Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4066699" data-attributes="member: 18490">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. I would rather have monks than paladins, for example, but I understand that all of the surveys that WotC has been running for the last few years have (and rightly should have) given the designers more input into what players want than my opinion alone.I am happy to see tieflings and dragonborn instead of gnomes and half-orcs. Heck I wish that they had removed half-eves and halflings while they were at it. For some folks, druids and bards are integral to their games. I'm sorry that they have to wait for the 4e rules. I don't use them. I won't miss them. I will miss the psionic classes, but I have to wait for them. I may add that psionics, monks and assassins were in the game before paladins, druids, rangers and gnomes. I won't make the argument that this means they should be given priority over other classes. I think this is a specious argument at best.In each edition there have been changes to the first classes and races released. When we switched from AD&amp;D to 2e there were many complaints I heard about the lack of an assassin class and a monk class. Many spells that all clerics had been able to cast in AD&amp;D were now limited based on what spheres a cleric had access to. When we switched from 2e to 3e there were just as many complaints about the new gnomes and halflings.Mature gamers dealt with it or created house rules to cover what was missing. The same thing is required now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kennew142, post: 4066699, member: 18490"] 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. I would rather have monks than paladins, for example, but I understand that all of the surveys that WotC has been running for the last few years have (and rightly should have) given the designers more input into what players want than my opinion alone. I am happy to see tieflings and dragonborn instead of gnomes and half-orcs. Heck I wish that they had removed half-eves and halflings while they were at it. For some folks, druids and bards are integral to their games. I'm sorry that they have to wait for the 4e rules. I don't use them. I won't miss them. I will miss the psionic classes, but I have to wait for them. I may add that psionics, monks and assassins were in the game before paladins, druids, rangers and gnomes. I won't make the argument that this means they should be given priority over other classes. I think this is a specious argument at best. In each edition there have been changes to the first classes and races released. When we switched from AD&D to 2e there were many complaints I heard about the lack of an assassin class and a monk class. Many spells that all clerics had been able to cast in AD&D were now limited based on what spheres a cleric had access to. When we switched from 2e to 3e there were just as many complaints about the new gnomes and halflings. Mature gamers dealt with it or created house rules to cover what was missing. The same thing is required now. [/QUOTE]

Verification