Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 3723093" data-attributes="member: 3087">WotC is trumpting (or appears to me, though I can not claim to have read everything) the &quot;smaller number of base classes with more OPTIONS so you can specialize YOUR FIGHTER&quot;.I understand that it's marketing spiel, and why WotC is disseminating it (you sell what you have) but I'm amazed that it's being uncritically repeated.3e started off exactly the same way.&quot;We're going to have a small number of classes but we'll give you choices-at-every-level!&quot; (i.e. feats, bonus feats, special abilities and eventually PrCs).They held firm on adding new base classes for a little while...When 3e first came out it was practically a credo:&quot;I wanna play a Samurai!&quot; &quot;Play a fighter!&quot;&quot;How do I make a Knight?&quot; &quot;Play a fighter take mounted combat and ride!&quot;But eventually&nbsp; every new supplement and game source was adding more and more &quot;base&quot; classes until there are more than WotC published 30 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternate_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes" target="_blank">&quot;alternative base classes&quot;</a>.They will drop the bard, there will be much howling, a year later someone will hint that they're &quot;reconsidering it&quot;, then there will be a new book with a new bard.Wash, rinse, repeat for the literally (dozens) of possible character tracks.Each campaign setting will probably get one or two special character classes to differentiate it (see: artificer for Eberron).I'm not commenting on whether it's good or bad, but anybody who seriously thinks that 5 classes (or 7 or however many 4e launches with) is going to be the &quot;default state&quot; of the game is, IMHO, wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Graf, post: 3723093, member: 3087"] WotC is trumpting (or appears to me, though I can not claim to have read everything) the "[U]smaller number of base classes[/U] with more OPTIONS so you can specialize YOUR FIGHTER". I understand that it's marketing spiel, and why WotC is disseminating it (you sell what you have) but I'm amazed that it's being uncritically repeated. 3e started off exactly the same way. "We're going to have a small number of classes but we'll give you choices-at-every-level!" (i.e. feats, bonus feats, special abilities and eventually PrCs). They held firm on adding new base classes for a little while... When 3e first came out it was practically a credo: "I wanna play a Samurai!" "Play a fighter!" "How do I make a Knight?" "Play a fighter take mounted combat and ride!" But eventually every new supplement and game source was adding more and more "base" classes until there are more than WotC published 30 [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternate_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes]"alternative base classes"[/url]. They will drop the bard, there will be much howling, a year later someone will hint that they're "reconsidering it", then there will be a new book with a new bard. Wash, rinse, repeat for the literally (dozens) of possible character tracks. Each campaign setting will probably get one or two special character classes to differentiate it (see: artificer for Eberron). I'm not commenting on whether it's good or bad, but anybody who seriously thinks that 5 classes (or 7 or however many 4e launches with) is going to be the "default state" of the game is, IMHO, wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification