Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 2518411" data-attributes="member: 18832">No, I assume that if people who play in a licensed setting exclusively are given the choice between a warrior-class supplement for that setting or a generic warrior-class supplement, that they'll choose the former, and that Wizards of the Coast would like to avoid that.Obviously, Wizards can't stop third-party companies from publishing their own setting, or their own warrior-class supplements; but they can avoid giving a third-party run setting the appearance of semi-officiality (increasing its status in the eyes of the market) by licensing out the setting.AEG's d20 Rokugan line would have had less adherents if it had not depended upon the official Wizards of the Coast Oriental Adventures product, in other words.I think they're part of the same early-days-of-Third-Edition policy with regard to campaign settings which Wizards of the Coast no longer adheres to. They're following a policy of concentration upon "generic" D&D, the Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, to the exclusion even of one-shot setting books.There's a reason Races of Eberron had a brown "generic" cover - sure, its contents are Eberron-specific, but it was also intended to appeal to any DM or player who makes use of generic books, whatever setting they play.Meanwhile, my point is what I said above: Wizards of the Coast focuses on "generic", the Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, to the exclusion of all else. Why publish a Greyhawk Campaign Setting that only Greyhawk fans will buy when you could publish Magic of Incarnum and potentially appeal to any homebrew, Forgotten Realms or Eberron DM?</blockquote>

Verification