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

[Nahat Anoj]

I believe that the only classes D&D really needs are Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. and the only races D&D really needs are Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. The rest is basically gravy - I would be satisfied if this is all there was. But, I find the race and class list of 4e to be very intriguing and am looking forward to trying out all the combinations.

Having said that, I will miss the Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Bard, and Gnome from the first PHB. While they might appear in future PHBs, there is something special about being in the first one. I feel like they have become part of D&D's pantheon of core races and classes and deserve a place in the first PHB. I'm not angry about it - they are just conspicuous by their absence.

I think though that the race and class selection in the first 4e PHB is really the best one. It stays essentially true to what D&D has been about practically forever (with old standbies like Dwarf, Fighter, and Wizard) but it also showcases how the game is different, from both flavor and game mechanics perspectives (Tieflings, Warlocks, Dragonborn, Warlords). So all in all it's a nice mix of old and new.

 

[Sphyre]

I think that youre wrong about the game having a high replay value over anything stated above.

I actually was asking about those who actually like the game:

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.

It's obviously a poor investment for anyone who doesn't play it much, or doesn't care to play it much. I play it once a week though.

(Sorry if that came off as a rant it's just a little pet peeve of mine...)

How is asking a question a pet peeve? I didn't start claiming that it wasn't a high investment. You may have a pet peeve against that, but I can't really say there's much validity in having a pet peeve against people who try to come to an understanding. Then again... pet peeves are actually stronger reactions to things that don't merit them... Well good luck with dealing with your pet peeve.

I want to know why there are so many people who think that it's a really high investment. I've been thinking about it, and it seems to come down to the point where they are more casual passer-by players than me, where I have a group that will set one evening aside a week to play D&D, as opposed to people who may play for a few months, stop and come back years later, and they don't actually play D&D as much as they take part in other hobbies.

Although, does this "high investment" mentality still apply, when you spend an equal amount time playing D&D as your other hobbies? Enjoyment time playing D&D vs Enjoyment time playing another game, the dollar per hour is significantly less, with only a few hobbies turning out to be less.

 

[Ximenes088]

It's not like people can just go and pick up OD&D and start a game of it, it's not been in stores for thirty years and it doesn't exactly regularly show up in used book stores. You can get ahold of 1e PHB's and DMG's and MM's cheap and easy, cheaper than 3.5 books and almost as easy. 2e books are very easy to get too. If somebody wanted to play OD&D, or even read it, it would be a search just to get one copy.

Six bucks gets you a Rules Cyclopedia PDF off rpgnow.com. Other OD&D material has also been released there and at drivethrurpg.com. OD&D is available for anybody who wants to drop the price of a Happy Meal on it.

Trying to justify 4e cutting out a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, by saying it wasn't in some early prototype edition released 34 years ago or in a simplified basic product seems like grasping for straws.

OD&D was first. You might argue that the full flower of the game only appeared years later in the form of AD&D, but claiming that 4e is inauthentic to D&D's roots due to a lack of material that was never _in_ D&D's roots is not persuasive to me. To say otherwise requires you do what you've done, and simply dismiss everything before your starting point as "not real D&D". You have reasons that seem justified to you, but they may well look arbitrary to others.

Besides, everyone knows that real D&D started with 7th edition, when they integrated BrainLink persona bending in a format acceptable to our new robot overlords. It's ludicrous to suggest that throwing primitive material geometric solids around was ever part of the real spirit of D&D, and I know it, because my vat-maintained brain has been playing since 15th edition.

 

[hong]

Besides, everyone knows that real D&D started with 7th edition, when they integrated BrainLink persona bending in a format acceptable to our new robot overlords. It's ludicrous to suggest that throwing primitive material geometric solids around was ever part of the real spirit of D&D, and I know it, because my vat-maintained brain has been playing since 15th edition.

Ah, so YOU'RE responsible for Gleemax!

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I frankly don't understand the bad attitude other people are throwing in my direction...

Tends to happen when you dis! Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't be a grognard demanding adherence to the spirit of a game seen through all editions and then write off one or more editions, especially some of the oldest, as irrelevant. That's neither factual nor respectful. What you are really saying is that for 4e to have what makes YOU happy it needs to be true to the spirit of D&D as YOU see it given what has appeared in the editions YOU care about and that YOU consider key to the essence of the game. And that's perfectly fine for YOUR personal assessment, but don't get Kantian on us and then kick OD&D/BECMI to the curb; if you're going to talk categorical imperatives you've got to walk 'em too.

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

I frankly don't understand the bad attitude other people are throwing in my direction,

It's the Star Wars icon.... definitely.

 

[lutecius]

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

What I find “icky” in these mechanics is what they are supposed to represent in game:
The picture of a warlock teleporting his opponents around and “marking” them so he can get a bonus when he kills them doesn’t make sense to me and seems yes, videogamey (I know it's kind of a curse word now)

If the excuse for having a non magical healer ends up being "he tells them to get better", especially in the annoying way it was described, maybe there should not be a martial leader.

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.

I fail to see the difference, except in wording and enthusiasm.

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.

What? houseruling? create new classes and powers in the wait of PHB2?
Maybe. :\ Good for you.

If the wizard did not have to pick “blast all day” and could use Cha instead of Int, then yes, song magic would be easily integrated.
If the cleric could eschew the holy warrior powers and spell list that have nothing to do with nature, then yes he could be a druid

The fighter on the other hand, being the most generic class ever, would not come into conflict with the warlord’s "archetype”.
The wizard already has eldritch blast and again, I don’t see why a Dark Wizard or better, an Evil Priest could not be a “wanderer who draws his dark power from secrets gained from consorting with inhuman entities”. Are they not allowed to have a kewl pitch too?

My point is that they chose to add very specific concepts (the implementation of which I happen to hate) that could have easily fitted in existing classes, while they put off broader ones that could not. i.e. bard, druid, monk (even though I don't like monk)

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

…to you. Now I am curious to know why.

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

Go from generic to specific. At least on that we agree.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.)

For most of the people who might ever play a specific RPG, the PHB is the only book they'll ever buy and use.

The PHB has the biggest effect on attracting people playing a certain RPG. Skip a popular character concept, and you'll miss most of its fan. They will lose someone for not having the Druid in the PHB, but probably not as many as to make it a considerable loss. But if they had done the same reasoning on the Wizard (let's do it 1 year later to make it better) I'm sure the loss of players would have been pretty significant.

If you just think of people who already are D&D fans like yourself, or the people who you see in this forum, then having Bards & Druids 1 year later is just a nuisance at worst, but not a win/lose situation to make you choose to buy 4e or not.

But you have to consider that there are a lot of people who play RPG, and MIGHT, but not necessarily WILL, try D&D 4e. Those are exactly the kind of people which can be turned down by not seeing the Druid in the PHB. It doesn't matter at all to them whether WotC keeps saying "don't worry, PHB2 is core too", all it matter is how many books they will need to buy to even TRY playing something they will potentially like.

Try to picture yourself in the same situation: you already play D&D, and you hear there's a new cool RPG on the market. However, to play your favourite character (whatever it is, but something you consider BASIC), you need to buy 2 or 3 books instead of 1. If you already play another game successfully, having to spend 70$ or 100$ rather than 35$ CAN make a difference to many people, which might simply not switch at all.

 

[Jhulae]

I frankly don't understand the bad attitude other people are throwing in my direction, because I am not incorrect in my factual assertions. The AD&D development line has been the primary development line of D&D since it's inception, and when you're calling the new edition "4th Edition", by extension what was in 3rd, 2nd and 1st are the previous editions, and what was in prototype or side-product lines aren't part of the same development line.

It's not like people can just go and pick up OD&D and start a game of it, it's not been in stores for thirty years and it doesn't exactly regularly show up in used book stores. You can get ahold of 1e PHB's and DMG's and MM's cheap and easy, cheaper than 3.5 books and almost as easy. 2e books are very easy to get too. If somebody wanted to play OD&D, or even read it, it would be a search just to get one copy.

With Basic D&D, you don't exactly see that much in the secondary channels either. On very rare occasion you might see a Rules Cyclopedia, but don't count on it. I did read the Rules Cyclopedia once, and played in a game of it once, and it felt like a stripped down, overly simplified version of D&D that lost so much in the process. Our gaming group tried it once because one member had found a RC and wanted to try it because he heard some buzz about it online. We read through it, we tried it for a couple of sessions, we decided it was definitely not what we wanted or liked and that RC quickly went to collecting dust on a shelf as a historical curiosity of D&D.

Trying to justify 4e cutting out a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, by saying it wasn't in some early prototype edition released 34 years ago or in a simplified basic product seems like grasping for straws.

Uh huh.. I'm not all that old and I'm well aware of BECMI and RC...

And, what you say is so fallacious as to be almost ludicrous, especially as BECMI was being released *concurrently* with AD&D and 2nd Edition, not to mention RC coming around when 2nd Edition was still out.. And a *whole setting line* (Mystara and the Hollow World) being released in a series of gazetteers during the time when 1st and 2nd edition was out... And Articles in Dragon that dealt with BECMI, including a whole series about a flying ship that traveled Mystara... and a series of "Poor Wizards Almanacs"..

If you want to know why people seem to have a "bad attitude towards you" as you put it, maybe it's because of the seeming lack of research done?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I seriously think that if you polled the general modern-day playerbase of D&D (not ENWorld members, which is a specific subset) you'd find that most of them had never even heard of OD&D and probably think that the original 1e PHB with the orange spine was the original start of the game.

I seriously think that if you polled the general modern-day playerbase of D&D (not ENWorld members, which is a specific subset) you'd find that most of them had never even heard of AD&D and probably think that Wizards of the Coast created the game.

Which is to say, if you're going to make a long rant about 4e not "upholding D&D tradition," you better be pretty damn thoroughgoing in your grognardism.

Personally, I don't care what people had written on their character sheets half a decade before I was born. But I do agree with other posters who've noted that any fantasy RPG that doesn't let you play a significant number of important character archetypes right off the bat has some pretty serious strikes against it. I'm definitely gonna miss bard, druid and (for fluff reasons) sorcerer...