The problem with the X Class Should Have Been In The PHB1 problem is...which classes "deserves" to be there?
Because unless we're arguing that the first handbook should have been a hundred pages thicker, for everything you want put in, something has to come out.
So if you say the druid should have been there, you'll have to name a class that should be removed, that doesn't "deserve" to be in the PHB1.
And everyone will disagree on this. For some, the Paladin isn't necessary....others find it a core of DnD. Several will say the Druid is foolish, but demand the Bard or Sorcerer be in the first PHB. Some will declare the Warlord a newcomer to be thrown on the backburner...others call it a core of the Martial archetypes, and you'll have to pry it from their cold, undead fingers.
Likewise, one could find fault in the 3.5 PHB for not having a gish class like the duskblade, or retroactively demanding a warlock. But it is still better to evaluate the books based on what IS there, rather than making up a subjective list of things that you think should have been there, a list that will be completely different from person to person.
All the basics where there: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue are the Basic-Classes so to speak. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling are the Basic-Races so to speak. All there, what was missing?
Well, and if WotC had decided that the only core race is humans and the only core class fighters, and then published a Player's Booklet, saying, "Well, all the basics are in there", then technically that would be true, because D&D is WotC's property, and they can do with it whatever the heck they please.
williamhm75 wrote:
Because items are for players so players should have access to them.
Not in my book.
williamhm75 wrote:
Nothing was missing though and thats my point every eddition changes what classes are in the phb. 3.5 had bard barbarian,monk and druid 4e added warlord and warlock.
As I said, they can do with it what they want *shrug* The fact remains the bard and the druid were missing, period. A couple of thousand D&D players played bards and druids in 3e, and if they wanted to keep playing their characters - whereas fighter players could rebuild theirs -, they were SOOL. There was a demand for these classes, and I don't buy the "Oh, we just didn't have the time" excuse. That's just corpspeak for "business decision". Which is okay since WotC is a business after all. I just find it interesting that so much of what these guys say is taken at face value here.
williamhm75 wrote:
Why not they make a quality product.
Again, not in my book. But that's a question of taste and preference, anyway.
williamhm75 wrote:
Either explanation is a valid one.
I disagree. If my client gives me a task and a deadline and I don't make it, he doesn't care why. It's my job to make it. If I'm not up to it, I'm not the right guy for the job.
williamhm75 wrote:
Just because they decided to add something new instead of keeping all the old material in the first book (...)
So who said they had to add something new in place of something old? Throw out the magic items, smaller font, smaller illustrations, much less white space, and you have all the room you need.
williamhm75 wrote:
Frankly I would have been disapointed if the phb for the new game was the same as the old.
And including the druid and the bard on top of everything else would've made the new game just that, right?
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
The problem with the X Class Should Have Been In The PHB1 problem is...which classes "deserves" to be there? (...)
Just to be clear: Personally, I have no problem with excluding the bard and the druid. I just have a problem with the official "reason" for excluding them.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
Well, and if WotC had decided that the only core race is humans and the only core class fighters, and then published a Player's Booklet, saying, "Well, all the basics are in there", then technically that would be true, because D&D is WotC's property, and they can do with it whatever the heck they please.
No but if all they had was wizard cleric fighter rogue I wouldnt be able to complain depending on how they did it.
Not in my book.
Personal problem then DM does not need access to magic items players do. Players are the ones that will be using said items so thus they need the rules for them makes sense to me.
As I said, they can do with it what they want *shrug* The fact remains the bard and the druid were missing, period. A couple of thousand D&D players played bards and druids in 3e, and if they wanted to keep playing their characters - whereas fighter players could rebuild theirs -, they were SOOL. There was a demand for these classes, and I don't buy the "Oh, we just didn't have the time" excuse. That's just corpspeak for "business decision". Which is okay since WotC is a business after all. I just find it interesting that so much of what these guys say is taken at face value here.
Wait or play something new. I see no problem with this. 2e did away with the monk entirley. Every eddition changes the line up this is not new to 4E.
Again, not in my book. But that's a question of taste and preference, anyway.
Then why are you on a forum dedicated to WOTCs product?
I disagree. If my client gives me a task and a deadline and I don't make it, he doesn't care why. It's my job to make it. If I'm not up to it, I'm not the right guy for the job.
Depends on the industry some industries that have a lot of research involved, ie new military technology cost overruns and passed deadlines are expected.
So who said they had to add something new in place of something old? Throw out the magic items, smaller font, smaller illustrations, much less white space, and you have all the room you need.
Except the larger illustrations and larger font make the books more readable. I already have bad eyesight I do not need to be squinting over smaller texts, and magic items need to be in a player book.
And including the druid and the bard on top of everything else would've made the new game just that, right?
DB
Maybe they just werent ready. Besides phb2 is out now so what are you complaining about exactly?
Personal problem then DM does not need access to magic items players do. Players are the ones that will be using said items so thus they need the rules for them makes sense to me.
The players need access to all magic items, the GM does not...? So it makes perfect sense to put them into the PHB whereas the reasons for putting them in the DMG in 3e were unfathomable? Okay, if you say so.
williamhm75 wrote:
Wait or play something new. I see no problem with this. 2e did away with the monk entirley. Every eddition changes the line up this is not new to 4E.
It's been done before, so it's okay just because it's been done before?
williamhm75 wrote:
Then why are you on a forum dedicated to WOTCs product?
Well, this would be a boring place indeed if all the discussions took place between people who love the material, wouldn't it? By the way, I don't lose the right to participate the exact moment an edition comes out I don't like, so I'm still here. I'm aware that I'm in the minority, though
williamhm75 wrote:
Depends on the industry some industries that have a lot of research involved, ie new military technology cost overruns and passed deadlines are expected.
Well, this isn't exactly rocket science.
williamhm75 wrote:
Except the larger illustrations and larger font make the books more readable. I already have bad eyesight I do not need to be squinting over smaller texts, and magic items need to be in a player book.
Again, a matter of preference, obviously. I prefer books that feel like actual books, not like blown up DragonballZ comics. (Yes, that was a rhetorical exaggeration for the sake of making a point, don't worry.)
williamhm75 wrote:
Maybe they just werent ready. Besides phb2 is out now so what are you complaining about exactly?
They're a business, so I seriously doubt that there's even a remote possibility of this.
And waiting for the PHB2 took how long? A week or a little longer? (And for the n-th time, I'm not complaining about the decision to put these classes into the PHB2, but about the alleged reason for it.)
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
Well, this would be a boring place indeed if all the discussions took place between people who love the material, wouldn't it? By the way, I don't lose the right to participate the exact moment an edition comes out I don't like, so I'm still here. I'm aware that I'm in the minority, though
Gotta be honest with ya I wish you did. It's a very pig-headed way of thinking for sure but man I'd love these forums about a thousand times more if it didn't include half of the members it did.
I'd honestly enjoy the discussions on this forum quite a great deal more if they were filled with constructive criticism of people who are trying to find honest ways to make the system better, not full of grognards going "4E is poop, WoTC is poop for being a buisness, PR people are poop for doing their job".
It's been done before, so it's okay just because it's been done before?
No, it was ok the first time it was done too.
Everyone has different ideas of what the "basic" classes for D&D are. How far would you have go? If they had included the bard, druid, and sorcerer, someone would just be complaining that they didn't include psions, or whatever. And which edition should they base the class selection off of? Does it have to be the same lineup as 3e? Why not 1e or 2e?
They can't include the wealth of options from previous editions right off the bat, especially if they want it to be balanced. Now sure, they could cut corners to get the product out, but then you risk introducing the same balance issues that 3e had. Could they have spent more time on the druid and had it balanced? Yes. Could they have introduced a balanced druid, bard, sorcerer, barbarian, and psion in the PHB 1 without removing any of the other content in that book? Probably not if they wanted to keep the same deadline.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
While the monk was not in the core PHB of 2E, it was in the Complete Priest's Handbook and Players Options: Spells and Powers book (as were shamans, warlocks, artificers, wild mages, alchemists, and a few others that folks tend to forget about).
The players need access to all magic items, the GM does not...? So it makes perfect sense to put them into the PHB whereas the reasons for putting them in the DMG in 3e were unfathomable? Okay, if you say so.
Well, there are the practical reasons that the players get more use out of a magic item section. In a small group it means that the DMG isn't having to be passed around for magic items to be gotten. If you look at the other DM books like open grave you might see artifacts but no magic items, it seems that they're segregating DM and player material which seems wise.
Dexter_Blacktyde wrote:
They're a business, so I seriously doubt that there's even a remote possibility of this.
And waiting for the PHB2 took how long? A week or a little longer? (And for the n-th time, I'm not complaining about the decision to put these classes into the PHB2, but about the alleged reason for it.)
DB
Well, as my question to you, what would you have preferred? I'd rather get most of a functioning product and the rest later on than get an incomplete product or one that has function issues. The 4th edition handbook worked pretty well, the bard and the druid were fairly large hybrids and had some aspects that would have required a lot more tweaking for 4th. The bard was musically based and had some spells and skills, as a leader how were their powers going to work, how would they function? Some of it might have also been that they wanted to avoid making a warlord clone so they took more time to diddle with it and figure out what else they were going to offer. The druid was probably more a decision of power sources, I'd love to see the psionic material but that won't be out till Ph3. There is also the idea that they wanted to wait a year before launching new classes and such, trying to ensure that the core game was functioning correctly before beginning the splat book IV.
And on the note of classes that could or shoudl have been included, 3.5 could be said to have that too. How long was WotC working on the Hexblade, the warlock, or any of their other new classes when 3.5 launched? Why not put the warlock in the 3.5 PHB? Hell, we were supposed to have Hexblade spells in the spell compendium, never got em, never even got a web enhancement with that list or for any of the other supplimental classes.
To market the products, I know the Player's Guides have those things in them. What do the Campaign Setting books have?
In the previous editions, all that stuff; I thought we were talking about CS books -- not the division to CGs and PGs (4th edition) -- because I responded to William's comments about how Paizo (who wouldn't likely do two separate campaign setting books) should/could have done a "fluff-only" campaign setting book (though as Leichenreiter noted, it's not as if 4E CGs consist of pure fluff either).
