What are the biggest threats?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Punishing?

If you view it that way, that's your perogative. I view it as more of a sacrifice to gain exactly what the player wants.

One could say to make them equally as powerful, but that is probably impossible to do in all cases.

I would like them to be equally as powerful, but if given a choice, I prefer players to play the core classes over xyz du jour PrC. The main reason for this is so that we do not have to flip through books at the table in order to find out the details of special ability abc which is not in the core PHB.

But, it's not a matter of punishment. That's your "player entitlement" slant on it. The player is not entitled to play a PrC, he has to earn it. One way is to give up some power or utility.

Shouldnt they at least be more powerful in their area of expertise? I agree that way too many prc's were more powerful than core. In many cases, I think its problematic. In some cases, its actually beneficial. A whip fighter in core, sucks. He does pathetic damaqe. So a whip fighting specialist needs to be stronger than what you can do with core in roder to make the option worth playing. Hence many "patch" classes and specific feats that give extra oomph to things already below the baseline.

Regardless, I dont think I'll miss them terribly in 4th edition. Most prcs should have just been a feat chain anyways.

 

[KarinsDad]

Shouldnt they at least be more powerful in their area of expertise?

I have no problem with that and in fact think it is a fine idea as long as to gain that "super power" in their area of expertise, they are weaker in other areas. Possibly not just one other area, but maybe multiple ones (unless the one other area is a fairly critical game element).

The reason for this is that a boost in an area of expertise is often one which is already boosted in other ways, and the one or two areas hampered are often ones which are not that important. So, giving up something in another area which the PC never uses or cares about is a staple of 3E that should not be propogated.

E.g. The Wizard gives up some Climbing in order to gain a boost in Spellcraft is not a balanced compromise.

Instead, being the best Spellcraft Wizard might mean that his ability to attack with certain types of spells is weaker (or some such).

Pros and Cons, not just Pros like most 3E PrCs.

 

[DaveMage]

What do you think the biggest threat to D&D 4E?

IOW, what do you think will the biggest mistake WoTC could make with D&D 4E given the info we know now?

Biggest threat? Continued migration toward digital RPGs by its player base.

Biggest mistakes that could be catastrophic? An error-filled 4E Player's Handbook (and DMG and MM); a D&D Insider system that is buggy and does not deliver on its promises.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have no problem with that and in fact think it is a fine idea as long as to gain that "super power" in their area of expertise, they are weaker in other areas. Possibly not just one other area, but maybe multiple ones (unless the one other area is a fairly critical game element).

The reason for this is that a boost in an area of expertise is often one which is already boosted in other ways, and the one or two areas hampered are often ones which are not that important. So, giving up something in another area which the PC never uses or cares about is a staple of 3E that should not be propogated.

Totaly agree. If the area of expertise is pretty obscure, the hit to overall effectiveness can be minor. On the other hand, something like healing is just so overall useful for a cleric you are going to have a hell of a time balancing it. Unless you take the Radiant Servant of Pelor approach and dont even try.

 

[helium3]

Playtesting Playtesting Playtesting!

IE, not enough of it, not enough time to get as in depth as it really needs to be or not getting a diverse enough set of people to do it in the first place.

Unless marketing can show that the game's been properly playtested before release, I suspect many people are going to end up doing what a lot of my gaming friends have already stated they're going to do. Wait until 4.5 comes out.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I'm joining the chorus of "Wizards dragging their feet in publishing the SRD". Everything else can be lived with.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I like the OP's question; it's valid and food for discussion. I would appreciate it if we can cut the threadcrapping.

Hey, he asked for opinions and you don't like it because I gave him one?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Paying attention to people who don't really like D&D in the first place.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JDJblatherings]

if the didigital initiative flops that'd be bad for WOTC.

Everyone remeber the mapping program that was supposed to be availabe with the 3e rules, got delayed and then never showed up?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Personally, though, I like prestige classes. They did some stupid examples (IMHO), but the basic idea is a good one.

Actually, a lot of 3.X is that way to me (diseases, poisons, addictive substances in the BoVD, etc.)....great ideas with poor follow-through and abysmal flavour. As MerricB pointed out, if they can avoid flavourless mechanics (MoI) and keep flavourful stuff (ToM), it'll help a lot.

RC