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

[delericho]

Two reasons:

1) I have found that the game runs better with the core rules only*, and maybe a very small set of carefully-chosen supplements. If the core does not include the right mix of classes, that creates big problems for the campaign.

2) When publishing expansion material, WotC cannot rely on customers owning anything beyond the original core set. As a result, for sales reasons, the material that is not in that set will not receive anything close to the same level of support as that which is in that set. Witness the level of Psionics support in 3.5e - yes, there is a little beyond the XPH, but there's not much. That's the level of support we can expect for the Bard, Sorcerer, Monk, Druid, and any other class that's missing.

* Where "core rules only" means the first PHB/DMG/MM.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

Part of the problem with this whole argument is that different editions have had different ideas about what should be included. While your gnome illusionist is perfectly possible in AD&D (1st and 2nd) and D&D (3rd), it wasn't possible in Original D&D or BECM D&D. Though in 1E AD&D he really wasn't some nerfed version of the Magic-user. And you wouldn't want to use the same argument with a half-orc barbarian. Come to think of it, you wouldn't be able to create a gnome illusionist in Dark Sun - a very wise man exterminated all the gnomes.

I'd also take issue with the idea that more than a very few classes and races are central to the game. Humans, elveses, dwarfs and halflings yes, fighter, cleric, thief/rogue and magic user certainly, but others are much more debatable.

And on "Sacred Cows": a lot of people have argued that WotC are insulting them by saying what should or shouldn't be part of the game. Some of the same people (not you, afaik) have also claimed that things like the Great Wheel is an essential part of D&D, and leaving it out means it's not D&D any more. Isn't that equivalent to saying these things should be part of the game? In which case, should the people who don't have them as part of their homebrew or published setting feel insulted?

 

[Belorin]

This has been of interest to me for a while, the concept of what is core. I believe that along with the reimaging of the rules, classes and races for 4E, the dev team is reconcepting the way the it is handling new material.
Instead of the 3 'core' books and a whole plethora of 'splat' books and the game developing bloat like it did with 3.x, then having to deal with all the rules changes from it. They have it planned so that the 3 core annuals contain new core classes, power sources and races along with the appropriate powers, feats, and abilities. These book also contain 'official' rules changes/errata for previous 'core' books. Then there will be the 'splat' books such as the Martial power source book, the Arcane power source book, the Tome of Treasures, and the rumored Draconomicon for example.
This way the 'core' of the game expands to allow for things that were wanted, like Psionics, but were always considered 'splat'. True they may have delayed the release of certain previously first in classes, races, and monsters, they have also given us new ones to try out, putting a little anticipation back into the mix.
I like this approach as I believe it will extend the life of 4E beyond that of 3.x.


Bel

 

[Bluenose]

This has been of interest to me for a while, the concept of what is core. I believe that along with the reimaging of the rules, classes and races for 4E, the dev team is reconcepting the way the it is handling new material.
Instead of the 3 'core' books and a whole plethora of 'splat' books and the game developing bloat like it did with 3.x, then having to deal with all the rules changes from it. They have it planned so that the 3 core annuals contain new core classes, power sources and races along with the appropriate powers, feats, and abilities. These book also contain 'official' rules changes/errata for previous 'core' books. Then there will be the 'splat' books such as the Martial power source book, the Arcane power source book, the Tome of Treasures, and the rumored Draconomicon for example.
This way the 'core' of the game expands to allow for things that were wanted, like Psionics, but were always considered 'splat'. True they may have delayed the release of certain previously first in classes, races, and monsters, they have also given us new ones to try out, putting a little anticipation back into the mix.
I like this approach as I believe it will extend the life of 4E beyond that of 3.x.


Bel

An approach similar to the Psionics rules in previous editions? I can see quite a lot of advantages to this, particularly if they're really self-contained. If all I need for my Psion character is PHB2 with all the psionics rules in, and I don't have to bring along PHB1 for the skills and vbasic equipment, and a DMG for all the magical gear that isn't psionic, then I''d be very much in favour. Though whether that's the case is another matter.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Personally, I don't want to wait a year or more to have a class for the game that has always been part of the game & gameworld. It's going to be tough to run a Gnalry Wood/Hommlet Greyhawk campaign if we have to wait to see a druid class until PHB 2 or 3.

Druid is the main class I'm concerned about here (bard and barbarian are of secondary concern).

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

What you are basically talking about is roles. They DO have this. They just call them different names, Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller. There are what? 2 variations of each (Striker = Rogue and Warlock). So now we are up to 8. And with the Rogue class revealed, we see two different types of Rogues (the Brutal Rogue and Trickerster Rogue). If every class is like that, we now have 16 different variations of classes/roles.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Gnomes, half-orcs, monks and assassins were never central to the game. They just happened to be core in a few editions. Out of four editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e and 3e) the assassin was only a core base class in one.

They were always much less popular than the likes of elves and fighters. Fringe interests are good candidates to be in supplements rather than the core.

What's that you say? You liked all the fringe stuff? What can I tell ya, sucks to be in a minority.

 

[SlyFlourish]

New PHB every year

Where did you hear they would re-release the PHB every year?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.)

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

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Where did you hear they would re-release the PHB every year?

They're not going to re-release the PHB. They are going to put out a new PHB each year, a PH2, PH3, PH4, etc. They're also doing the same with MMs and DMGs.

People have been guessing that the PH2 will contain classes for the primal power source (druids, barbarians) and the shadow power source (illusionists, necromancers), at the very least.