I don't like Dragonborn: Please come and bring friends.

[Hautamaki]

There's no way the 3 4E core books on release could contain the info to match 2 PHBs, 7 official splat books, 3 3.5 monstrous manuals, the "Races of ..." books, and whatever else campaign material was used for peoples 3.5E games. That's impossible

Yes but we made our characters using only the core 3.5 books. I said ninja, what I meant is multiclass fighter/rogue. 4e had plenty of new stuff in its initial core books, but the cost of adding that new stuff was that it had no room for old stuff which people already liked, like the druid, sorceror, and proper rules for multi-classing.

I'd prefer it if the 5e core books focus on doing all the stuff that already exists well, and leave any new stuff for later publishing.

 

[OmegaMan950]

Yes but we made our characters using only the core 3.5 books. I said ninja, what I meant is multiclass fighter/rogue. 4e had plenty of new stuff in its initial core books, but the cost of adding that new stuff was that it had no room for old stuff which people already liked, like the druid, sorceror, and proper rules for multi-classing.

My bad, when I saw ninja i jumped at the class in complete adventurer. But there is still some merit to what I brought up. When 2E came out people were upset that the cavalier, monk, assassin, and barbarian were not covered in the PHB, and to dismiss an entire edition on first impression to me seems wrong. Another example is the first few prestige classes in the 3.0 DMG - they were a lot different to later ones both in what was mechanically expected and how they were implemented (went from being the DMs discretion to the PCs fair game by being put in players splatbooks)

None of the editions have really hit the ground running, and we should all give them the benefit of the doubt

 

[Hautamaki]

My bad, when I saw ninja i jumped at the class in complete adventurer. But there is still some merit to what I brought up. When 2E came out people were upset that the cavalier, monk, assassin, and barbarian were not covered in the PHB, and to dismiss an entire edition on first impression to me seems wrong. Another example is the first few prestige classes in the 3.0 DMG - they were a lot different to later ones both in what was mechanically expected and how they were implemented (went from being the DMs discretion to the PCs fair game by being put in players splatbooks)

None of the editions have really hit the ground running, and we should all give them the benefit of the doubt

I thought the 3.0 release went swimmingly but I might be reminiscing through rose colored glasses. In any case the fact that the previous edition got off to a rocky start is more or less my point, and I believe that ensuring that 5e can smoothly and easily transition existing campaigns to the new ruleset will go a long way to helping it get off to a great start.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I thought the 3.0 release went swimmingly but I might be reminiscing through rose colored glasses. In any case the fact that the previous edition got off to a rocky start is more or less my point, and I believe that ensuring that 5e can smoothly and easily transition existing campaigns to the new ruleset will go a long way to helping it get off to a great start.

I think 3.0 was the only one that did. Partly because everything looked shiny at the time and 2e needed an

3.5 decidedly didn't, being decried, with some reason, as a moneygrab. And that it was probably more different to 3.0 than 2e to 1e (how much space does a horse occupy?) and very much more different in terms of rules than 4e to Essentials didn't help.

 

[thundershot]

I think the Dragonborn should be in the PHB. If the DM doesn't want to use them, he doesn't have to. I don't use the half-breed races and instead use Rakasta and Warforged as core races. I like a varied melting pot of races available to my players.