...) that names are meaningless. It's mechanics that matter.

 

[Orcus]

Doesn't depend on which they play first?

I've seen so many versions of the swashbuckler, ranger and mage-blade (dusk blade, etc...) that names are meaningless. It's mechanics that matter.

Luckily, the APG has mechanics courtesy of Ari, and I think his stuff stacks up with the best of them.

Clark