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

[kennew142]

If those classes had balance or flavor issues, I would have prefered wotc to use all that time to fix them rather than just postpone them and whip up some new classes instead, that surely will create issues of their own.

Neither of the two new classes were just whipped up. The Warlock was introduced in Complete Arcane and has proven fairly popular (probably moreso than the 3e bard). The Warlord appears to be a combination of the Warblade and the Martial.

 

[kennew142]

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.

You are wrong on every single fact you've quoted. You should go back and read OD&D and Basic D&D.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Are those gimmicks worth their own class as opposed to, say a feat with Cha prequisite for fighters (or any other class, really) and a few scary new spells or magic school /cleric domain powers?

Song-magic and to a greater extent, shape-changing-nature-priests are harder to fold into other concept/classes.

As someone who's just played a bard all the way through Age of Worms, I think "gimmick" is a pretty good summary of the class. A couple of song-magic feats for wizards and sorcerers would be a fine replacement for 3.5.

 

[Campbell]

I could see some icky mechanics like "I buff/heal y'all by yelling at you" as a defining feature for an "inspiring battle commander", others such as "ooh! I mark your soul so I get a bonus next time I hit you" defining "spell caster who treads where mortals dare not tread"... not so much. :\

I'm confident that the mechanical underpinnings of these classes will be solid.

Are those gimmicks worth their own class as opposed to, say a feat with Cha prerequisite for fighters (or any other class, really) and a few scary new spells or magic school /cleric domain powers?

These archetypes are absolutely worthy of their own classes. The idea is to play a wanderer who draws his dark power from secrets gained from consorting with inhuman entities or a charismatic tactician, not a skilled magician with a wicked edge or a warrior who is somewhat inspirational. I see these things as defining traits.

Song-magic and to a greater extent, shape-changing-nature-priests are harder to fold into other concept/classes.

Song magic is easy - simply create some new wizard implements and add dash in some powers. Shape changing nature priests are also easy. Just dash in some naturific cleric powers and make one of cleric choices grant the shapeshift variant from PHB2.

I do this better than you.

Whether you like them or not, plainly excluding them poses conversion problems or at least deprives some games of an important concept.

I have no conversion issues - I already banned them so obviously they aren't that important of a concept.

If those classes had balance or flavor issues, I would have preferred for WotC to use all that time to fix them rather than just postpone them and whip up some new classes instead, that surely will create issues of their own.

I would have preferred for them to include the swordmage and left the paladin for a supplement.

 

[hong]

As someone who's just played a bard all the way through Age of Worms, I think "gimmick" is a pretty good summary of the class. A couple of song-magic feats for wizards and sorcerers would be a fine replacement for 3.5.

Don't think small, mang. Bard -> arcane leader, if ever there was one!

 

[lutecius]

If a Warlord can be simulated by giving Fighters a few CHA-based feats, then a Druid can be simulated by giving Clerics a few special Shapechanging feats.

Same with Warlocks/Song Magic.

That druid would need the shapechanging feats but more importantly a whole spell list focused on nature AND not be loaded with the clerics's holy-warrior baggage.
ie. turning undead, armor proficiency and whatever holy auras he might get in 4e should not be hardwired int the class.
In that case I'd be perfectly fine with the druid being the "nature cleric". I actually liked the AD&D2 sphere idea, not the implementation, though.

We don't know much about the cleric yet, but it seems that classes will more narrow than generic...

The previewed warlock for example, with all his soul marking curses, teleporting the enemy around, and his overall sinister tone does not look very bardish to me, neither does the new wizard's all day eldritch blast.
So shoving bardic music into either class would not work that well.
It may depend on what is covered by the fey-pact (whether it is as "scary" and "feral" as suggested in the article.)

Not completely on topic, the bard to appear in later PHBs seems to have some "otherworldly patrons" too. (cleric, paladin, warlock, now bard? what's the matter with them?)

 

[lutecius]

Neither of the two new classes were just whipped up. The Warlock was introduced in Complete Arcane and has proven fairly popular (probably moreso than the 3e bard). The Warlord appears to be a combination of the Warblade and the Martial.

the really innovative mechanics of the 3e Warlock (ie eldritch blasts, move away from "vancian" spell casting) which I liked a lot, have been allotted to the new wizard.
The 4e warlock's specific moves (previewed on the wotc site) are actually new and may not have been playtested like the 3e warlock mechanics (now base wizard) were.

 

[Incenjucar]

The 4E warlock sounds like a fire-and-curse-spewing blink dog.

I don't think it's going to work anything like a wizard, so let's burn that straw man (before someone animates it.)

 

[Campbell]

the really innovative mechanics of the 3e Warlock (ie eldritch blasts, move away from "vancian" spell casting) which I liked a lot, have been affected to the new wizard.
The 4e warlock's specific moves (previewed on the wotc site) are actually new and may not have been playtested like the 3e warlock mechanics (now base wizard) were.

I'll be serious here for a few minutes. On a mechanical level, all the PHB classes will have received roughly the same amount of play testing by the time the game is released barring any problems with the play testing process. They pretty much rebuilt the game from the ground up.

 

[Sphyre]

3) D&D already has a high investment just in the core books - extra splatbooks cost even more, especially if you're only interested in one class or race..

I fail to see how just the core rulebooks is a high investment, at least in comparison to other hobbies. I have many hobbies, and the cheapest by far is board games. I invest in the board game once and it's done. Fantasy Flight Games have a significantly higher sticker price, but they also have a significantly higher replay value as well.

For example a console system, of which a new generation comes out every 5-10 years leads to a large investment off of the initial game system. Then you add each game. If you want one game, you're investing in both the game system and the game. The cheapest current new console is the wii, which I believe at it's best price was 300? Sorry I never bought one so I don't exactly know.

Then there are collectible card games like Magic: the Gathering, where to keep up you have to buy new cards (or be an extremely savvy trader).

Then there's computer games. Assuming your computer is up to par with them. They cost around 50 bucks a pop now. Many of them online, requiring the hidden cost of internet. Play an MMO? Now you have a monthly cost of 10-15 dollars just to play the game after the initial cost.

I used to play Laser Quest as well. It cost me 5 dollars a game with my year membership. Playing multiple games a month (even multiple times a week) quickly added up.​

And what do the 3 core rulebooks cost? 105 retail, or 66ish from amazon. Cost of dice, paper and pencils. Miniatures are optional, even if you don't want to believe they are due to the use of the word squares.

I can understand if it's not worth the investment of 105 (or 66ish) to specific people who have multiple reasons, such as they like 3.5, they haven't been impressed by 4e, or any other reason they want. I just don't understand how it's really considered a high investment for something that has the most replay value over anything stated above.

Currently I'm in the lower class of Americans (as are more than 50% of the US now), so I know my money is hard earned. But I find it to be a very sound investment, and give me a whole lot more for my dollar than alternative games I could be investing in.

So, please help me understand where 100 dollars is a high investment (without optional splat books) for multiple years of play, for those who actually will use it? I can understand where it might be expensive to someone who may use it once or twice, and decide they don't like the system, but for someone who ends up liking it, I'm at a loss how it can be seen as expensive when compared to other hobbies.