D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[Fifth Element]

Before 3rd Edition, there weren't feats in the game.

Unless you used the Celts campaign book for 2E.

 

[Sunderstone]

And I don't see that as "What is Mistwell's opinion of what D&D is". I see that as the objective answer - the one that goes into things like Wikipedia or encyclopedias or quizz shows or game conventions or ordinary conversation or any other place where the general question might be asked "What is D&D". The answer that will come back is "D&D is a RPG game with themes X Y and Z that has various editions including the latest edition, 4e" or something like that. 4e will be included in that answer as a version of D&D. It's not the version you like, it's not the one you prefer or want to play, but it will go down in history as part of the definition of "What is D&D".

I couldnt care less what wikipedia thinks is D&D.
I dont game with Wikipedia. For that matter Wikipedia could see the Lord of the Rings RPG as D&D because it holds identical X, Y, and Z fantasy themes. Same with Conan or any other sword and sorcery RPG. Let the encyclopedias say what they want its irrelevant as to the root of the thread. Its all about us, what we think of the new "D&D" not wiki definitions of the term.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Solid argument, but 4E is a much more radical departure from the norm. New Core Races and Core Classes etc. Every edition before this was fairly the same with their CORE. 4E is mixing splat races and classes into the CORE without giving us that splat choice. Yes 3.5E is D&D with all its splats.... because those splats are OPTIONAL, so we can still preserve that core. 4E is not going to be built that way.

What are the core classes of D&D? Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue (some-times named somewhat different, but in "spirit" always there - except maybe the original game, which lacked the Rogue/Thief? Or which edition was that?)
They will all be in D&D 4, right in the first PHB. "Last time", the core rulebook contained the Sorcerer as a element not one of the classes traditionally considered core (plus Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Druid, which also weren't always there in the core rulebook). This time, it will be Warlock, Warlord and the rest will at least have been in 3rd edition.

I wouldn't object to the idea that the core of any specific edition might be larger then the core of D&D as a whole. Because it certainly is, most of the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

Every edition before this was fairly the same with their CORE. 4E is mixing splat races and classes into the CORE without giving us that splat choice.

That depends entirely on how you define "fairly the same". Humans, dwarves, elves and halflings have always been there. Same with fighters, wizards and clerics.

But paladins, rangers, thieves/rogues, bards, half-orcs, gnomes, half-elves, barbarians, monks, assassins, etc, etc have not always been part of the "core" mix. The 1E selection of races and classes is much wider and more varied than OD&D. Does this mean 1E is not D&D, because it strayed too far from the "core"?

The line you're drawing "core" and "non-core" is arbitrary, and based on your personal tastes and experiences. There is no single definition of what makes up "core" D&D, as this thread demonstrates. If it were possible to define it cleanly, we would have done so by now.

 

[Fifth Element]

What are the core classes of D&D? Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue (some-times named somewhat different, but in "spirit" always there - except maybe the original game, which lacked the Rogue/Thief? Or which edition was that?)

The first edition of D&D lacked the thief. It was introduced in one of the supplements.

 

[Mistwell]

Solid argument, but 4E is a much more radical departure from the norm. New Core Races and Core Classes etc. Every edition before this was fairly the same with their CORE. 4E is mixing splat races and classes into the CORE without giving us that splat choice. Yes 3.5E is D&D with all its splats.... but those splats are OPTIONAL so we can still preserve that core. 4E is not going to be built that way.

First, I totally disagree about the "radical departure from the norm". Again, please compare 3.5 with expansion books to OD&D. I do not see how someone can look at the differences between those editions and think that 4e is a more radical change. OD&D had just three character classes (fighting-man, magic-user and cleric); four races (human, dwarf, elf, hobbit); only a few monsters; and only three alignments (lawful, neutral, and chaotic). Contrast that with 3.5 D&D and you are looking at a much more radical change than 4e to 3.5e.

Heck, when I was young and playing the "basic" D&D, an "elf" meant a fighter/magic user (and was both the race AND the class). There were four races: elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans. And that was no more or less D&D than the current edition.

Second, all rules are optional. I never understood the idea that "core" was in any way more special than an expansion book (and they are not splat books anymore by the way...that term went out in 3.0, since the "splat" part no longer applies given names like "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords"). It's all rules from the same company for the same game. People use different parts of all of them (and most people use different parts of "core" as well). When the Rules Compendium (which included rules found in many expansion books) says "these rules override the rules in the PHB and DMG and MM" how is that less important than the "core"?

Anyway, all I am saying is that 4e is D&D, just not the D&D you like. Which is fine. I just think it's objectively not accurate to say "4e is not D&D". It will go down in history as "D&D". As much "D&D" as OD&D and 3.5e "D&D".

 

[Mistwell]

I couldnt care less what wikipedia thinks is D&D.
I dont game with Wikipedia. For that matter Wikipedia could see the Lord of the Rings RPG as D&D because it holds identical X, Y, and Z fantasy themes. Same with Conan or any other sword and sorcery RPG. Let the encyclopedias say what they want its irrelevant as to the root of the thread. Its all about us, what we think of the new "D&D" not wiki definitions of the term.

If you were saying "This is not what I personally like in my D&D", that would be different. You instead seem to be saying "I know what D&D is, and it's JUST the thing I play in my game, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong". You don't seem to be leaving any room for people of other opinions. Your statements, at least to me, come across as claims to objective truth about D&D.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you were saying "This is not what I personally like in my D&D", that would be different. You instead seem to be saying "I know what D&D is, and it's JUST the thing I play in my game, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong". You don't seem to be leaving any room for people of other opinions. Your statements, at least to me, come across as claims to objective truth about D&D.

Hmm. Maybe it would be best if we just let it slide by now? I mean, probably everyone that really wanted made his point, and everyone else can now use the previous posts to make up his mind. Otherwise, we just end up with an "hence-and-forth" discussion where everyone just reiterates what he already said, just with different synonyms, examples and wordings.

 

[Mistwell]

Hmm. Maybe it would be best if we just let it slide by now? I mean, probably everyone that really wanted made his point, and everyone else can now use the previous posts to make up his mind. Otherwise, we just end up with an "hence-and-forth" discussion where everyone just reiterates what he already said, just with different synonyms, examples and wordings.

Fair enough.

 

[WayneLigon]

4E is mixing splat races and classes into the CORE without giving us that splat choice. Yes 3.5E is D&D with all its splats.... because those splats are OPTIONAL, so we can still preserve that core. 4E is not going to be built that way.

What about people that hate halflings? There's a lot of people that hate elves, it seems. How come they didn't rant and rave about elves in the core material? Elves are forced on you just as much as the dragonborn will be. I happen to hate gnomes and dwarves, and I only now have come to like halflings. I despised them back when they were furry-footed butterballs despite loving LOTR. Hated having to play with them in campaigns, and discouraged people from taking them when I ran a game.

If you came and sat down at my table two campaigns ago, you'd have found gnomes and dwarves gone, no paladins, clerics that took just the 'two domains' with no associated god since there were no gods (and the only reason they were available as a class was that I didn't want to rework the druid that much because of the needed healing), only about ten prestige classes, gnolls as a PC race, no illusion magic and elves so androgynous that humans had to make a spot check to tell individuals and sexes apart. A small number of other minor changes but all changes made to core material.

Once 4E comes out, it's unlikely that the first campaign idea I'll have will support teiflings, dragonborn, halflings or half-elves. They'll be core races but I can excise them just as easily as any non-core or third party book.

The very first question you should ask the GM when you sit down at that table is 'Can I please see your list of what books are allowed and what changes you've made to the core books?'.