Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[Psion]

4E's greatest innovation is being the first version of the game not to include an "Animate Dead" spell. This is an example of the great sophistication of the modern, scientifically-designed rule set: it employs an "economy of actions" model of exception-based consumer satisfaction in order to squeeze an extra 35 bucks out of you in the coming months.

 

[Psion]

I just wanted to point something out.

The AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook had 8 classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, and Wizard. It also had 6 races: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Human. 4e has 8 classes and 8 races.

I just want to point something else out: one of the most common criticisms that 2e received was that it left out races and classes.

 

[cangrejoide]

What a surpirse yet another edition wars thread.

To the OP : If you feel the PHB needed more stuff , what parts from it would you have removed to put the stuff you wanted?

If you really feel that bad about 4E, just ask for a refund or do the ebay mambo.

I just wanted to point something out.

The AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook had 8 classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, and Wizard. It also had 6 races: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Human. 4e has 8 classes and 8 races.

Red Box D&D had Elf,Dwarf,halfling,figther,wizard,cleric,thief. So thats either 4 clases and 3 races or just 7 classes.

Rules Cyclopedia had Elf,Dwarf,halfling,figther,wizard,cleric,thief,mystic,Druid.So thats either 6 clases and 3 races or just 9 classes.

AD&D 1st had Figther,Wizard,Assasin,Thief,Monk,Illusionist,ranger,cleric,paladin,Druid and Human,1/2 orc, 1/2 elf,elf,dwarf,gnome,1/2ling. So that makes 10 classes and 7 races

So I think having 8 classes and 8 races seems about right.

 

[Jack99]

4E's greatest innovation is being the first version of the game not to include an "Animate Dead" spell. This is an example of the great sophistication of the modern, scientifically-designed rule set: it employs an "economy of actions" model of exception-based consumer satisfaction in order to squeeze an extra 35 bucks out of you in the coming months.

If I had a hobby that cost me $35 dollar every few months, my wallet would be significantly more fat. I don't know if it is that different, but over here, you can't do anything for $35. I can't even take my wife to see a movie (okay, if it is a theater, I can, just about get tow tickets - awesome!!!).

If you find it unreasonable to spend said amount of money every few months on a hobby that most likely gives you many hours of entertainment, it is your expectations that aren't quite reasonable.

 

[cangrejoide]

Magic items (30+ pages) They belong in the DMG. At least that would make it a bit more useful.
Epic Powers and Destinies (20 pages) I'd rather have 20 levels of the class I want than 30 levels of classes I don't care for.

Why do magic items belong in the DMG?

And just beause you dont play at epic level they should remove that content?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I personally feel that there is a lot of obvious design space left empty in the 4e PHB1. I think that the 4e DMG1 is mostly about running a game and leaves out a lot of the rules of earlier editions. The 4e MM1 is kinda limited in the number of options for monsters at each level, especially at 1st level because there aren't lower level monsters to pepper your encounters with.

I like the idea that an earlier poster had about dividing the books by tier instead of by power source. It would feel even more old school. I started with BECMI, and I liked that because it gave you what you needed for where your campaign was at right then.

Then I start to side with the other perspective in this debate. I think the fact that there is obvious blank design space still left on the table speaks well of what is to come. This is good for the game. Allowing WotC to do quality expansions for D&D while charging a fair price will keep the game vibrant. Good for WotC, good for gamers.

The wizard was somewhat nerfed, but this is a good thing. I hated the wizard at first, but then I realized that the wizard was split into the wizard and the warlock. Those who like to blow things up, especially single targets, should play the warlock. Those who like to play very strategically oriented wizards who like to control the more subtle aspects of the battlefield should play wizards.

Wizards are becoming my favorite class. They are multiples more flexible than any other class, incredibly powerful if you can give up the flash-bang to other classes, and have retained more of the subtle magical flavor of literary wizards. Their cantrips alone make them fun to play. And since most of the campaigns that I have ever played in have been short and low level, the new cast-all-day wizards are infinitely more interesting to me than previous editions.

I agree that the game seems incomplete. It is supposed to be, and this is a good thing. I agree that it is different than previous editions. This is also a good thing. Almost all of the "character concept" and flavor stuff is just handwaving anyway, so I have no simpathy for payers and DMs who can't handle a conversion. My pride as a gamer is grounded in my joy for creativity that our hobby requires. Get some. It will lead to better gaming.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just wanted to point something out.

The AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook had 8 classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, and Wizard. It also had 6 races: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Human. 4e has 8 classes and 8 races.

Uh-huh. It also had Speciality Priests, and Speciality Wizards, neither of which is present in 4E, and importantly, 4E doesn't have Druids or Bards in the core books. It also had, as I recall (perhaps inaccurately) more description of each class. Still, that's 20 years ago, Mourn. What's more relevant is 3E, and politician-style, you avoided mentioning that because it doesn't support your point.

3E had Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard, and had specialization for Wizards and some limited specialization for Clerics. So, 11 classes there. Maybe you should argue that they had less meaningful options or something instead? 7 races, too.

I'm not attacking 4E, but I think my points are valid. Thinking about it - 4E does have a "lot" of one thing missing from the 3E books - Decent advice/guidelines for players, and decent advice (but not guidelines) for GMs. There's certainly plenty of things that I expected to be in a DMG that simply weren't there though, not least the complete lack of advice on designing powers, classes or races. If they break that advice up over 3 DMGs, I am NOT going to be happy with them.

 

[Grom Stonekin]

The 1e UA barbarian or the 3e barbarian? I ask because, other than a d12 HD, the two classes have little in common. Really, they are as different as the 4e and 3e wizards.

Personally, I disliked the 3e barbarian and am glad to see it gone. I understand that the 1e barbarian was a bit unbalanced (mainly because most people measure level against level instead of xp totals), so I'm not really clamoring for its return, either.

I'll hold on that wager because I suspect that the 4e barbarian will be yet another version that shares little heritage with its namesakes. If it ends up looking like the 3e barbarian, then I'd take the wager. The warlord is awesome -- I just think it probably takes the most system mastery to really experience the awesome. Which means it'll get progressively more popular as people become used to 4e.

The 1e Barbarian was, mechanically speaking, junk. However, he idea of a Barbarian is stable of both history (Vikings, etc.) and fantasy (Conan). Again I have no polling data but my experience was that Barbarians were a much played class in 3e and that they will be back. Revised mechanics will be irrelevent to their popularity. Its theconcept that sells.

 

[cangrejoide]

Uh-huh. It also had Speciality Priests, and Speciality Wizards, neither of which is present in 4E, and importantly, 4E doesn't have Druids or Bards in the core books. It also had, as I recall (perhaps inaccurately) more description of each class. Still, that's 20 years ago, Mourn. What's more relevant is 3E, and politician-style, you avoided mentioning that because it doesn't support your point.

3E had Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard, and had specialization for Wizards and some limited specialization for Clerics. So, 11 classes there. Maybe you should argue that they had less meaningful options or something instead? 7 races, too.

I'm not attacking 4E, but I think my points are valid. Thinking about it - 4E does have a "lot" of one thing missing from the 3E books - Decent advice/guidelines for players, and decent advice (but not guidelines) for GMs. There's certainly plenty of things that I expected to be in a DMG that simply weren't there though, not least the complete lack of advice on designing powers, classes or races. If they break that advice up over 3 DMGs, I am NOT going to be happy with them.

Wow, talk about missing the point.

 

[Grom Stonekin]

Magic items (30+ pages) They belong in the DMG. At least that would make it a bit more useful.
Epic Powers and Destinies (20 pages) I'd rather have 20 levels of the class I want than 30 levels of classes I don't care for.

That would make room for 4 more classes. But I don't think the page count is really an issue here. It's more a matter of development, playtesting and of course, marketing.

As for races I hope it's just marketing. I hope it didn't take too much time and money to come up with genius concepts like "goofy tail-less dreadlocked boobed dragons" or "ugly infernal goat-alligator-elephant people". Each race is but 2 pages and doesn’t matter as much as promised. They could have easily put all the old races in and then some.

Here, here Lutecius!