Henry
Autoexreginated
Amongst the gaming community, "Core" is defined as PHB, DMG, and MM. Comparing 4E's core 3 against eight years of 3E isn't a terribly valid comparison.
I still find that really off-putting by WotC, that they've RE-DEFINED the term "core" as it has been used for the past TWENTY-FIVE YEARS or so. It's one I still refuse to let go.
As for Druid, Bard, and Barbarian: the game does not fall apart without these classes. There is enough overlap between Barbarian and Fighter that Barbarian can be skipped. 1E and 2E did not fall apart from a lack of Barbarian in the PHB. Bard is a fringe concept that while it has its fans, isn't going to ruin a game by its lack. Druid is the strongest argument of the three, but again the game doesn't die without it, not like it would if it lacked Fighter, Rogue, Cleric or Wizard.
This is quite true: "Incomplete" is dependent on definition of its user. I think that had 4E included the 3E classes in some form or another in the core 3 books, and the races from it, there might not have been as much agitation by the fanbase as we've seen. You're not going to please everyone, but it might have helped as opposed to relegating gnomes and half-orcs to second-class status (again, in the case of half-orcs).

3e you could play a monster right off the bat. Even if doing so was kinda hard to figure out LA. In 4e you cant. Unless WOTC makes more minotaur as a playable race articles.
I still have to disagree here; the 4E monster manual appendix was quite playable, from personal experience during the demo games we've run.
4e lacks options. You cant deny it doesnt. What if someone wants to roleplay a Sculpter with no useful combat skills or kewl powerz. Someone who waits till like level 10 to finally get training as a fighter, ot help out the jerks that drug him along for the adventure in the first place.
Or the Commoner who wants to take revenge on some Orcs for burning down his farm.
Ive read 4e core books several times, and without totally making up the rules (Something my players never really tolerated or many others that ive met) you cant do it. Everyone is a hero and no one sucks. Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.
Here's where I always have difficulty understanding why some gamers want the option to play, effectively, a "loser" with their D&D. I saw a thread on RPG.Net where the complaint was, "I can't play my necromancer monk halfling who makes hand-puppets from the corpses of the monsters we kill." How is the sculptor going to survive those 10 levels to get his first combat training, in a party where likely the other players are going to be running into violent threats that they ARE built to handle? How is the halfling necro-monk not going to be killed and eaten by the monsters he comes across, when his "build" by 3E standards is not even very combat-ready?
D&D since its inception has been focused on heroes in a dangerous world focused on violent challenges, and someone with NO merits in a fight (even if it's as simple as giving others a boost to their abilities) will likely contribute to the death of the party. If the whole group seeks a game where everyone is an NPC expert craftsman, that's one thing, and one for which the 4E skill challenge system is pretty equipped to handle (I personally liked Rel's idea of just extending the Skill system to include specifically requested non-combat skills, as everything's already in place to do that). However, in most games, at least half the party will be combat-effective, so making people who aren't in some way at all sounds counter-productive to group harmony.
Back to the question: Is D&D incomplete? I'd like it to be MORE complete, but I don't think it's INcomplete -- character options are narrower in scope, though, I can't disagree, and I'd love to see something like the "non-combat skill" extension to the existing system added to it, and I'd like to see MORE class features than just two per class added to each class. Four or five, sounds groovy, but I wish they had more than just the base two.