Advanced Players Guide vs. Forgotten Heroes

[MatthewJHanson]

Both Advanced Player's Guide and Forgotten Heroes essentially do the same thing: put back the missing classes. I'm curious what people's experiences with them are.

 

[Ghostwind]

I would be inclined to go with APG first. Ari is a proven and very solid writer who has a good grasp on balanced mechanics and design.

 

[Samurai]

After checking out the preview pages for both, and reading up on how they decided to handle the classes and some specific design choices, I bought APG. Not having seen the full retail FH, I can't really say for sure which is better, but I really like the APG now that I've read it.

 

[catsclaw227]

I voted, Read Neither, but that's not altogether true. I have skimmed both, though not enough to compare them to each other.

I am curious to hear from someone that has actually played (or had seen in play) both druids or both barbarians, etc.

 

[Wik]

I gotta say, APG wasn't really my cup o' tea. The races were pretty good, but the classes sort of fell flat for me. Especially the martial artist, which seems a bit too... rulesy? I dunno.

 

[Jack99]

Read both, and the APG is better by miles.

 

[GodDelusion]

I own both and found that my players preferred the classes in APG to FH. I should point out that my players are 6 11-year-old kids, two of which are my son and daughter (the remaining players are their friends from soccer and school) and this is their first time playing D&D.

One of the kids picked the Martial Artist class because they want to become a Ninja at paragon levels.

The other child picked the Savage Warrior because they like playing a raging, well, warrior.

I reviewed both books prior to bringing them to the players, and I found that I also preferred APG. Ari has done some good work here and is even participating in an EnWorld thread discussing the book (ask someone with a Coummunity Supporter account to search it out for you).

 

[haaz]

I own both, I read both. APG is more well-written, but I find that FH has the most innovative ideas. So they are equal in my opinion.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I only own the APG and the nature priest and the spellbinder are the only things I am using from it.
The spellbinder is even better with the illusion spells from the free wizard article.

The Bard from the preview (PHB2) looks leaps and bounds better an more fun to play than the one in APG. I dislike barbarians, both previewed and the one in the book.

The martial artist is behind the 3 core strikers in damage dealing. Its as comparatively weak as monk was in 3.5.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I've read both, but haven't had a chance to see anything in either playtested, but so far I prefer APG.

Both seem like really good books, and I would use material from both. FH has new magic items to go with the classes, while APG doesn't. I think you could easily use both and let players pick powers from both sources without too much trouble.

The Bard in FH seemed a little too complex for my tastes, at least in terms of how it relates to other classes in 4E so far.