Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course I did not conduct an extensive poll. But I have been playing D&D since the "blue box" edition and have gamed with many groups. Gamers like the Barbarian class... a lot.

I know at least one gamer personally (who doesn't have group at the moment, though) which already professed the "loss" of the Barbarian. The idea of a "Hulk Smash!" type character appeals to me, too.

I wager that years from now when WotC does come out with the 4th ed Barbarian, it will be much more popular the mechanically wonky and conceptually muddled Warlord.

Well, it's possible, but I am not really seeing a mechanically wonky or conceptually muddled Warlord, so I think the Barbarian will just be one of many popular choices.

 

[Obryn]

Although some of the stuff from 3e is missing, there's some new stuff put in.

I think it's pretty undeniable that 4e is much less of a toolbox than 3e was. If your criteria for completeness is "Players can make just about everything," then 3e is closer to your goals than 4e. It still doesn't hit the flexibility of GURPS or whatnot, but it does offer a ton of options - even if many of those options kind of suck.

On the other hand, 4e feels very much like a complete game. The presented classes & races work very well together, and can easily create well-rounded parties in many different configurations.

-O

 

[Cadfan]

WotC knows players are eager to play their favorites from past editions and they are holding out on some of the games best stuff...on purpose.

If by "on purpose" you mean "with intent to make money by withholding stuff, I don't agree. I mean, obviously it wasn't an accident that the half-orc wasn't included, but I don't think there's the conspiracy that other people see.

The fact is, the books have limited pages. The PHB is actually enormous, when you step back and look at it, and its almost all crunch.

In 3e, adding a new character class to the game generally cost... what, 3 pages? Unless that character class had its own spell list, new character classes were trivially simple to add. 4e uses a different system, in which every class has a power list. Adding a new class takes a certain minimum number of pages, somewhere around... from memory, 12. This means that classes will probably be more rare in the long term than they were in 3e.

So... we have eight classes. They were selected not to fulfill the demands of people steeped in D&D lore and tradition, but rather to provide a relatively even spread of mechanical and thematic aspects without overly multiplying power sources.

Would I like more classes, more races, more feats, more spells, more powers, more paragon paths? Of course I would.

But the PHB does seem complete enough for now. So while I sympathize with fans of half orcs barbarians* who can't play their favorite character types, I don't think its fair to conclude that the PHB is incomplete because that particular pairing is absent, or that WOTC is trying to trick you into buying more material.

*Ok, I'm lying. I've got a friend who loves his half orcs. Basically the only race he plays. And I keep telling him, "Man up! Grow a pair! This is 4e, play a REAL orc!"

 

[Allensh]

The relative lack of PC options isn't too bad, IMO - they'll be filling out the range of powers in the next few months in the form of splatbooks, and adding several new races and classes with each new PHB.

What bothers me a lot, though, is the relative lack of monsters. Try building a level 1 adventure of decent length that doesn't feature either kobolds or goblins.

WotC, we need more monsters!

There are instructions in the MM for scaling monsters down. I scaled down some Drow to fight some 1st level characters and it worked great. Should be fairly easy to do the same with a lot of the other monsters in there.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

My basic point is that iconic material in 4th ed. format is on the shelves or underdevelopment at WotC and that some of the best stuff was intentionally left out so that gamers would be eager to but future PHBs and assorted splat. The Barbarian is a wildly popular class but WotC left it out of the PHB I. Few gamers were clamoring for a "Warlord" type class or Tieflings as a PC race but that's what WotC gave us. Compare that to the number of players who wish they could play a Half-orc Barbarian. There is a lot I like about 4th ed (this is not a bash post). However, I feel like is may take years for 4th ed. to be an comprehensive as 3rd ed was when published.

First of all, going strictly by the archetype from fantasy fiction (and its primary example, Conan), the Barbarian is misnamed. It should be the Berserker. Secondly, I haven't really seen it as being all that popular among the people I play D&D with. Interestingly, the people who liked playing Barbarians in the past really seem to enjoy the 4e Warlord class. Barbarians will be back, of course, but given the design of the PHB, concentrating on three power sources, arcane, divine and martial, it did not make sense to include the Barbarian (which as we know has a Primal power source). And yes, there probably is profit motive there..kinda has to be since D&D is a PRODUCT made by a BUSINESS.

It is important to realize the following: You can't have it all at once. 4th edition CANNOT contain as many options, classes etc. as 3rd did, because 3rd has had years of supplements at this point.

Allen

 

[billd91]

As for the druid, wasn't that some kind of specialist priest in 2nd edition?

Oh, the druid has a longer history than that rather ill-advised attempt to unify all divine casters under one general/specialist class structure.

 

[Cadfan]

It is important to realize the following: You can't have it all at once. 4th edition CANNOT contain as many options, classes etc. as 3rd did, because 3rd has had years of supplements at this point.

Also, character classes take up more space now.

Just think of how many 3e non spellcaster character classes you could pack into 100 pages. All of them ever, I think.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Wall of spells? What about the great wall of text(Thank you Chris Pramas) that is chapter 4 of the 4E PHB? Pages and pages of power statblocks. It really says something that there is a feeling of having limited choices when those choices take up as many pages as the entire 1st Ed PHB. That kind of space stretching is a money grab. I have a hard time thinking of another core rulebook that takes that much space to say so little.

I agree that it can look a bit intimidating to see Chapter 4 - but then, you really don't need to look at anything above, say, level 5 abilities to begin to plan a character. And you don't need to read through every power from 1 - 30 to decide on which character class - all the information about what sort of class it is is at the beginning of the chapter.

WotC aren't forcing you to read that segment - 4e isn't a "system mastery" game like 3e was (according to Monte Cook) and you don't need to have everything mapped out in advance to make the 'best' of your character.

 

[Nebulous]

Danchops; some nice points that I agree with.

I appreciate that wizards needed to be toned down but giving them more options wouldn't make them more powerful, just more flexible. Now a wizard is no longer a wizard instead he is pretty much a war-mage. I am particularly disappointed with the section on rituals because I think they really have potential to make this game really brilliant and anyone (with ritual caster feat) can now use them. Actually, I want more rituals, as a DM, for NPC as flavor but I guess, since balance is not such an issue with NPCs, that I can always create them.

Don't get me wrong; there is tons of stuff in the PHB; it is just that because it is spread out over 30 levels, there are very few options off the bat.

I hate that anyone can cast a ritual per the RAW. I might try to change that in a houserule, but the players might complain that it's unfair.

 

[Mallus]

I hate that anyone can cast a ritual per the RAW. I might try to change that in a houserule, but the players might complain that it's unfair.

Think of it this way, in 4e anyone who is a spellcaster can cast a spell (ritual), it's just that being a spellcaster is no longer defined solely by your class. A rogue with the Ritual Caster feat is a wizard, of sorts.