One of the things I've seen Wizards criticised for recently is when they creates new classes, feats, prestige classes or suchlike that do not have an universal appeal.
Should we then go back to the days of OD&D, when the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric were the only possible class choices? D&D has a long history of creating new classes and ways of doing things. Why should 3E be counted as "the perfect version" and no new classes be added?
I seem to remember one of 3E's designers (probably Monte) describing prestige classes as something that would be mainly designed by the DM to make their own campaign special and unique. That concept lasted about 5 minutes.
And here's the thing: people like prestige classes that are more generic than originally intended. They buy books with more prestige classes in them eagerly!
In my view, the new Multiclassing and Prestige Class system of 3E started to breed a mindset of saying "We have all the classes we need. No new classes are required. It goes against everything 3E stands for!" I know I've fallen into that trap at times.
"Base classes must be general!" Why so?
There is a requirement that WotC books be generally useful to the majority of people - that's basically a statement of their position in the market, where terribly risky products are shunted off to the d20 System publishers and writers to attempt.
However, the idea that a WotC product must be 100% useful to everyone is something I don't want to see, because it means that no innovation is possible. You can't try something new without accepting some risk.
Sure, they'll make mistakes. However, as long as they learn from their mistakes, I have no problem with innovating and trying new things.
Cheers!
Should we then go back to the days of OD&D, when the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric were the only possible class choices? D&D has a long history of creating new classes and ways of doing things. Why should 3E be counted as "the perfect version" and no new classes be added?
I seem to remember one of 3E's designers (probably Monte) describing prestige classes as something that would be mainly designed by the DM to make their own campaign special and unique. That concept lasted about 5 minutes.
And here's the thing: people like prestige classes that are more generic than originally intended. They buy books with more prestige classes in them eagerly!
In my view, the new Multiclassing and Prestige Class system of 3E started to breed a mindset of saying "We have all the classes we need. No new classes are required. It goes against everything 3E stands for!" I know I've fallen into that trap at times.
"Base classes must be general!" Why so?
There is a requirement that WotC books be generally useful to the majority of people - that's basically a statement of their position in the market, where terribly risky products are shunted off to the d20 System publishers and writers to attempt.
However, the idea that a WotC product must be 100% useful to everyone is something I don't want to see, because it means that no innovation is possible. You can't try something new without accepting some risk.
Sure, they'll make mistakes. However, as long as they learn from their mistakes, I have no problem with innovating and trying new things.
Cheers!
