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

[wingsandsword]

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

Half-Elf
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 16
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 30
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 17
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 18

Gnome
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 16
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 30
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 16
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 16

Ranger
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 24
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 40
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 44
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 46

Paladin
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 22
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 38
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 41
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 42

Illusionist
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 26
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 46
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 54
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 57

Druid
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 20
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 51
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 33
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 33

Bard
1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 117
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, Page 58
3rd Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 26
3.5 Edition D&D Players Handbook, Page 26

If they are calling this 4th Edition, that means it's to be considered a successor to what is called "3rd Edition" which means the editions released in 2000 and a revised edition in 2003. What is generally known as "2nd Edition" means AD&D 2nd Edition released in 1989, and "1st Edition" is pretty much universally means AD&D 1e that began it's release in 1977. The main actual evolutionary line of (A)D&D that 4e is claiming descent from always had Half-Elves, Gnomes, Druids, Bards, Paladins and Rangers in it's initial PHB release. I honestly don't count OD&D and Basic D&D as "normal" editions. OD&D is little more than a historical footnote, a "pre 1.0" edition of D&D (what came after it is known as "First Edition" after all). Basic D&D is another footnote that was a sideline to AD&D and not the main developmental line.

Yes, 2e removed the Half-Orc, Barbarian, Assassin and Monk, but otherwise all other editions had those classes as well. AD&D 2nd Edition was in no small part about making D&D politically correct to appease anti D&D factions (renaming demons & devils, removing the names "Heaven" and "Hell" from the outer planes, removing assassins, removing half-orcs as PC's), just like it looks like 4th Edition is about intentionally turning its back on the history and traditions of the game.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

Yes they've changed a couple of the class names over the years but that is horribly nitpicky. The 4 core classes of the game have always been around since the beginning.

Wingandsword>If you're going to claim ALL editions of D&D you have to look at OD&D/Basic. AD&D was NOT the first version of the game and thus is not the end all be all. Rememebr, they also got rid of the Advanced claim w/3E to a)return to a more original feel and b)clarify that there was no 2nd tier of the game anymore. Ignoring the Basic Game they made to sell some more minis

 

[baudbard]

I see a missed point here.

Not everyone is going to invest in books at the same rate.

At some point a PC may have more/newer rule books than his DM.

The DM will then have to review and rule on material he does not have time to thoroughly vet for inconsistancies with his campaign AND that DM may not have access to those rules to use against the PC's [I hope I made that clear]

Also, in past editions of the game... books released as a follow up have been less than stellar quality when compared to the big 3.

Maybe now the fix is in. Perhaps planning to have a PHB 2, 3 ,4 is the answer. I'm willing to wait and see... after all... I've still got v1, 2, 3, and 3.5 to go back to.

 

[Silvergriffon]

wingsandsword - So, OD&D is nothing more than a footnote that should be ignored, but "4th Edition is about intentionally turning its back on the history and traditions of the game." No contradiction there at all.

For many of us, OD&D is no mere footnote. It is the establishment of the feel of D&D. Everything since then is merely new rules and mechanics. The identity of D&D begins in its roots, from which all its history and traditions have grown. A D&D player who has never experienced a game that invokes the feeling of OD&D is like a music lover who has never heard live music, only CDs.

Many of those races and classes you listed can be said to have existed in all prior editions since AD&D, but certainly not "in the core of every prior edition". The latter is patently false.

SSquirrel - Yes, it was nitpicky to the point of absurdity. But, only to call attention to the fallacy of claiming that all those things existed in "every prior edition". Please pardon my sarcasm. It got away from me a little bit there.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Yeah, as a BECMI DM of many years who adopted 3e in no small part because they bought the rights to BOTH D&D and AD&D, merged the lines, gave credit to both Arneson and Gygax, and incorporated rule elements and monsters from both (by D&D monsters I pretty much mean Known World/Mystara), I take great issue with this "footnote" attitude.

Have your preferences, love your particular races and classes (which in some cases were the same thing), but you cannot deny the barest bones essence of race and class for PCs in xD&D is:

Classes: FIGHTER, CLERIC, THIEF, MAGIC-USER
Races: HUMAN, ELF, DWARF, HALFLING

Replace each name with preferred version if you desire (e.g. rogue, wizard, hobbit) but those are the core roles and races.

Note this is not a comment about how many or which should be in 4e PHB1 (well, other than that those 4 races and 4 classes really ought to be in), just a diatribe in reaction to the disrespect shown to my beloved OD&D/BECMI

 

[SSquirrel]

Altho technically in OD&D it would be
Race:Human
Class: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

heh

I think I posted a prety good summation of most of the things that have been around in every edition on the first page

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Altho technically in OD&D it would be
Race:Human
Class: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

heh

I think I posted a prety good summation of most of the things that have been around in every edition on the first page

Unless you include the races & classes introduced in the supplements (if you mean OD&D -- paladin, ranger, druid, illusionist, assassin, monk ...) or in later rulebooks in BECMI D&D (like paladin, druid, etc.).

So by my count, at a minimum fighter, magic-user/wizard, cleric, thief/rogue, paladin, and druid have appeared in every version of D&D published to date (though the latter two appeared only in two later supplements/rules releases).

 

[Campbell]

It matters to me. They saved me the work of implementing an inspiring battle commander and a spell caster who treads where mortals dare not tread. They then followed that up with temporarily banning bards and druids for me. That's what I call excellent customer service.

 

[lutecius]

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.?

...and your little sorcerer, too!

It matters to me. They saved me the work of implementing an inspiring battle commander and a spell caster who treads where mortals dare not tread. They then followed that up with temporarily banning bards and druids for me. That's what I call excellent customer service.

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 thread"... not so much. :\

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

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.

 

[Pale Jackal]

...and your little sorcerer, too!


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 thread"... not so much. :\

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

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.