I wonder how I didn't notice this before...

[nnms]

OK, 4e failed to punch the right nostalgia buttons for the OP. Don't worry, 5e is zeroing in on those buttons.

No.

And please stop reducing other people's preferences to "nostalgia." It's an unfair treatment of their positions.

The OP disliked that a PHB had less options than a previous PHB. Later it was pointed out that 2E PHB also did this to a lesser degree. The OP wants the options of the 1E PHB, not out of some appeal to nostalgia, but because the OP and others may actually want the option of selecting things from the larger list of class and race options in order to use them in actual play.

As an avid player and DM of 4E, I didn't consider the game to be fully mature until after PHB 2 came out. It extended the options to be similar to previous editions (and gave more class options not mired in multiple attribute dependency).

So no, it's not about "nostalgia buttons" at all. Please stop writing off other people's preferences that differ from yours as nostalgia.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Because my thought on the matter has always been "I've read ecologies for all these monsters in every single prior edition of the game and pretty much know them by rote... so why do I need it it all reprinted again in the new edition book?"

I agree, except that I think 2e was the only edition to go into any level of detail. 1e and 3e are both light on monster facts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why does it always have to be about the nostalgia?

Can't you just accept that people actually like things that came before because they felt it was better?

Of course I can accept that. You can feel however you like about something. Feelings don't have to be rational and can be perfectly valid even when in stark contradiction of fact.

But, the OP did just write a long list of things he didn't like because they were different or un-familiar or didn't evoke the feel he was used to. That's nostalgia, very clearly. And, it's equally clear that 5e is on target to deliver it this time around.

 

[Roland55]

I don't think so. There were three PHBs and MMs, but the third DMG was vaporware (along with its high level support). From what I heard, PHB3 wasn't all that well received either. I suspect we may see a PHB/DMG/MM 2 (and MM 3 even) later down the road, but I suspect the new core every year is a thing of the past.

And that would be perfectly fine with me (and the roughly 10 folks I game with now).

 

[Tony Vargas]

And please stop reducing other people's preferences to "nostalgia." It's an unfair treatment of their positions.

I'm trying to be understanding and diplomatic, here. I'm not calling anyone foolish or malicious or stupid or anything. I'm just acknowledging that nostalgia is a legitimate reason for a preference - and a very legitimate, and smart, thing for a company to market to. Maybe not a rational reason, but preferences don't need to be rational.

The OP disliked that a PHB had less options than a previous PHB.

The 1e AD&D PH had 4 classes, 5 sub-classes, the monk, and the bard. The 4e PH1 had 8 classes and 18 builds. The 1e AD&D PH had 8 races. The 4e PH1 had 8 races. If his objection was to fewer option, than that objection was not based on fact. If, OTOH, his objection was to a lack of certain familiar options, then it's perfectly factual - and based on wanting familiarity of options over quantity of quality options. 'Nostalgia' is a fair and not impolite way of characterizing such a preference.

As an avid player and DM of 4E, I didn't consider the game to be fully mature until after PHB 2 came out. It extended the options to be similar to previous editions (and gave more class options not mired in multiple attribute dependency).

Nod. 1e AD&D had one supplement that introduced new PC classes, Unearthed Arcana, which added the Cavalier, Barbarian, and the not-exactly-a-whole-class Thief-Acrobat, bringing the total build-equivalent options up to 14, still less than the 4e PH1's 18. Even if you only want to count 'full classes,' that's (charitably) 13 for the PH + UA, and 13 for the 4e PH1 & 2, with 4e well over 20 full classes if you include those from other sources and PH3, not to mention the introduction of sub-classes with Essentials.

 

[Croesus]

the first Player's Handbook had better be bloody-well inclusive.

I suspect you're right about this, at least as it pertains to the existing customer base. But I can't help thinking this is a bad thing.

When I began playing D&D (35 years ago, 3 little booklets in a white box), we constantly made up stuff. There was no official version of Conan, or Excalibur, or Cylons, or the Alien. or the Tardis - we created those ourselves. If someone had a cool (or lame) idea for a new race, they created it. Sure some of the stuff was terrible, but much of it wasn't. And it made each group's game unique.

If DDN has no mechanisms for resolving basic tasks - swinging a sword, casting a spell, climbing a wall, hiding in ambush - then the rules are incomplete and that's not acceptable. OTOH, if the game does not have a specific race, class, item, maneuver, feat, or spell, we can make up our own. And to be blunt, some of the versions players create will turn out to be superior to the "official" versions.

What I want from 5E is not an edition that tries to be everything to everyone. I want it to be a simple, easy to learn system that facilitates my imagination. If it does that, I can create everything I need.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suspect you're right about this, at least as it pertains to the existing customer base. But I can't help thinking this is a bad thing.

That inclusiveness is certainly a 5e goal. I think the guideline they settled on - If it was in a PH1, it'll be in the 5e PH1 - is an adequate one. It'll keep anyone from screaming too loud about things being missing.. though it will make the PH a largish book.

Classes: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue/Thief, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard/Magic-user.

Races: Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin, Gnome, Halfling (Hobbity), Halfling (Gypsy), Tiefling.

What I want from 5E is not an edition that tries to be everything to everyone. I want it to be a simple, easy to learn system that facilitates my imagination. If it does that, I can create everything I need.

Yeah, but if you can create everything else you need, what else will WotC be able to sell you?

 

[Croesus]

Yeah, but if you can create everything else you need, what else will WotC be able to sell you?

There will always be a market for official versions. Heck, even I buy splatbooks.

What I find troubling since at least the 3.x era is that there seems to be a widespread expectation that we have to wait for official versions. Or put another way, that if something isn't in the official books, WOTC is somehow denying us that something.

Not sure where this idea came from, but it's completely opposite what we had when D&D first started, when just about everything was unofficial. My preference is for a return to the idea that once we have the rules, our only limits are our imaginations - not someone's publishing schedule.

 

[Tovec]

That inclusiveness is certainly a 5e goal. I think the guideline they settled on - If it was in a PH1, it'll be in the 5e PH1 - is an adequate one. It'll keep anyone from screaming too loud about things being missing.. though it will make the PH a largish book.

Classes: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue/Thief, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard/Magic-user.

Races: Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin, Gnome, Halfling (Hobbity), Halfling (Gypsy), Tiefling.

Yeah, but if you can create everything else you need, what else will WotC be able to sell you?

I think for many people it is less about having an actual assassin or illusionist class and more about being able to PLAY an assassin or illusionist, without having to put all their customization points into being able to do it in the first place.

Same goes for the "making up everything I need" comment, I suspect.

Same goes for races. I like [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] 's suggestion, put all those races (and more) in the PHB. It will take up an extra dozen pages perhaps and everyone will be happy. Small price to pay.

Give people enough options to be able to play the game they want. Don't cut off options unduly, that is where you come into conflict.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll admit I was being a trifle pedantic with the "Illusionist" - it /was/ a class in the 1e AD&D PH, so it technically qualifies. I'm sure an Illusionist as a Specialist Wizard would count - but, then, wouldn't that also argue for all 8 wizard specialties from the 2e AD&D PH, not to mention all 18 builds from the 4e PH1? Likewise, an Assassin as a Theme/Build/sub-class/whatever of Rogue/Thief would probably be OK.

I suppose if we were to really stretch the point, the Psionics Appendix in the 1e AD&D PH could mean the psionicist must be in the 5e PH, as well....