Bloat already?

[hong]

I'm not saying that a putative 4E Epic book would be a rush job, meant only as a hack to allow people to keep advancing their characters past the level cap. The strategy behind 4E has always been to treat the highest levels as integral to the game, and this wouldn't change that.

I'm saying that, assuming they already have the Epic rules roughly hammered out, they could be given lower priority in the release schedule compared to more classes up front. It's just a different way of arranging the stuff.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I for one would be very disappointed to not have a strong view of how the game goes from front to end in the base book. I would like the Core core core (or whatever it will be called, the June 6, 2008 Core?) to be the full game, not two-thirds of it. Adding breadth is pretty easy, adding another third of depth would be very problematic.

I mean, look at the Epic book. It took the game to a new level, ill-thought out that it was, but one reason it failed so utterly is that everything after it was not supported at all. Up to that point, you could play to some extent, but all th feats, base classes and such were effectively nerfed in post 21st level play.

I don't want to see that in 4E.

 

[hong]

I for one would be very disappointed to not have a strong view of how the game goes from front to end in the base book. I would like the Core core core (or whatever it will be called, the June 6, 2008 Core?) to be the full game, not two-thirds of it. Adding breadth is pretty easy, adding another third of depth would be very problematic.

One could argue that a game without bards, monks, druids and barbarians isn't really "core"....

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One could argue that a game without bards, monks, druids and barbarians isn't really "core"....

Indeed. And one could also argue that the game only needs three or four classes - Thief, Magic-User, Fighter and maybe Cleric. Or Elves are a class.

Defining the "core" of D&D is very hard, without creating something way to big to say anything meaningful, or something way to small to describe a game.

I think there are a lot of elements that can be part of D&D, but few of them are required, and not a single one of them is sufficient. Each edition picks enough of the elements to make it a D&D game.

 

[ShockMeSane]

One could argue that a game without bards, monks, druids and barbarians isn't really "core"....

And while I can see (and agree with to some extent) this point of view completely, it seems like 4E is designed from the base up with the "core" missing classes in mind. Alternatively, seeing as how in 3.x the epic levels got virtually no support after the release of a horrible rulebook, I can't find myself getting behind more "epic level books" as opposed to "extra class books". And hey, plenty of the latter were broken and power inflated too, but none so worthless as the epic rulebook =/

 

[hong]

And while I can see (and agree with to some extent) this point of view completely, it seems like 4E is designed from the base up with the "core" missing classes in mind. Alternatively, seeing as how in 3.x the epic levels got virtually no support after the release of a horrible rulebook, I can't find myself getting behind more "epic level books" as opposed to "extra class books". And hey, plenty of the latter were broken and power inflated too, but none so worthless as the epic rulebook =/

That's what I'm saying. Just like 4E is being designed from the base up with the missing classes in mind, it's also being designed with level 21+ in mind. They just happened to decide on a release strategy that split things vertically rather than horizontally.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

An archer is now a ranger, not a fighter.

Which works only if you want a character who knows how to track.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which works only if you want a character who knows how to track.

Poor archer...

Imagine I wanted to play an Archer in 3E that didn't want to track, wouldn't wear armor, and rarely gets angry, and is an atheist?

Off course, if you chose to ignore heavy armor for your archer, why not ignore the ability to track, too?

 

[neceros]

Which works only if you want a character who knows how to track.

Pretty sure my Archer doesn't know how to track. Don't be contrary.

 

[Staffan]

Which works only if you want a character who knows how to track.

We've seen the ranger intro blurb, here. I retyped it:

Class traits
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit and run tactics whenever possible
Power source: Martial. Your talents depend on extensive training and practice, inner confidence, and natural proficiency.
Key abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom

Armor proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide.
Weapon proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged, military ranged.
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude, +1 Reflex

Hit Points at 1st level: 12+Constitution score
Hit points per level gained: 5
Healing surges per day: 6+ Constitution modifier

Trained skills: Dungeoneering or Nature (your choice). From the class skills list below, choose for more trained skills at 1st level.
Class skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Dungeoneering (Wis), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dex)

Build Options: Archer ranger, two-blade ranger.
Class Features: Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry, Prime Shot

There's nothing in there that immediately screams "I'm the tracker guy!". It's likely that tracking is built into the Nature skill, but even so that would make it (a) optional and (b) a pretty small part of the character's suite of abilities.