Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jürgen Hubert" data-source="post: 4444366" data-attributes="member: 7177">Here are a few things that come to mind:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Too few classes. I would have preferred it if they had used a smaller font size and packed more information into the books. I'm missing druids, bards, and monks, and would have preferred to see them in the PHBI instead of having to wait for the PHBII. I didn't buy many rules supplements with D&D 3.5 (I consider setting books to be more interesting) and would have preferred to do the same with D&D 4E.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Too few rituals. While I like the overall concept of rituals, there were a great number of flavorful spells that could have easily been translated into 4E rituals with little work and without hurting game balance. The current list of rituals is much too short for my tastes.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where are the metallic dragons? While I can live with most of the changes in the monster rooster in the MM, I would have preferred the metallic dragons to be included.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Loss of scope within the classes. Fighters are now melee fighters. Wizards have little in the way of illusion, summoning, and necromantic powers. While some classes - especially the martial ones - have gained a lot more options (and the "ranged fighter" archetype is now sufficiently filled by the ranger), some archetypes can no longer be built within the existing classes. This wouldn't have been a problem if new classes had been created to fill those archetypes, but again, the number of classes in the PHB is sadly limited.</li> </ul>Apart from that, all I can think of is fairly minor stuff (for example, in our playtest game we found out that Needlefang Drake Swams are grossly overpowered for their level...).</blockquote>

Verification