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

[Campbell]

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.

Your failures of imagination astound me. The Warlock does not simply teleport his enemies around the battle field and mark his enemies to do more damage. He calls forth his dreaded eldritch power to bend space and time and lays dark marks upon the souls of his adversaries. The Warlord does not tell people to get better. He inspires them to reach deep down and rely on their inner strength to press on when others would falter and give in. Do you not grok the underlying abstractions of hit points ?

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

The difference is that a Warlock's dark magic and a Warlord's ability to inspire are major shticks, not minor abilities. These are defining traits for the type of characters I wish to portray, not something to add on the side. For characters that want to add such elements to their characters there is something called multiclassing. Perhaps you might have heard of it.

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

You see my problem with warlord and warlock patches. Yes ?

The fighter on the other hand, being the most generic class ever, would not come into conflict with the warlord’s "archetype”.

I am afraid you have missed a few memos. Inspiration on the side might be good enough for the Bard but not the Warlord.

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?

You keep on bringing up eldritch blast as if it were the reason I want Warlocks in the PHB. Perhaps you should have that aneurysm checked out. The wanderer who draws his dark power from secrets gained from consorting with inhuman entities is exactly that. He draws his power from those secrets, not from the academic pursuit of arcane mysteries and certainly not from a close connection to some god but through seeking out knowledge that man is not meant to know. It's the thematic elements that matter and I want game mechanics that match those thematic elements.

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)

So you keep saying. And your argument would be that the archetypes behind warlocks and warlords are more narrow on a conceptual level than jack-of-all-trades minstrels who practice song magic, elemental blasting nature priests who change their shape into that of animals who are part of a tree hugging secret society, and mystical ascetics who know kung fu ? Yes?

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

You wouldn't like what I have to say.

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

You would like it too be that easy. I specifically want a character who uses his mastery of arcane principles to assist in using his blade against ugly nasties. Of course that would be too narrow of an archetype for a character class. Shall we feat up a multiclass Fighter/Wizard ?

 

[Falling Icicle]

This argument always boils down to the same thing. Many gamers would like to buy only three books and be able to play the character they want to play. The problem is that not everyone wants to play the same races and classes. IMO it is extremely selfish and arrogant to assume that the first three books should include everything that I want, and none of the stuff that I don't.

Wanting to be able to play a class or race that's been a part of D&D for many years or decades is selfish? Come on. I'd have much rather they included the Druid, Gnome, etc in the PHB and saved the more exotic races (Tieflings and Dragonborn) for a later supplement. And heck, even from a marketing standpoint this makes sense. If they really think that Druids, Monks, Gnomes etc will be much less popular than Tieflings, Dragonborn and Warlocks, less people will be interested in buying PHB2.

And then, of course, there's the whole part about all the people they turned off from 4e entirely because they completely neglected to provide for those who actually *gasp* liked playing some of the things that were core in older editions, and are now SOL for possibly years. Two of the people in my gaming group are extremely reluctant to move to 4e because their favorite classes (Monk and Druid) won't be included. I doubt that mine is the only gaming group that will be running into such issues. Sure, those classes and races may be the smallest minority in popularity, but when you add all of them together, I'm sure you're looking at a pretty significant number of players. And of course, I also feel that this shouldn't be entirely about statistics and polls. Many of us have been playing this game for years, and are rightly pissed when WotC refuses to throw us a fricking bone.

So this is a bad move on WotC's part for two big reasons, those they turned off because they feel neglected and snubbed, and also the fact that PHB2 and beyond will be less potentially popular by featuring what they admit are the least popular options. It would have been a much wiser thing to include all of the old core races and classes in the PHB, and saved the newer, supposedly more attractive options for later books. They wouldn't have pissed off any of their old customers, and there later books would entice a larger audience.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

I think it's funny that you speak in the same post of the "factual accuracy" of your points, and then you have this weird little anecdotal story that "proves" that the B/X/RC line was simply a historical curiosity. I'd be surprised if most players here on these boards didn't start with the Basic set and play it for quite a while before moving to AD&D. I played it a lot more than AD&D, and it was in print until 2000; the same time that AD&D went out of print to make way for Dungeons & Dragons 3e (note the lack of Advanced.)

D&D today bears the title of that system, not AD&D, so your assertion that we can confidently discard B/X lines as irrelevent to the development of D&D today is patently absurd.

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.

Speaking of grasping for straws...

 

[EATherrian]

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.

Well to be truthful, OD&D/BECMI have nothing to do with his argument. 1st Edition begat 2nd Edition which begat 3rd Edition which begat 4th Edition. Where do you want to fit OD&D in there? 4th Edition is the fourth edition of AD&D, by virtue of its nomenclature. Therefore, like AD&D, or 1st Edition if you prefer, it really has nothing to do with OD&D except in spirit. Therefore I think he has a good argument. The Gnome for one has been in every numbered edition PHB until now. That is a difference in core to at least someone. Just because you don't like gnomes or druids or what have you doesn't mean others don't. Heck, I hate elves, the very concept of elves oozes of Tolkein's Mary-Sue; but I wouldn't suggest that they not be included because I don't like them. Too many people seem to take joy that other people lose their toys as long as they themselves don't. Let's not do that.

 

[EATherrian]

I think it's funny that you speak in the same post of the "factual accuracy" of your points, and then you have this weird little anecdotal story that "proves" that the B/X/RC line was simply a historical curiosity. I'd be surprised if most players here on these boards didn't start with the Basic set and play it for quite a while before moving to AD&D. I played it a lot more than AD&D, and it was in print until 2000; the same time that AD&D went out of print to make way for Dungeons & Dragons 3e (note the lack of Advanced.)

D&D today bears the title of that system, not AD&D, so your assertion that we can confidently discard B/X lines as irrelevent to the development of D&D today is patently absurd.

Speaking of grasping for straws...

So where was 2nd Edition D&D?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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.

except not many of us know exactly how different a warlord is from a fighter so its a moot point (by that i mean we have not seen the full classes side by side). However we do know that in 3.5 druids were different enough to warrant a different class.

 

[Desdichado]

So where was 2nd Edition D&D?

What do you mean? It was right after 1st edition, of course.

The point is that 3rd edition was as much built on the RC ruleset as it was the AD&D ruleset, in many ways. It also replaced both of them at the same time; both were in print right up until 3e was published. The title of the game even reflects this hybrid status; it was 3rd edition (to hold its place in the AD&D line-up) but it lacked the Advanced title, like the RC game always had.

What are you trying to get at, anyway?

 

[SSquirrel]

So where was 2nd Edition D&D?

Of course the whole concept behind the original splitting of the lines into BECMI and AD&D appears to have been, and I believe many interviews over the years have borne this out, to have a simpler version of the game to get people hooked and then they get to step up w/the big kids and play ADVANCED D&D.

By the time 3E rolled around they were saying they wanted One True D&Dism (yet still ended up producing a basic game, altho it was a single package and no additional product that I remember seeing) and pulled everything back together.

The new game was, at the same time, in some ways simpler than 2E, but in other ways way more complex. The added complexity allowed it to more easily represent a number of player concepts and actions than any prior edition did tho. Anytime you add a metric ton of options you make everything slower simply b/c of the # of options.

As far as races and classes of dislike, I don't mind any of the removals they made. I didn't really play any of them. They reduced the impact of Vancian spellcasting on the game, made alignment mostly just a couple of letters on your character sheet and got rid of Ranger spells. Sounds good to me.

 

[Jhulae]

So where was 2nd Edition D&D?

Rules Compendium.

 

[Incendax]

Why does it matter which ones are included?

Because I cannot convert my existing campaign.

We have received 8 classes. 2 of them were not core in 3.5. Out of 11 classes, that means only 6 made the translation. I can handle the loss of 1-2 classes, but 5 core classes?! For all the people trying to convert a mostly core campaign (which includes a huge chunk of Living Greyhawk) 45.45% of their characters equal precisely chopped crap.