Quick question how does the ability for others in 3.5 to play adventuring commoners in any way impact the fun you would have playing in a different style by utilizing a higher level? Now can the same be said in reverse if all support for a particular style is gone?
1.) I'd have to say those who play adventuring commoners (or any NPC class) is a significant minority of the D&D population, and one with the sheer amount of energy necessary to devote to 4e class construction wasn't worth the time. I'd have REALLY been ticked to see a commoner class in the DMG without seeing a druid class in the PHB first!
2.) Secondly, Playing a heroic commoner should be easy in 4e. Assign the PC 22 points (or less, depending on your taste) to scores, give him wizard hp (10+con, 4/lvl) and no defense bonuses, one simple weapon proficiency, any two trained skills, and zero at-will, encounter, and daily power. As he rises in levels, he can take feats and gain ability score bumps as normal, but doesn't gain powers unless he multi-classes (take an MC feat) to gain another classes powers (max of one daily, one encounter, one utility). He gets no paragon path (unless its an MC path) and may/may not gain a epic destiny (DM choice). There, a perfectly "usable" commoner-adventurer
What I don't like about this style of game design, is the everyone is a special snowflake syndrome, from Human Rotting Beggar to Aspect of Grugar the Bloody...every being has specific powers that you as a character will never be able to learn to do...even if it makes sense that you should be able to train and learn them. No matter how powerful an arch-mage or even demi-god you become...you will never learn or be able to cast the hex of a Blue Goblin Hexmaster...or as a warrior learn the Reach-over Strike of a Ogre Mercenary Slayer.
3.) The "normals" (Joe the Potato Farmer and his family) don't need stats. A best they're going to be asked some questions or perform a skill check (at a bonus I can fake quickly). Anyone with a name (such as above) has stats for one reason, the PCs are going to ally with him or fight him. At that point, he's a special snowflake.
4.) There are plenty of powers in the course of D&D characters cannot learn. No whip-master, no matter his skill, can entangle like a balor can, for example.
Uhm...why are they mutually exclusive...from farmboy to greatest jedi of his time...It seems you have a very narrow definition of what a "hero" is...I guess only those with special powers above and beyond normal men can ever be "heroes".
Luke was CERTAINLY more than a farmer. He was the scion of the Chosen One, strong in the Force (magic) and even before leaving Tattooine he was a good mechanic, a crack shot, and the best brush pilot in the Rebellion. If that's not a 1st level PC class, I don't know what is!
(And for the record, in every edition of d20 Star Wars, Luke never started with an NPC class level; he was a first level fringer (scout in saga) before taking Jedi levels.)
Yeah and you can survive off bread and bologna for the rest of your life...but it ain't necessarily the best food to eat for a lifetime. Ultimately it boils down to preference, but I feel the best choice is when both preferences can be achieved with the least amount of work on both ends. IMHO, 4e fails horribly at this, while 3e/3.5 does it admirably. YMMV of course.
4e and 3.5 had different design goals. 3.5 focused on simulating everything via the rules, 4e only concerns itself with the stuff it thinks matters (aka combat, adventurers, skill challenges, etc). The result is a system that is more streamlined (due to its narrower focus) at the expense of "completeness" (having a rule to handle nearly any concievable situation).
And as for food metaphors, consider this one. You get the same nutrition from bologna as you can from most other meats. If you could never eat bologna again, you'd survive perfectly fine on any other meat product, only those who like it would miss it and those who don't wouldn't care less.
