Bad Feats and Prestige Classes - a Magic: the Gathering analogy

One of the advantages I have a player of both D&D and Magic: the Gathering is that I get to see bits and pieces of the design process of both, and thereby to see the parallels and differences between the games.

Here's something I find interesting: both games have "building blocks" that players use to create their decks or characters. In Magic, they are the actual cards. In D&D, they are the races, classes, prestige classes, feats and spells. (And probably more elements I'm forgetting).

One of the questions that often comes up in the Magic world is this: Why do Wizards make bad cards? Here is Mark Rosewater's explanation. Read it. It is worth knowing about, and is relevant to the rest of my discussion.

The discussion of the Order of the Bow Initiate PrC (and other bad PrCs) reminded me of the similarities and differences between the games. There's one key difference between them, I think: in Magic, you wonder at a bad card, then put it away. In D&D, you wonder at a bad class or prestige class, and then keep worrying about it.

I don't think this is as true of bad spells and feats. I'm far more likely to discard those and look at the ones I like.

This seems to be a function of several things: the role of what a class or prestige class does, the length of its description, and the actual fact that there really aren't that many classes or prestige classes. Thus, upon seeing the Order of the Bow Initiate - the potential "great archer" - you are more disappointed because there aren't any other prestige classes that are suitable.

Why, then, are prestige classes (and base classes) so hard to get right? Well, complexity for one thing. A feat or spell is simple in comparison. A prestige class is like getting about 10 feats together, plus some change.

Then, there are the reasons given by Mark Rosewater in his article.

I don't think they're all relevant to D&D. This isn't exactly a competitive game, so the first reason, "All The Cards Cannot Be Good", doesn't really apply.

"Different Cards Appeal to Different Players" definitely applies. I know how many people on these boards detest half-orcs, but they're the favourite race of one of my players. No, I don't understand him, either. ;) The quote from Mark that is relevant, "The problem is players tend to define “bad cards” as cards that they personally see no reason to play. But certain cards aren’t meant for them in the first place."

"Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery" is interesting. We don't often think in that way in D&D. We tend to think of "that's a fireball, it's useful". However, especially with 3e, the possibilities granted by combining abilities is now very relevant. Multi-classing is the most obvious manifestation, but there are other combination tricks that players also use. Something that appears weak at present might being great when combined with other pieces of the game. Of course, it could also just be weak...

"Power Levels Are Relative" is also not immediately apparent. We don't have a system where card sets just rotate out of environment. We always play with everything, don't we? Well, that's not true. Campaign settings can differ markedly. This leads to some features of the system being more signficant than they might appear. Consider a semi-historical campaign with no non-humans - suddenly, the Sneak Attack of the rogue is far more useful, while the Turn Undead ability fades into insignificance!

I've also seen Monte Cook discuss the Toughness feat - surely one of the most useless feats in the game? However, it isn't. In a one-shot game for 1st level characters, or a feat for low-level monsters, it has more relevance than in a 20-level game. The gaming environment differs more than you might expect.

"Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player" can be witnessed by anyone on the Character Optimisation boards. Although D&D is mostly non-competitive, it would be a gross misstatement to say that all players don't care about how good their PC's abilities are!

"People Like Finding “Hidden Gems”" is related to the "Diversity of Powers" reason above.

"R&D is Only Human" is so true - especially in a game as complex as D&D, finding all the possibilities and problems in a game feature is incredibly difficult.

Magic: the Gathering puts out about 700-800 cards every year. I don't know the number of new prestige classes that D&D puts out each year, but it is far fewer than that. Magic also has the option of revisiting old concepts and twiddling with them the next year. Does D&D do this? Rather than having the Order of the Bow Initiate being the only (non-elf) archer class, make it one of several. Interestingly, the latest preview from Five Nations - the Knight Phantom - gives a class that is remarkably similar to the Eldritch Knight. Players therefore have a choice.

Of course, this leads to the possibility that one of those variants will be considered "bad"...