So I have the Martial Powers book.

[Lizard]

I disagree. I think that the Player's Handbook as released had plenty of options. It certainly wasn't missing anything absolutely critical to play, and the amount of content available was at least as beefy as what the vast majority of other roleplaying games' initial core rulebooks offer.

But if you look at the history of the game (AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&3e, D&D 4e) you'll see each games core 3-book set offered MORE options than the core set which had gone before it -- until 4e, and the only reason I can see for this is a desire to make the game less "scary" by using a big font, lots of white space, and a low page count. It's certainly not from a lack of ideas or skilled designers.

 

[Fifth Element]

But if you look at the history of the game (AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&3e, D&D 4e) you'll see each games core 3-book set offered MORE options than the core set which had gone before it -- until 4e

This is not true of 1E -> 2E.

Core races are one less in 2E (half-orcs gone).

Core classes are only more in 2E if you count each specialist wizard as a separate class, which you shouldn't. Really the specialist replaces the illusionist, and you lose the assassin and monk, and kinda gain the bard (as a basic class anyway).

So if you played a half-orc assassin in 1E, you were out of luck in 2E.

 

[firesnakearies]

It seems to me that the only character types who could claim to have LESS options now are Wizards and Clerics. Everyone else has way MORE options.

As for the races and classes which they didn't include in the PHB this time, those ARE the ones which a majority of players considered to be "secondary" or "extra" ones anyway. The less-represented, less representative of the core of Dungeons and Dragons options.

Monks, Barbarians, and Half-Orcs are some of my very favorites, but even so, I recognize that they're "sideline" character choices. I don't mind waiting for them to be properly treated in a supplemental book.

Elf, Dwarf, Human, and Halfling. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. THOSE are the core. If D&D still has those, it's still D&D, and it's "complete". Everything else is expansion material.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

This is not true of 1E -> 2E.

Core races are one less in 2E (half-orcs gone).

Core classes are only more in 2E if you count each specialist wizard as a separate class, which you shouldn't. Really the specialist replaces the illusionist, and you lose the assassin and monk, and kinda gain the bard (as a basic class anyway).

So if you played a half-orc assassin in 1E, you were out of luck in 2E.

Also, the 2e book didn't have a whole lot in it for certain classes. Like Fighters? You had a chart telling you how many attacks you got per round and rules on gaining stands of followers. That was about it though. There wasn't the giant list of powers that we have now, and a lot of the special combat techniques that I used to further my character came from the Warrior's Handbook that came out later. With the 2e PHB, all you had was just a pretty basic and generic Fighter that just hit more times per round as he leveled up.

So yeah, maybe there aren't as many builds and whatnot, but for some classes they've totally changed how they worked. They've given everyone new things to do and build new rules for the system from the ground up. Yes, they could've reduced the font and such and crammed some more in, but from what we've heard about just Martial Power, I doubt they could've fit all the extra info into the PHB, let alone for all the Arcane and Divine classes. Add to that the fact that the PHB II/III should be adding more races, more classes, more powers, more feats, etc.. They couldn't have crammed it all into one book, and if they did, they would've had to pare it down to a very basic idea for each concept, just like the old 2e PHB.

 

[Lizard]

This is not true of 1E -> 2E.

Core races are one less in 2E (half-orcs gone).

Core classes are only more in 2E if you count each specialist wizard as a separate class, which you shouldn't. Really the specialist replaces the illusionist, and you lose the assassin and monk, and kinda gain the bard (as a basic class anyway).

So if you played a half-orc assassin in 1E, you were out of luck in 2E.

True, but you got non-combat proficiencies, clerics for different gods who were actually DIFFERENT, more flexibility for assigning rogue skills (IIRC), fewer general limits, a handful of more tricks for single-class fighters, overall increase in level cap for non humans, and so on. Even if some options were removed, I feel the total spread of options was wider. I admit it's a close call. Also, even though 2e also did the "Big fonts! More white space!" shtick, there were more pages in the books which helped compensate for it.

 

[Fifth Element]

clerics for different gods who were actually DIFFERENT

In core, these were only suggestions. There are no rules for what granted powers a deity might give, just a few suggestions IIRC. It's left to DM fiat. Also, in some respects priest spheres are more restrictive (reducing options), since you can only cast spells from your available spheres, whereas 1E clerics could cast any spell.

I admit it's a close call. Also, even though 2e also did the "Big fonts! More white space!" shtick, there were more pages in the books which helped compensate for it.

It is a close call. But as you note it adds options to some classes while removing other classes entirely. Sounds similar to 4E.

 

[Drakhar]

To get this somewhat back on topic, I have this book, and I'd be happy to answer questions on it.

What are the Main, secondary and tertiary stats for a BM Ranger? And do they have Ranged powers or are they just meleeing with their companion?

 

[graylion]

History of D&D

I disagree. I think that the Player's Handbook as released had plenty of options. It certainly wasn't missing anything absolutely critical to play, and the amount of content available was at least as beefy as what the vast majority of other roleplaying games' initial core rulebooks offer.

Coming from the perspective of a 3.5 player, moving directly from the colossal, endless ocean of options that currently exists for that system, I can see how the brand-new 4E PHB could seem restrictive and incomplete.

But looking at the book from the perspective of a player just discovering D&D, it seems pretty rich to me.

Also, the idea that just because some race/class/character-building choice/subsystem existed in the core rules of a previous edition, that detail must be included in the core of a new edition (or else it's incomplete!) is, to my eyes, false.

It's a new game, not merely a patch over the old one. It should pay homage to what came before, and carry forward some of the spirit of its predecessors, but beyond that it shouldn't be chained too tightly to the expectations of the (apparently) outdated game that it is replacing.

I agree with firesnakearies having started D&D when these had been my choices (D&D Basic):

Cleric (Human)
Fighter (Human)
Magic-User (Human)
Rogue (Human)
Elf (Fighter/Magic User)
Dwarf (Fighter/Cleric)
Halfling (Fighter/Rogue)

I am very excited to see Martial Power, Arcane Power and Divine Power as new and exciting choices. I have also ordered the Mongoose Quintessential Wizard hoping they have done a good job adding arcane options.

So if you look at the roots and look at the landscape of its history, I see a more complete and fun game today them when I started. Sure if your have one less class or race you may want to take this route and say I have less. But if you compare what each can do like the fighter, in my opinion you have more. I can count the number of time in D&D I have had the urge to play a straight fighter. Once, when I started the game and maybe another 2 or 3 times in the last 20 years.

When I set down with 4e I was hesitant and had read all the bad press. I purchased all three books and read them making the comment, "wow it feels different, maybe they are correct". However this has been my hobby for 20 years so I had to touch it and see it play. So much like I did when I started D&D, I made a fighter (this new beginning as a dwarf - cool!) and you know what I found, I found that I had a fun character with options. So each round when the mage was casting, or the priest was healing I could do SOMETHING other than swing/miss or swing/hit. And when I ran out of daily and encounter powers I still had my at-wills which would not leave me but be a part of my defining character style. I thought to myself I can see where this game can go. So I turned my back on the heavy layers of 3.5 without any hesitation. I was ready to jump to pathfinder as it is a better 3.5 option, but I embraced 4th edition.

Things I like about 4th edition. Fast and easy character creation. I can now take a new player that has not played D&D and move him through creation very quickly. 4th edition continues the trend that 3rd had correct. d20 laws (high is good, low is bad for all things). AC is easy to execute.

I purchased the D&D insider subscription after being on its fence for a while and let me tell you about how I use the compendium. TSR/Wizards has such a bad track record with software and online contant, but again this is my hobby for 20+ years. I like the older modules so I run 4th edition the hard way. I use Merps, Role-aids, rolemaster, D&D Basic, 2nd edition, anything that fits my campaign and world I mold into 4th. I go through a module while logged into the compendium and search for each creature on the compendium. I print out that creature and move on to the next. Sometimes I do not find an exact match but I make do and it is great to have one sheet for my creatures and not open the monster manual. I write one set of hp on this sheet for each monster appearing and scratch up this sheet during combat. I think of when I used to DM in 1st edition going to the library and making photo copies of monsters for game prep, this rocks.

I print a character overview and race overview for each player off of the compendium so they can keep with the character as they become more familiar with their character.

Oh and magic items. Do you remember handing out magic items as the question rolled in, what does this one do and explain the magic item while players scratched notes in corners of sheets or 4x6 cards. I print one sheet off of the compendium for each magic item, ritual, potion, ect and hand it to the players. The last time I handed out treasure I piled the items in the middle of the table and you should have seen the players dive it. They began reading and trading them around the table and having a great time.

We use the Ema's Home Page web site for character creation and keep all characters on the site. This allows us to print out sheets and powers as well. If a player cannot make it this week we always have access to his sheet online. This also gives me a chance to log on and stay familiar with a character as they gain levels and new powers since 4th edition is still fresh I like to be familiar with what they can do.

Now I will not say there are things that do not work for my in 4th edition. I am used to keeping individual XP per player in previous editions and I still could but 4th edition not built for this so I have changed my approach. I am still having a problem wrapping my head around milestones and multiple action points. My suggestion is if something if missing google it and add it. If there is something you do not like don’t use it. At the end of the day if you can not wrap yourself around the 4th edition as a whole them by all means stick the 3rd edition or whatever edition/system makes you and your group happy.

I could go on for a while but to sum up I feel that each character has a more balanced offering of choices not just races and classes but total character. I was not a bored dwarven fighter, I was excited to see if I should hold off on the dailies and use my encounters now or which power to use before or after the next power. I feel that for the DM that wants the digital choices and do not want to hand write out the creation of characters and monsters we have a whole new world that is growing every day.

Regards

Graylion

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What are the Main, secondary and tertiary stats for a BM Ranger? And do they have Ranged powers or are they just meleeing with their companion?

The listed stats for a BM Ranger are Strength, Wisdom, and Dexterity in that order. I would disagree, since Con is very important as the companion only has two healing surges and beyond that is most often healed by spending your healing surges. My stat array for a BM Ranger would be Str/Wis/Con. A decent Con and the Durable feat seem to be in order. There aren't any Ranged powers, its pretty much all melee, though it isn't any worse at bow attacks than a TWF Ranger would be, though the importance of Con would make a Beastmaster/Archer Ranger seriously MAD(multiple ability dependant).

 

[Lizard]

In core, these were only suggestions. There are no rules for what granted powers a deity might give, just a few suggestions IIRC. It's left to DM fiat. Also, in some respects priest spheres are more restrictive (reducing options), since you can only cast spells from your available spheres, whereas 1E clerics could cast any spell.

See, I view this as MORE options -- and it's about the only 2e-ism I wish 3e had kept -- because while 1e gave you "The Cleric", 2e allowed you to build clerics of different gods who had wholly different spell selections. 3e's domains were tolerable but you still have most clerics sharing 90% of the same spells. 4e goes back practically all the way to 1e, as every Cleric is now the servant of the god of pew-pew lasers, who *might* take a feat if they want a fairly weak 'special' power but certainly doesn't have to.