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

[SSquirrel]

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).

This part of things has been focused around the core releases like the PHB, so I would say the original D&D book and the basic set would be what are being looked at, not future supplements. If we count future supplements, then a lot more of the game has always been there. This is about core releases tho.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.)

Because I've promised myself that I'm not going to be spending hundreds of dollars on books for 4e like I did for 3e/3.5e.

I don't expect to buy much more than the core three books plus maybe a campaign setting.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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.)

Why does it matter? Pretty simple, really:


a) Some people don't want to have to wait years to have access to base classes - and attendant support for same - that they and/or others in their group(s) consider fundamental to their ideas of D&D gameplay; and

b) Some people also don't want to have to be locked into buying x number of PHBs to be able to use said fundamental classes in their games, in the first place.

 

[Imban]

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.

My major concerns are 2 and 5. For 5), if the GSL has all of the worst parts of the OGL (i.e. no one being allowed to support WotC products past the core books + psionics) and all of the worst parts of not being truly open, well, uh. Suck, and suck hard?

For 2), my experience is that I am literally the only DM I play with who does not play with a radically narrowed set of player options - heck, in some case narrower than even "core only": I wouldn't count on being able to play Gnomes in 4e, as Orcs and Goblins and Grey Elves and Drow sure as heck weren't options in 3e. Like it or not, there's a significant sense of "there's the PHB, and it covers everything proper for players in D&D" in the D&D community. I sure don't, but I have to live with it.

 

[wingsandsword]

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.

I played D&D for almost a decade, with dozens of players from a half-dozen different groups before I ever even heard of OD&D, and that was only from discussion on ENWorld, and only fairly recently did I meet a gamer (not through ENWorld) that mentioned having ever played OD&D (and she dropped it in a flat moment for 1e when it came out). 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.

You're right, there is no contradiction there at all. OD&D was before a lot of key traditions were even created, traditions that 4e is forsaking, traditions that define the very feel of D&D to me and the people I game with. The Great Wheel cosmology was a big part of the feel of D&D to me, for example, it was something that individual settings could tinker with or omit but it always felt like an inalienable part of the core of D&D. For a lot of us OD&D is just a little line of text in a history of D&D, something we'll never see and never play and essentially a pre 1.0 beta edition of D&D.

One thing that all this has shown me is that D&D means a lot of different things to a lot of different people: to me it means the general feel of AD&D 1e, to some extent 2e, and 3e and 3.5e, including a lot of meta-setting elements now being discarded. Versions of D&D that I've never even seen an actual physical copy of and that the overwhelming majority of gamers I've played with have never played or seen are versions that I have trouble giving a lot of weight to in what I see as the traditions of D&D. In the D&D experience I've had over the years, many of the things that define D&D and have been constant across the years and editions are being cut out.

 

[hong]

I played D&D for almost a decade, with dozens of players from a half-dozen different groups before I ever even heard of OD&D, and that was only from discussion on ENWorld, and only fairly recently did I meet a gamer (not through ENWorld) that mentioned having ever played OD&D (and she dropped it in a flat moment for 1e when it came out). 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 find your disrespect for OD&D disturbing.

 

[wingsandsword]

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.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.
.

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

I think it has to do with available time of you and the people that you play D&D with. I know that I'm only able to get my group of 4-5 people together once (sometimes twice) a month for about 5-6 hours at a time.

With a game like Magic I only need one other person to play. Not to mention that there are any number of comic book & hobby stores I could walk into right now for a pick up game with relative ease. If I played Magic, I could literally find a game EVERY DAY and play for an Hour or two after work.

Console Games? I have 2 next gen consoles, the Wii and the PS3. And comparing the use I get out them compared to the amount of "use" I get out of game books is a joke. Once again I'm not waiting for anyone else to play, I just put in a game and turn it on and I'm ready to go. Even with online play it's really not that hard to find people to play against or with. So yeah, I paid $399 for my PS3 but once again If I played for 2 hours a day EVERY DAY it's still a better value than the $100 I paid for the core rulebooks. Also my two next gen consoles? BACKWARD COMPATIBLE. I'm actually finishing up play on Metroid Prime 2 and playing Metroid Prime 3 in tandem on the Wii. On the PS3 I literally just got finished playing GOd of War for the PS2 and I'm going to seek out God of War 2. At the same time I'm playing Burnout Paradise a Ps3 game.

Computer games? Hidden Cost of the internet? What hidden cost? I know what the cost of my DSL bill is a month. I don't itemize the time, I pay the bill and use the service. It's akin to how people factor in the cost of printing out a book or document from their printer. It's crazy. You PAID for the toner. You get as much use out of it as you can until you run out of it, and then? YOU GET MORE TONER.

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

Once again computer games are a better value depending on how much you play. For someone playing WOW or COH/COV who has a dedicated group or even just solo's every other day it's a better value than trying to get everyone together in meat-space for a few hours.

 

[hong]

Computer games? Hidden Cost of the internet? What hidden cost? I know what the cost of my DSL bill is a month. I don't itemize the time, I pay the bill and use the service. It's akin to how people factor in the cost of printing out a book or document from their printer. It's crazy. You PAID for the toner. You get as much use out of it as you can until you run out of it, and then? YOU GET MORE TONER.

Bwuh?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Bwuh?

Yeah, sorry about that. That did sound a little crazy...