PHB classes -- why does it matter which ones are included?

[kennew142]

This argument always boils down to the same thing. Many gamers would like to buy only three books and be able to play the character they want to play. The problem is that not everyone wants to play the same races and classes. IMO it is extremely selfish and arrogant to assume that the first three books should include everything that I want, and none of the stuff that I don't. I would rather have monks than paladins, for example, but I understand that all of the surveys that WotC has been running for the last few years have (and rightly should have) given the designers more input into what players want than my opinion alone.

I am happy to see tieflings and dragonborn instead of gnomes and half-orcs. Heck I wish that they had removed half-eves and halflings while they were at it.

For some folks, druids and bards are integral to their games. I'm sorry that they have to wait for the 4e rules. I don't use them. I won't miss them. I will miss the psionic classes, but I have to wait for them. I may add that psionics, monks and assassins were in the game before paladins, druids, rangers and gnomes. I won't make the argument that this means they should be given priority over other classes. I think this is a specious argument at best.

In each edition there have been changes to the first classes and races released. When we switched from AD&D to 2e there were many complaints I heard about the lack of an assassin class and a monk class. Many spells that all clerics had been able to cast in AD&D were now limited based on what spheres a cleric had access to. When we switched from 2e to 3e there were just as many complaints about the new gnomes and halflings.

Mature gamers dealt with it or created house rules to cover what was missing. The same thing is required now.

 

[SSquirrel]

Even if you try and offer up the excuse that rules will exist for using gnomes as PC's because of an appendix in the MM, the stigma of it being a "monster" race and not a "player" race will likely be strong. Many DMs that learn D&D starting at 4e will no longer think of gnomes as a PC race, just as another monster race to be lined up for orderly disposal by PC's in groups of gnomes equal to the PC's.

Funny I started playing D&D 20 years ago and I never really considered gnomes a PC race in 3E, but that was b/c I never really liked them. Less space wasted in the PHB IMO


As far as "what is core". 2 words, say em with me. They've even been magazine titles.

Dungeons.
Dragons.

These have been achieved with Fighter/Thief/Mage/Cleric in varying names along w/classes that are variations of these themes or combinations of them (by and large). A d20 has always been the main resolution die. Alignment has pretty much always been written poorly and more often served to restrict and inhibit gameplay since 1st Ed AD&D. Humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits halflings have always been around. Sometimes they were even a class unto themselves The arcane divine split has always been there too, for good and ill.

I personally have no issue with dropping the arcane/divine split or alignment (Arcana Evolved has both removed nicely and to great effect, any caster having the capability of healing magic makes party design MUCH smoother) but most of the otehr aspects I see as the core of the game.

I don't see using say Palladium Fantasy and calling it D&D as particularly effective ho. The names are brands for a system itself. You could use Palladium and play in the Realms tho. People use True20 to run pretty much anything and I've heard of people having lots of fun w/Mutants & Masterminds to run a game that felt functionally like D&D to evryone at the table.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Much conversation and debate has been had about not only which classes are going to be included in the new PHB, but which ones SHOULD be. Maybe I'm missing something but why does it matter? They'll all come out again regardless, especially with the planned release of a new PHB each year. If it is simply a matter of wanting to play a bard before next year, most DMs should be savvy enough to "fake" one until then. But even so, it is just a matter of time and timing...

(The same principle applies to races.)

if the ph2 is not ogl (or whatever its called now) then having druids in splat books is alot harder.

 

[Belorin]

Core rules get playtested more than other books. (And I include a second PH in the "other" category.)

I don't think this is the case. Some of the playtests talked about by the WotC staff have included classes like Swordmage and Druid. And yes the classes in the first PHB may get tested more simply do to the fact that they are testing the whole ruleset, once the basic mechanics are in place then class and race testing should take less time. Although I am hoping that they learn from the 3.x class/Prc glut that less can be more. Plus if we take the new Rogue article and what we know of the Fighter, that each class will have at least two 'builds', that doubles the options right there.

Bel

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't think this is the case. Some of the playtests talked about by the WotC staff have included classes like Swordmage and Druid. And yes the classes in the first PHB may get tested more simply do to the fact that they are testing the whole ruleset, once the basic mechanics are in place then class and race testing should take less time. Although I am hoping that they learn from the 3.x class/Prc glut that less can be more. Plus if we take the new Rogue article and what we know of the Fighter, that each class will have at least two 'builds', that doubles the options right there.

Bel

I'm using my 3e experience here as a lens.

I know the PrC-equivalent glut won't bother me since I can choose not to use or allow the books.

 

[arscott]

[re: faking the bard]
Hey, what's wrong with a multiclassed fighter/rogue/sorcerer specialised in Enchantment spells?

Well, the fact that they took out specialized enchantment spells to make room for the bard in later books.

 

[Betote]

For me, it's not an issue of "they'd better have class X or race Y or I'll never play this game", mostly because I see 4E as a fundamentally different game from 3.X (I've never really cared about OD&D/AD&D1/AD&D2, for that matter), so there's no "sacred cows" issue here.

But I expect it to be a complete game. If it's a high fantasy game, I expect it to have room for, at least, these archetypes:
- A thief who backstabs and disables traps.
- A grunty barbarian from the Far North.
- A grim necromancer.
- A snaketongue illusionist/enchanter.
- A daring swashbuckler.
- A crazied although wise old wizard.
- A mistery jack-of-all-trades wanderer.
- A Man of the Wilds who communes with nature.
- A preachy zealot whose faith empowers him.
- A tragic figure who made a deal with the Dark Powers.
- A man whose mere presence inspires greatness in allies and fear in enemies.
- A battle-weathered mercenary.

If 4E is able to provide space for, at least, these archetypes in the 3 first core books and the creature selection in the 1st MM is broad enough, I'll probably give it a try. I don't care if later splats or "neo-core" books address that issue, because there're a lot of other games in the market that are able to do this with just the basics (3.X among them).

 

[wingsandsword]

TIMO it is extremely selfish and arrogant to assume that the first three books should include everything that I want, and none of the stuff that I don't. I would rather have monks than paladins, for example, but I understand that all of the surveys that WotC has been running for the last few years have (and rightly should have) given the designers more input into what players want than my opinion alone.

I'm not asking for "everything" I want in the first three Core books, but I would like to see the same functionality in the 4e Core release that was in the core of every prior edition.

That means the following races presented for use as PC's (that were always there)
Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling

That means the following character classes (that are always there)
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Illusionist (presented as a specialized subset of Wizard after 1e), Druid, Thief/Rogue, Bard (although in 1e Bard was essentially the first PrC ever).

Leaving out 2e's sharp reduction in races & classes that means also adding:
Half-Orcs, Monks, Barbarians, Assassins

So, if a D&D edition is missing a lot of those things, like say Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Bards, Druids and Monks (and maybe Assassins too), it sounds like a version of D&D with a lot less functionality/flexibility than prior editions.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

This argument always boils down to the same thing. Many gamers would like to buy only three books and be able to play the character they want to play. The problem is that not everyone wants to play the same races and classes. IMO it is extremely selfish and arrogant to assume that the first three books should include everything that I want, and none of the stuff that I don't. I would rather have monks than paladins, for example, but I understand that all of the surveys that WotC has been running for the last few years have (and rightly should have) given the designers more input into what players want than my opinion alone.

I am happy to see tieflings and dragonborn instead of gnomes and half-orcs. Heck I wish that they had removed half-eves and halflings while they were at it.

For some folks, druids and bards are integral to their games. I'm sorry that they have to wait for the 4e rules. I don't use them. I won't miss them. I will miss the psionic classes, but I have to wait for them. I may add that psionics, monks and assassins were in the game before paladins, druids, rangers and gnomes. I won't make the argument that this means they should be given priority over other classes. I think this is a specious argument at best.

In each edition there have been changes to the first classes and races released. When we switched from AD&D to 2e there were many complaints I heard about the lack of an assassin class and a monk class. Many spells that all clerics had been able to cast in AD&D were now limited based on what spheres a cleric had access to. When we switched from 2e to 3e there were just as many complaints about the new gnomes and halflings.

Mature gamers dealt with it or created house rules to cover what was missing. The same thing is required now.

I was going to post, but I see you've already very eloquently stated the situation.

 

[Silvergriffon]

I'm not asking for "everything" I want in the first three Core books, but I would like to see the same functionality in the 4e Core release that was in the core of every prior edition.

That means the following races presented for use as PC's (that were always there)
Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling

That means the following character classes (that are always there)
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Illusionist (presented as a specialized subset of Wizard after 1e), Druid, Thief/Rogue, Bard (although in 1e Bard was essentially the first PrC ever).

Leaving out 2e's sharp reduction in races & classes that means also adding:
Half-Orcs, Monks, Barbarians, Assassins

So, if a D&D edition is missing a lot of those things, like say Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Bards, Druids and Monks (and maybe Assassins too), it sounds like a version of D&D with a lot less functionality/flexibility than prior editions.

Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Gnome were not in every prior edition.
Neither were Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist, Druid, Bard, Monk, Barbarian, or Assassin.

In fact, the only races that were in every edition through 3e are Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling. The only classes that were in every edition through 3e are Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric. But wait, if you look in the original Basic Rules, there was no class called Fighter, but rather "Fighting Men". And in lieu of Wizard, we had "Magic-User". So it would be accurate then to say that the only constant class available in the core rules of every edition through 3e was the Cleric.

So, it looks like every class and race that has been common to the core rules of all prior editions is present and accounted for in 4e.