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

[Mercurius]

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.)

 

[Khuxan]

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.)

1) You cannot simply convert a campaign over when 4e is released because many characters will be impossible to create.
2) Some DMs play core-only games.
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.
4) Core classes and races are better playtested and supported than supplement classes and races.
EDIT: 5) Less likely to be OGC, and thus less likely to be supported, modified and expanded upon.

I think 3 is the major concern. For me, it's 5. I personally don't mind waiting, or paying for quality.

 

[devoblue]

Wotc's new definition of core will mean that core is now an ambiguous term. But the 3e version of core which was 3 books will mean that some classes that are now core maybe seen as splat in 4e. I seem to remember having discussions with other d&d groups back in the eighties on whether barbarians, cavaliers, and thief acrobats should be part of the game....

There is a stigma attached to a class not being core

 

[wingsandsword]

While WotC might be redefining what they call "Core", the idea that what was in the original release of the game being central to it isn't likely to go away.

Also, why should gamers have to wait years and pay more (a year, two years, how many years until the eventual splat release?) for materials that were central to the game in earlier editions. Until 4e a gamer could have a one-time outlay of less than $100 to have the "core rules" of the game and everything that every gamer would be presumed to have. Now that they are spreading out the term "core" they are cheapening it's meaning as a common ground that all D&D players know well. Five years from now, will the typical D&D player really have PHB's I through V and be conversant in each of them and the rules therein? Somehow I doubt it, while there are completionist players, most D&D players I know are more along the lines of buy one PHB, or buy the core-three, or buy the core-three and the very occasional extra splatbook or setting book every couple of years if they really like it.

In AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, and D&D 3e and 3.5e you could take the original Player's Handbook and create a Gnome Illusionist. In every edition except 2nd you could create a Monk or an Assassin. Now a race that has always existed, and classes that have existed for almost all editions are being removed and instead we get glorified lizardmen, a setting-specific niche race (tieflings), and a non-divine pseudo-cleric (warlord).

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.

"Sacred Cows" is thrown around a lot, and it is a good metaphor for certain parts of the game. While some people see sacred cows as foolish and worthy of mocking, there are other people to whom they are very important and beyond question and it will start a huge controversy if disturbed.

 

[arscott]

And no, you probably won't be able to fake a bard. At least not one that doesn't look like a Frankenstein's monster, cobbled together from the corpses of other classes and brought to life with the very spark of god's creation--An act of hubris that ultimately spells doom for the beast's creator and all that he holds dear.

 

[hong]

And no, you probably won't be able to fake a bard. At least not one that doesn't look like a Frankenstein's monster, cobbled together from the corpses of other classes and brought to life with the very spark of god's creation--An act of hubris that ultimately spells doom for the beast's creator and all that he holds dear.

Hey, what's wrong with a multiclassed fighter/rogue/sorcerer specialised in Enchantment spells?

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the replies. I can understand the reasons stated, but I still don't think it is such a big deal--or it is a big deal only if "canon" really matters to you and your game group (and if it does, maybe it shouldn't?).

I see any rulebook as more of a GUIDEbook rather than cannot-be-broken-LAWbook. If it isn't in the core, just make it up yourself.

This is not to say that I don't think WotC's tactics sneaky. And predictable.

As an aside, this issue does point to what I see as an intrinsic weakness in the D&D rules format, where classes are more of distinct archetypes rather than flexible professions and/or culture-profession combo templates. An example of this would be the notion that without a barbarian class one cannot play a "barbarian"--which is really a combination of a culture and a profession. In other words, a "barbarian" is (or should be, imo) a culture-specific fighter not a class unto itself. If I had my way, the core rules would account for this and thus be customizable to any class type. You'd have the basic classes of fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric, and then countless template variations--perhaps based upon cultural types like barbarian, urban, desert, woodland, etc. If you had four core classes and, say, ten core cultures you could have 40 variations of classes...all in the PHB. But I digress...

And let's face it, the distinct class structure of D&D sells books.

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

A thing to Ponder.

Consider the peanut butter & jam sandwich as the 4th Edition Core

To some people, core classes not being present is like trying to make a PB&J without the J. It's impossible, and turns into a sandwich that requires liquid to digest.

To others, with a broad sense of taste, core classes not being in, or being in, is as unimportant as the choice of jam be it Grape, Apple, Strawberry, Blackberry, blah blah blah blah.

To others still, it's a matter of Crunchy Peanut Butter versus Smooth. Do we want a sandwich that is rough and requires more chewing, or something familarly smooth, that goes down easy?

And finally, to some, it's all about stylistic flavorings, like a couple banana slices, or pan-frying the sandwich like a grilled cheese (try it, it's good!), or a different type of bread that adds a bit of extra taste to the concotion. In that sense, class variation is merely a stylistic choice, but is ultimately unimportant.


Peace, Love, and Bloodstains,
~ Me.

 

[hong]

Yay, a generic food metaphor!

 

[MaelStorm]

Yay, a generic food metaphor!

That is so anime!