Poll: A different approach to the 4E PHB?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

No it just follows logically after 3rd, which may have been built around AD&D, but by name could be the extension of its own namesake as the 3rd iteration of D&D after OD&D and BECMI as 1st and 2nd editions of D&D respectively.

That wasn't the intent. They specifically said they dropped the Advanced from the name for two reasons: 1) There was only one version of the game in print so there was no need to differentiate anymore and 2) they thought the term Advanced might mislead new players into thinking you needed prior experience to effectively play the game.

 

[justanobody]

And no matter about any of that, 4th continue nothing as it is unlike any previous edition that they so wanted to get away from to create their own thing, so discontinues any possible association with AD&D.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Splitting by tier for BECMI D&D was all very well because you had 4 classes and 3 race classes and each tier was in a small booklet.

In D&D the amount of data to consider in a single class is on the order of one of the BECMI rule books so no, for me, it is better to have all the information for a single class in one place.

As a business model, it has problems, when do you finish testing the initial classes, when a tier is ready and risk imbalance when bringing on the next tier or do the whole lot and only publish the initial bit and what about the classes you though about later?

 

[Agamon]

I still find it astonishing how many people complain about the layout of the 4e books, when, quite frankly, I find it one of the parts of 4e that saw the most improvement over 3e.
I'm no fan of 4e, but I am a fan of its layout and use of art. It is, by far, the most readable (as far as ease of reading, clarity, and organization) version of AD&D I've ever read.

True that. Last session I had some trouble finding the invisibity rule in the PHB, but that was the first time I had trouble finding something since I started playing 4e (and when the game was over, I found the rule right away, so I think it was more me in a hurry than anything).

I look in the books a lot less these days, but when I do, it's usually a pretty quick and painless process.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I'd be seriously annoyed at having to buy three phbs for all the class variations. No Barbarian in phb1-3, buy phb 4-6 to get barbarian? I don't think so.

 

[Mokona]

I will probably never play level 21 so I could save money by avoiding epic books. It would be a worse business model because most players don't get to the upper levels.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think that kind of "by tier" separation would be a lot worse... It artificially reduces the kind of game a group can play, so they simply couldn't run a game for certain tiers until later books were released. Not every campaign needs to start at level 1, but this kind of method presumes that they do.

As others have mentioned, this method also gets very complicated when you consider classes added after the first book (not only are these always going to exist, and they should always exist). This method probably only worked for BECMI because it started with a limited number of generic classes and didn't have a large number of optional elements added later.

Finally, I think this kind of method would have really hurt the basic development of both the central rules of the game and each class individually. This method would focus design and development on a single tier at a time, without focusing as much on how the game progresses across all tiers of play. I don't think that would help at all.

Anyways, I think the current model, where you buy complete pieces that you can fit together as you like, works a lot better than a model where everything is incomplete, scattered all over the place, and possibly jumbled together. Overall, this method would have been a cure worse than the disease, especially since the disease, the lack of support for some archetypes, is only temporary under the current model anyways.

 

[delericho]

PHB2 is not due for another six months or so. And, if my group had started with 4e on release date, we'd probably be reaching the Paragon tier right about now.

Given that, my preference is for the current model. Sure, it's a pain not to have Gnomes or Half-orcs, Bards, Monks, Barbarians or Sorcerers, but it's something we can live with.

Besides, whereas in 3e there were a lot of options that simply never got used (Bards and Monks, Half-elves and Half-orcs for my group, YMMV), in 4e it certainly feels like everything might get used. So while there are fewer options total, there may not be fewer options in actual use.

Oh, and count me amongst those who don't like the layout of the 4e books. I'd much rather they use a smaller font and less whitespace, and use the savings either to add more options or simply to reduce the page-count (less paper to carry to the game is always a good thing IMO).