But I have read over PHB for 4e and I can't help but feel it is incomplete. As a set of rules, I like 4e. I also LOVE what they have done with races (possible exception the noble dragonborns, but hey) and the gods. I also think the artwork is massive step up.
But in terms of classes, those they have laid out are great. I love the paths they can take.
Yet they have given us ONE controller. So, what, for core rules every party shoud have a wizard? And they have missed out on some of the most popular classes, Druid and Barbarian. And when it comes to Epic levels they have given us, what, four options?
This just feels to me as incomplete. I am not saying you can't have fun with 4e. I just don't think it is a complete product yet. I think that for long term fun you are going to need PHBII in the way that 3.5 really didn't need extra supplements (they were good though).
I think that, once it comes out, PHB, PHBII, MM, DMG will be regarded as 'the new core'. And this bothers me, they have sold us an incomplete product and all anyone can talk about is PHBII because it is apparent the game just isn't right without.
So that is my opinion so now I ask you: am I a paranoid nut or am I onto something?
Monks and bards were both generally considered to be weak classes (ok so was the fighter, but you need the fighter in 4e to be your baseline defender). Druids were not only overpowered, but did a lot of different things (shapechanging, summoning, healing, direct damage, etc...) and didn't have a single focus. Barbarians and sorcerers were a lot like fighters and wizards respectively. And, though you didn't mention them, I think psionics are a great part of D&D but they have had many past balance issues.
I think WoTC decided to go with the "easy" and rigidly defined classes first to get the base of the system working, and then balance and diferentiate the "harder" classes later. I have no problem with this approach - I love the druid, bard, barbarian, etc... But I would prefer WoTC take the time to do them right and make them playable, distinct, and fair before they are published.
It's for the Martial, Arcane and Divine Classes (like the "Complete XYZ" books form 3.5)
So if you think it's "incomplete" then you will see, yea thats kinda true but on purpose, the other class-flavors will come with the other PHBs
So if your looking for arkana, you look in PHB1
if your looking for Nature PHB2
and so on...
Bel
But I'm really not sure about 8 new basic classes in PHB2 - few new(old?) ones would be great, and bunch of extra stuff for the PHB 1 classes.
The major reason why I quit M:TG was in order to participate at a tourney you had to have a 1" thick binder with all the erratum. I just bought my PHB two days ago and already I have to download an erratum sheet.
No more.
Just produce a product and leave it be. People will be far more willing to put money into a product if they get quality first time around. By continually dishing out changes to the "finished product" you're essentially telling your customers that you can't get it right while begging them for more cash.
So far the rules for 4e seem decent enough they don't need to suffer this fate. I hope WoTC realizes this and don't go down the same road they did with 3e.
My only desire is they stop dishing erratum out like it's candy.
The major reason why I quit M:TG was in order to participate at a tourney you had to have a 1" thick binder with all the erratum. I just bought my PHB two days ago and already I have to download an erratum sheet.
No more.
Just produce a product and leave it be. People will be far more willing to put money into a product if they get quality first time around. By continually dishing out changes to the "finished product" you're essentially telling your customers that you can't get it right while begging them for more cash.
Most people think it's good if a company wishes to fix their mistakes, and does it soon. There's no such thing as a perfect product, and making errata just fixes errors and answers questions that would be asked by dozens or hundeds of people otherwise.
I definitely think it's a plus.
bunch of extra stuff for the PHB 1 classes.
Extra stuff will be in Power splat books if you want it.
Read the FrontCover VERY carefully and you will reallisse what the PHB1 is meant for
It's for the Martial, Arcane and Divine Classes (like the "Complete XYZ" books form 3.5)
So if you think it's "incomplete" then you will see, yea thats kinda true but on purpose,
Just because they made that decision intentionally doesn't mean its right
And yet if they had included the missiing classes and races, the PHB would have been 350+ pages and probably $45-$50 (USA) and you would have complained about that.
Looking at the font size and the amount of whitespace, I doubt that. At a guess, I'd say WotC could have crammed 50% more material in the 4E PHB had they used the formatting and layout of the 3E core books. I think the 4E books are more legible because of it, but even a handful more classes should have been possible had they really wanted to include them - without adding to the page count.
the PHB would have been 350+ pages and probably $45-$50 (USA) and you would have complained about that.
Bel
It's idiotic to complain about a complete product if it's accurately priced. I'd gladly pay $50 for a good 350+ page book if it was complete and lacked a "cliffhanger" ending, "Tune in next week for more of those rules you need!"
Your proposed scenario is a far better choice. I'd pay the added $15 to have those rules included in the main book. As it is, prepare to shell out another $35 for that same material.
And just so you're aware: PHB 320 pages, $35; DMG 220 pages, $35. That's 100 extra pages in the PHB at no extra cost. I guarantee you the DMG needed to be larger *cough*ChannelDivinityforMalignGods*cough*.
It's idiotic to complain about a complete product if it's accurately priced. I'd gladly pay $50 for a good 350+ page book if it was complete and lacked a "cliffhanger" ending, "Tune in next week for more of those rules you need!"
Your proposed scenario is a far better choice. I'd pay the added $15 to have those rules included in the main book. As it is, prepare to shell out another $35 for that same material.
And just so you're aware: PHB 320 pages, $35; DMG 220 pages, $35. That's 100 extra pages in the PHB at no extra cost. I guarantee you the DMG needed to be larger *cough*ChannelDivinityforMalignGods*cough*.
Oh, I forgot, it would also take 6 more months to come out, Happy Holidays!
And I addressed your Evil NPCs over in that thread.
Bel
But as usual WOTC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Fandoms...
All you need to play.
All you need to play D&D. Not all you need to play your ongoing D&D campaign. I do feel it's a valid remark that quite a bit of stuff is missing, even it's just missing 'for now'.
Star Trek: First Contact was incomplete because Cpt. Kirk wasn't in it.
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings was incomplete because Gollum wasn't completely shown in it.
Can I go on?
Whoever used the line "tune in next week for the rest of the rules" is spot on, but what bothers me is that it is not next week, or next month. If it was like that I could just about live with it because you get a few weeks to play around with 4e before the next PHB. But it is coming out "sometime next year". 6+ months away... there product just isn't ready yet.
No way known I would have complained about paying 1.5x the amount for PHB if it was complete... or even 2x because I had to buy two books. If it is a complete set of rules it is a complete set!
But probably the most frustating thing about it is simple: there is really nothing we can do. WotC are going to make more money out of this system, we aren't going to quit our hobby, and by the time 5e comes around this whole mess will be largely forgotten.
And yet if they had included the missiing classes and races, the PHB would have been 350+ pages and probably $45-$50 (USA) and you would have complained about that.
Bel
Yeah right i would have bought three of them. And it would have been AWESOME! This arguments sounds like "Yeah but if they had put out a high quality product, you would not have liked it". Riiiiiiiight. ;)
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was incomplete because it didn't have Lando in it.
Star Trek: First Contact was incomplete because Cpt. Kirk wasn't in it.
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings was incomplete because Gollum wasn't completely shown in it.
Can I go on?
Depends on how much you enjoy sounding like a prick. :P
Looking at the font size and the amount of whitespace, I doubt that. At a guess, I'd say WotC could have crammed 50% more material in the 4E PHB had they used the formatting and layout of the 3E core books. I think the 4E books are more legible because of it, but even a handful more classes should have been possible had they really wanted to include them - without adding to the page count.
^ This quote is pure truth...
All you need to play D&D. Not all you need to play your ongoing D&D campaign...
I dont get this remark.
Im geared up to run a brand spanking new 4E campaign. We have complete characters, a region for them to explore and attain some XPs before they go out into the Big Bad World, and so on.
I had everything I needed to construct the campaign, right out of the three 4E books.
I anticipate this game will run for some time. I actually -hope- that the PCs attain Epic level eventually.
What am I missing?
(Now, if you meant that you cant continue running a conversion of your previous 3.5 game world with the new 4E mechanics, youre right about that. The two systems are practically incompatible).
I agree: it's bollox. They've left a bunch of stuff out of the "core" books with the explicit intention of selling it to you at a later date. They don't want you spending money on WoW (or whatever other games you play) they want you spending it on their horde of "supplementary" materials. In that regard, think of D&D as any other MMORPG, the next book is your monthly cost to play.
First. Yes the held some stuff back from us to make more money. ITS CALLED MARKETING!! Second! Most of the class stuff for the other classes (barb, Druid, Bard, ETC...) are still in play testing. I don't know about you but i would rather get classes that work other then incomplete works.
First. Yes the held some stuff back from us to make more money. ITS CALLED MARKETING!!
Calling something marketing isn't any sort of rebuttal to his argument. Selling incomplete products and forcing the user to spend more might be marketing, but we don't have to like it. Giving away free heroin to teenagers so they become addicted and buy more product off you is also marketing, but again, you don't have to like it.
Second! Most of the class stuff for the other classes (barb, Druid, Bard, ETC...) are still in play testing. I don't know about you but i would rather get classes that work other then incomplete works.
Right, and I don't know about you, but I would rather get a book that is complete than incomplete works.
What they have given us is a set of rules and a playable game. Sure some people wanting to convert an ongoing campaign into 4e will likely run into issues. This is nothing new as this came up with OD&D to AD&D (which added the concept of a bunch more alignments, and split race and class) and revised AD&D to 3e.
3e to 3.5e and AD&D to revised AD&D were likely the easiest translation since they were only minor alterations to the previous incarnation of the ruleset so required the least amount of alteration to older sourcebooks.
for me though, it is more that there isnt enough material to make an entie character from the classes given.
there are only something like 16 epic level feats, and around 6-7 of these are [weapon group] mastery feats. i cant remeber how many feats you get at during epic levels (something like 6?). there just doesnt seem to be much choice at all at these levels...
hence it will be REQUIRED to buy the 'splat books' such as martial handbook if you want to make a complete character, as opposed to buying them just if they interest, you but not being neccessary, like in 3.5.
as people have mentioned, this is an intentional marketing ploy to sell more books etc etc, but it just annoys me (and obviously many others) a fair bit.
luckily im no longer a student so i can probably afford to buy the books!
(Now, if you meant that you cant continue running a conversion of your previous 3.5 game world with the new 4E mechanics, youre right about that. The two systems are practically incompatible).
Bingo.
However, the systems being incompatible isn't that big a deal. The problem is the lack of several broad character concept options that were available in 3E. I don't need a class that's named "barbarian", but I do need ("need" is probably overstating things, but we do have a lot invested in our ongoing 3E campaign, and I'm not talking about money) to be able to create a 4E character that at least feels like the character of that class in 3E. Same for bards, wizards that aren't controllers, druids, etc.
This is nothing new as this came up with OD&D to AD&D (which added the concept of a bunch more alignments, and split race and class) and revised AD&D to 3e.
I doubt any such problems followed from *adding* basic features. 4E, for now, took them *away*.
If you go back to the period of 1983-1985, you would see two things: 1) The final version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and 1) The fourth version of Dungeons & Dragons (which we will skip).
Because by 1985, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons had the three core rulebooks, and optional expansions (including Monster Manual II). But it was in 1985 when they published the first book that could be dubbed "Players Handbook II". The book was called "Unearthed Arcana".
This book follows a similar chemistry that the upcoming Player's Handbook II is going to contain: Additional rules and character classes. Meaning that while the current core rulebooks, such as that from 1st edition, cover everything to start a D&D campaign... The future expansions are meant for more advanced players and DMs.
Plus, by the time the second "Player's Handbook" comes out, people should be used to the system. Which means that if they turn the upcoming classes into more advanced classes, people will be able to play them with ease. Which shows that they made this decision when they wanted to go back to basics (an epic fail with 3.0/3.5e, IMHO).
And my conclusion, doing this will allow both the player and DM to have more fluid options. This, opposed to having every possible rule and class be crammed into a single book. Something that can make a fluid system become problematic and also be made for more advanced players.
Then again, I am hoping they will not call it "Player's Handbook II" and give it a more "expanded" name. So that way, it would say that everything is optional, and made for more experienced gamers. (But I guess it is better than the original Dungeons & Dragons' fourth edition, which consisted of four boxed sets, with an optional fifth box set. :P)
That is the main reason I, myself am upset with any missing content that is promised to be given at a later date. It's always treated as the proverbial red-headed stepchild. I'll be elated if supplemental material comes out that is useful, well crafted, complete, and inexpensive. The chances of this happening are quite low.
I mean, just because you are this kind of gamer does not mean every other gamer is like this or that. Plus, you are also immediately assuming more stuff, and are assuming that 4e is going to be just like the previous editions.
I will agree that 2.5e was too rules heavy. And I will also agree that both 3e and 3.5e was spammed with rules and pointless stuff. Then again, they did introduce Duskblade in the previous Player's Handbook II. But I do believe they made that a prestige class.
In any case, I do not buy what I find to be bad. I buy what I could use. 3e and 3.5e was not that, since I had seen it being an issue for new gamers and can be abusable by power gamers. Which made me glad when I finally got to see that 4e was more Dungeons & Dragons than Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
But hey... I know for a fact I will only have two books. And if the quoted "Player's Handbook II" is good, much less made for more experienced gamers, I might have a third book to get (note that I am no longer a DM so I will not buy books that only DMs really need).
And besides, if they are truly going back to basics this time, we can just hope that they name this book the "Epic Player's Handbook" than just the "Player's Handbook II". (As in giving rules on customizations on sub-races and magic items, as well as new classes, races, and maybe rules on going up to level 50.
But that is my opinion in terms of keeping the core rules basic and adding usable supplements that would please more advanced gamers. :P
*goes and eyes 3 pages of errata*
You know, maybe they will even give it more...
But aside from that introduction, Rapscallion made a very clever point.
I wouldn't know, I tuned out after the insult.
Rapscallion, I can see what you are saying. But that execution was just plain offensive in some ways.
But that is my opinion in terms of keeping the core rules basic and adding usable supplements that would please more advanced gamers. :P
I'm happy to read you're one of the discerning buyers.
Unfortunately I foresee that the sycophantic fanboys will be the only ones pleased. I believe the proverbial fools will soon be parted with their money. But those with any frugality will be forced to slog through hackneyed additions to find the smallest bit of worthwhile material, only then to debate if it's worth the asking price.
Only time shall tell though. But though vocal, I am quite patient.
Someone here is a snobby elitist?
Beats being a bleating sheep.
Core in 4e doesn't mean PHB, MM, DMG only anymore. It's no longer 3 books. You can not like that sure, but that's the reality. There's nothing wrong with anything WotC has done with their current 4e PHB. Considering you couldn't reproduce every character you had from 2e into a 3e variant right out of the door expecting to be able to do so for 4e is completely stupid.
The Core will have everything you need, it's just more books now. If you're willing to pay $50 for a single giant PHB, then I really don't see what you're complaining about having it split up into two books for. It's the same thing, you just got the first half early.
hell when I made the change from 2e to 3e I couldn't play my favourite characters because they're all psionic. Where's my vindication? Is WotC greedy bastids because they didn't give me my Psion right out the door when 3e hit? No, they're not.
Be patient, you'll get all you need eventually. And until then you have everything you need to improvise, or I suppose continue to nerdrage... whatever makes you happy.
says some stuff.
Alternatively you could have read the statement I made about Wizards having a track record of releasing substandard supplementary material, and realized my true concerns with their "core rules: part the second." If you actually believe they're giving as serious thought to this next wave of books, I think they have you hook, line, and sinker.
You're right! It's a wayyy better deal to buy two books for $70 than a single book with the exact same information for only $50! What was I thinking?
I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you, sir.
Considering you couldn't reproduce every character you had from 2e into a 3e variant right out of the door expecting to be able to do so for 4e is completely stupid.
Actually, I could reproduce every (core) character I had from AD&D to 3E right out the door. I expect there may have been some exceptions for others, but by and large 3E didn't remove or delay any *core* options.
I don't feel like there really needs to be a class called "bard," "druid," or "monk." Or, for that matter, I don't feel the need for a class called "rogue," "paladin," or "ranger."
However, I do think there needs to be a way that a character can shapeshift into other forms (start small -- witch turns into cat type thing -- and balance it building off the work on the polymorph subschool done with the 3.5 PHB II polymorph subschool.). In 3.5, that could be a sorcerer, or a druid, or an egoist. In 4e, call it whatever. I do think there needs to be a way to make a character who can kick ass unarmored, with his bare fists and no overt magic. It could be a "fighter" who specializes in unarmed, unarmored fighting rather than a "monk" for all I care. I do think there needs to be a way for a character to wave his hand and say "these aren't the warforged you're looking for" and get past some inquisitive guards.
To me, these things are like playing a sneaky, thief-like character: you can play D&D without it, but the game isn't complete without at least the capacity to play one.
Suppose that the PHB had shipped with no rogue-like classes. You could play a cleric, a fighter, a paladin, warlord, a wizard, but no one who really specialized in stealth and other thieving arts. WotC says that rogues and their ilk will be coming out in PHB II. It would still be playable, but don't you think there's at least a case to be made that it would have been better for them to delay release and release it once they had worked out a way of playing a rogue than to release their work so far and then promise that rogues would come later?
That's my attitude, I suppose. I feel that many high fantasy and swords and sorcery tropes simply don't exist in current 4e. To me, these issues aren't something you can just brush aside and say "we'll get around to it eventually." You can't just release the first Monster Manual with no orcs, dragons, or demons and say, "eh. We have the giants, goblins, kobolds, mindflayers, golems, undead, and a bunch of other things worked out alright. Orcs, dragons, and demons will come eventually in MM 2. In the meantime, there are enough monsters to use for a whole game." Well, you can, but I think it would be better practice to figure out essential things like orcs and demons and put them in the first MM, even if that means a delay.
That's my attitude about the "missing stuff" of PHB I.
-says some stuff-
You talk big, but in the end you'll own all the same books as the 'drek lappers' you think yourself so superior to... the only difference is that they arent having an emo spaz-out on the internet because they think D&D isnt complete without a
bard.
[indent]
But hey... I know for a fact I will only have two books. And if the quoted "Player's Handbook II" is good, much less made for more experienced gamers, I might have a third book to get (note that I am no longer a DM so I will not buy books that only DMs really need).
The first PHB is one book, and the PHB2 may be your third book; so what's the second book? Surely not the MM. Perhaps I'm old-school, but (as a DM) I have trouble understanding why a player would need a copy of the MM at his disposal.
Requiring it as a reference for playing a monstrous PC is not an excuse. Asking your DM if it is permissible to play one of these races goes easily hand-in-hand with obtaining the PC stats for the race in question.[/indent]
RanQuickFox:
[indent]
You talk big, but in the end you'll own all the same books as the 'drek lappers' you think yourself so superior to... the only difference is that they arent having an emo spaz-out on the internet because they think D&D isnt complete without a bard.
I second this!
Though I do miss the bard.
[/indent]The first PHB is one book, and the PHB2 may be your third book; so what's the second book? Surely not the MM. Perhaps I'm old-school, but (as a DM) I have trouble understanding why a player would need a copy of the MM at his disposal.
Requiring it as a reference for playing a monstrous PC is not an excuse. Asking your DM if it is permissible to play one of these races goes easily hand-in-hand with obtaining the PC stats for the race in question.
There is no concievable way I could agree with you more. If I thought there were even the remotest chance that I could have avoided the responsibility of running one or more games (I'm currently slated for one but that number will likely increase rapidly as off group DMs quit and more of my friends purchase PHBs) and there are few worse cases of metagaming than a player that has thoroughly studied the MM. As if it weren't difficult enough to separate player/character knowledge just by having experience with the system they have to go through the trouble of intentionally getting the knowledge ahead of time just to make it all the more difficult. Whatever happened to a new player borrowing a PHB for a while and eventually buying one of their own? Why would a player that is not a DM ever need the DMG or MM?
And it's not like they didn't put out an article on how you could convert your missing "core" 3.x classes to 4E.
Nice, but hardly cuts the mustard. There's a list of illusionist powers in DDI, but that doesn't let me play my conjurer. Without rage, our barbarian just isn't the same. No shapechanging makes the druid a sad not-panda.
Balance: To those who believe that core products are always more balanced than splats...no. Not at all, at least where WotC is concerned. Looking at the 3e PHB, we have CLERIC, DRUID, and WIZARD as the major powerhouses...and then fighter, monk, and bard as the mostly useless ones. Past level 5, casters rule if they're played well, period. On the flip side, melee characters in 4e are based mostly on ToB classes, and casters have been toned down to MoI/ToM levels, which is why they're now so close together in power level.
Missing Classes: We're spoiled, we really are. People are complaining about the "classics" not being in the PHB1--bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer. Well, guess what? They aren't classic classes at all! The bard wasn't even an actual class in 1e, just a fighter/thief/druid mix with special rules; the monk was left out of the 2e PHB entirely; the druid became a specialty priest offshoot of the cleric in 2e; the barbarian was a kit for the fighter; and the sorcerer was invented solely because of Vancian casting. Don't complain that "those evil money-grubbing bastards at WotC are leaving stuff out for marketing purposes!"...because T$R did worse than that when it comes to grabbing money from customers. (Why do you think people always spell it with a '$'?)
Errata: This is our own fault. All through 3e we complained that the books were badly written and that we needed errata (and rightly so, I might add; they obviously hadn't discovered proofreading over at WotC HQ). The Sage and Customer Service tried to answer questions, but they were self-contradictory, they went against blatantly obvious rules in the books, and were generally incompetent at it.
Now, WotC is releasing errata every time a potential confusion is noted, so they don't get dinged for that and they don't have to rely on Customer Service...and of course we're complaining about too much errata. You can't win.
Pricing: Rapscallion, even you have to admit--when you said "But those with any frugality will be forced to slog through hackneyed additions to find the smallest bit of worthwhile material, only then to debate if it's worth the asking price," well, why would you expect that to change? WotC has always had an issue with books that only had a few diamonds and lots of rough. (Look at Complete Psionic--even rabid psionics fans won't touch the thing.)
However, the one good thing about the new PHB layout is they are actually attempting to fix this. Complete Mage was pretty good, class- and spell-wise...but the first two chapters were all space-wasting "How do you play a caster (as if you haven't figured it out by now)?" stuff. Complete Psionic was 1/8 worthwhile material and 7/8 something unrepeatable. On the other hand, from what I've seen the PHB is well-balanced, crunch-heavy and not laden down with tons and tons and tons and tons of fluff/play help (that's the DMG's job). You may not like the way they changed things (I sorta do), you may not like the way they balanced things (...meh.), and you may not like some of the new stuff (I mostly do), but you can't say that any of it is useless or irrelevant for playing 4e.
I don't appreciate being called a sheep, a suckup, or anything like that; far from it. I have no compunction at all about calling out WotC if I think they've screwed up. However, so far as I've seen, they've done a good job on the balance for 4e, they've been releasing regular errata for the first time in months (if not years), and while their marketing and PR (and DDI) could use a bit of work, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
That is all.
People are complaining about the "classics" not being in the PHB1--bard, barbarian, druid, monk, and sorcerer.
No. I'm not mentioning anything about 'classics'. I'm simply saying that a number of basic classes that were core in 3E (or even earlier, considering the different kinds of magic that were available long before 3E) are no longer core (or at least not core enough to be in the 1st PHB) in 4E, which means a number of characters from my ongoing campaign can't be converted, which means my ongoing campaign can't be converted, which means sticking with 3E or starting over mid-arc.
No. I'm not mentioning anything about 'classics'. I'm simply saying that a number of basic classes that were core in 3E (or even earlier, considering the different kinds of magic that were available long before 3E) are no longer core (or at least not core enough to be in the 1st PHB) in 4E, which means a number of characters from my ongoing campaign can't be converted, which means my ongoing campaign can't be converted, which means sticking with 3E or starting over mid-arc.
People aren't complaining here about the classics, but most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over losing the bard is exactly that. I was just bringing it up because people feel entitled to have every class exactly the way it was, and since they were mentioned here (in another context) I was getting it out of my system.
Conversion problems are an entirely different issue. My group is still playing 3e and we don't intend to start 4e until the current campaign is done for exactly that reason; we've got a druid, a Setting Sun swordsage, and a binder that we can't quite convert now. I agree that it's a bit of a pain (okay, a big pain) to convert systems mid-campaign, and I have no problem with the people who're saying "Well WotC, we can't play until we have the druid, so we're going to hold off until then. Thanks but no thanks." It's the people who say that WotC has an obligation to put the druid in the first PHB, that TSR was so much better about it, and so on, that get on my nerves.
well, why would you expect that to change? WotC has always had an issue with books that only had a few diamonds and lots of rough.
I don't appreciate being called a sheep, a suckup, or anything like that; far from it. I have no compunction at all about calling out WotC if I think they've screwed up. However, so far as I've seen, they've done a good job on the balance for 4e, they've been releasing regular errata for the first time in months (if not years), and while their marketing and PR (and DDI) could use a bit of work, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I never claimed initial classes were balanced. But it's not like a supplements ever helped to rein this in anyway, they usually just accented the problem. However, I will admit that Wizards did a good job of balancing the classes this time around.
I don't expect WotC to change for the better. I'm watching as they change for the worse. They're routine ball-droppers, they're only going to become more so. Some people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I've done business with them for far too long to have any faith. From now on, any material you get to help you fill the "gaps" in this system is going to be bubblegum (perhaps they won't chew it first) rather than the cement that is needed, II or otherwise. The telltale sign will be if a new book sports a name different from the Design or Strike Team member's.
Every time a D&D book is referred to with a roman numeral, I shall now chuckle to myself. Whenever I hear " II" I'll just hear, "Matrix II."
Admittedly the "we're spoiled" argument falls on deaf ears. Those who wave that flag deserve the wallet reaming they setup for themselves.
I honestly hope they prove me wrong though, I’d love to be whisked away to a magical land of chocolate waterfalls and gumdrop fairies; where D&D is perfect and is played every day in between sex training (partners provided at the door) and How-to-Eat-This-Really-Tasty-Pizza-for-College-Credit 101.
I never claimed initial classes were balanced. But it's not like a supplements ever helped to rein this in anyway, they usually just accented the problem. However, I will admit that Wizards did a good job of balancing the classes this time around.
Well, for every Spell Compendium there's a Tome of Battle--lots of splats had power creep from here to Limbo, but there were several that were better-balanced than Core and helped correct that.
From now on, any material you get to help you fill the "gaps" in this system is going to be bubblegum (perhaps they won't chew it first) rather than the cement that is needed, II or otherwise. The telltale sign will be if a new book sports a name different from the Design or Strike Team member's.
I know what you mean. The Psi folks joke that it looks like 1/8 of Complete Psionics was written by Bruce Cordell rather than the other random guy on the cover...and coincidentally only 1/8 of the book was usable.
Games are meant to be as enjoyable as possible. There are tradeoffs -- such as, perhaps, between enjoyable richness and enjoyable simplicity -- but the idea that it's a vice to want the most from a game, and that people should instead develop the ascetic virtue to muddle through a game in spite of not giving them what they want is just wrongheaded.
For some misguided defenders of 3.5 against 4e, this manifests as "you want simplicity and easy rules? You're spoiled! You should grow up and learn to deal with rules that are sometimes difficult and unclear!"
For some misguided defenders of 4e against 3.5, this manifests as "you want to play a monk or other bare-fisted martial artist? You're spoiled! You should grow up and learn to deal with limited concepts and the inability to represent characters that could easily exist previously!"
But I must digress and say how I feel (again)... :P
If the books are anything like the original Dungeons & Dragons, then the quoted "Player's Handbook II" is going to be part of the "Core II" portion. That, and we might be seeing a "Dungeon Master's Guide II" book as well for this. Meaning that they may go from Starter-to-Paragon rules, and delve into the Epic portion of things.
Meaning that instead of allowing a character to ending characters and campaigns at level 30, rules will allow where the epic rules left off. Magic items and weapons increase in levels, and possibly in modifiers as well. Plus, a new XP chart that goes from levels 31-50. And the usual new races and classes. (But that is for a different topic.)
My point being is that if this is true, or not, they are trying put D&D 4e into layers, and not clumps (as they have done before). Which means that instead of having to buy multiple books to make classes, races or rules become more balanced, they could be doing just that in the same manner they did with the fourth version of the original Dungeons & Dragons.
Meaning instead of buying inferior products, like the previous editions eventually had, they might be focusing on a more balanced system that is more gamer friendly. As in the idea that 3e/3.5e is Windows Vista, and 4e is OS X.
Thus, only assumption will make one expect an inferior product in the end, opposed to assuming they are trying to make it be a balanced system from the beginning to the end.
And mrpopstar, I am planning to purchase the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. It sounds like the 4e version of both books may be like the Forgotten Realms answer to the PHB and DMG. But we will see. I am busy hoping for rules on how to create a Zhai-like character, etc. :P
And for those who are claiming we are 'spoilt' in demanding more, note that it isn't one specific thing (i.e. I want a druid!) that is the problem, it is all of it. The missing classes, yes. But also there is one controller. I mean, check out the epic level feats! There are no where near enough of them to design a bunch of epic level characters.
Again: The product is not complete.
I for one was incredibly dissapointed in the absense of druids, since I have been playing them in just about every gaming system I had the option to. But you know what, I bought the books, really liked the system, and I will wait patiently for my class to re-emerge. If a book comes out I don't care about (FR) I will not buy it, and anyone can do the same. Like many people here have said, they did not sell an incomplete product, they sold a product that lacked the depth you felt (and I, for that matter) it should have.
Let's see the facts here, shall we?
1) The fourth version of Dungeons & Dragons was put into five boxed sets. This was done so those who are not hardcore gamers could delve into the game and go as far as they want.
2) The fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (sans the "Advanced") is stated to have two Player's Handbooks, as well as a possible second Dungeon Master's Guide could be announced. And they have only hinted at new races and classes.
In other words, I have to believe what I said (posted 1 hour, 56 minutes before you said something that ultimately disregarded what I said). And that is the fact that they are putting out the system in layers, and not clumps (like they did before with the previous edition).
This means, if true, Core Rules I was made for both Heroic and Paragon level campaigns. And Core Rules II will be made for Epic level campaigns. That should be self explanatory. Especially since the Epic portion is something that needs a second book to explain.
And again, all I know is that the "Player Handbook II" will be set up for those ready for Epic level campaigns and beyond. Plus, by separating this into a second book will allow new gamers to get used to the system before delving into the more advanced stuff.
Then again, the only feeling I got from this topic is "The mighty Disco only regards what the mighty Disco wants to believe." And all because the mighty Disco does not know anything about the upcoming book, or why they are handling the system like this.
I see it as it currently appears as, a system that went back to basics and ends it where the Epic rules can begin in a book for those who want to do epic campaigns (and maybe beyond).
I may be proven wrong, but I know it is a lot more accurate than claiming it is an "incomplete product" without a complete explanation. (That, and evidence that proves that ALL gamers are experts and D&D 4e needed every rule clumped into a single set of books.)
I said my peace, and don't want to say anything more... especially after having what I stated be disregarded.
... And that is the fact that they are putting out the system in layers, and not clumps (like they did before with the previous edition).
This means, if true, Core Rules I was made for both Heroic and Paragon level campaigns. And Core Rules II will be made for Epic level campaigns. That should be self explanatory. Especially since the Epic portion is something that needs a second book to explain.
And again, all I know is that the "Player Handbook II" will be set up for those ready for Epic level campaigns and beyond. Plus, by separating this into a second book will allow new gamers to get used to the system before delving into the more advanced stuff.
Adding base classes and races later on sounds like clumps to me, not layers. And a class like the bard or even spell lists for different kinds of wizards should not be 'more advanced' stuff. This isn't just about Epic levels. This affects gameplay from level 1 onwards.
Disco...
Let's see the facts here, shall we?
1) The fourth version of Dungeons & Dragons was put into five boxed sets. This was done so those who are not hardcore gamers could delve into the game and go as far as they want.
2) The fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (sans the "Advanced") is stated to have two Player's Handbooks, as well as a possible second Dungeon Master's Guide could be announced. And they have only hinted at new races and classes.
In other words, I have to believe what I said (posted 1 hour, 56 minutes before you said something that ultimately disregarded what I said). And that is the fact that they are putting out the system in layers, and not clumps (like they did before with the previous edition).
This means, if true, Core Rules I was made for both Heroic and Paragon level campaigns. And Core Rules II will be made for Epic level campaigns. That should be self explanatory. Especially since the Epic portion is something that needs a second book to explain.
And again, all I know is that the "Player Handbook II" will be set up for those ready for Epic level campaigns and beyond. Plus, by separating this into a second book will allow new gamers to get used to the system before delving into the more advanced stuff.
Then again, the only feeling I got from this topic is "The mighty Disco only regards what the mighty Disco wants to believe." And all because the mighty Disco does not know anything about the upcoming book, or why they are handling the system like this.
I see it as it currently appears as, a system that went back to basics and ends it where the Epic rules can begin in a book for those who want to do epic campaigns (and maybe beyond).
I may be proven wrong, but I know it is a lot more accurate than claiming it is an "incomplete product" without a complete explanation. (That, and evidence that proves that ALL gamers are experts and D&D 4e needed every rule clumped into a single set of books.)
I said my peace, and don't want to say anything more... especially after having what I stated be disregarded.
Honestly I think that we pretty much agree on all fronts except: I don't like it and you do.
You agree that Epic isn't complete yet. I would say that compared to 3.5 PHB, 4ePHB doens't offer anywhere near the depth of a party that 3.5 does. As my much used example: there is only one controller. Now although you haven't specifically said, I'll assume you agree with that, the only difference is that you think it is okay.
You don't mind the fact the rules are "in layers". You call them "layers" I say, at the moment, layer one needs layer two to really form a complete system.
Look - I am not accusing WotC of breaching antitrust laws or wronging me personally so that I am going to swear a blood oath. I am just saying that this business model (layers, not clumps) sucks. In my opinion anyway. Because you should be able to walk in, buy the product (which should be available on the release date), and have something that forms enough of rules so you that are not hindered in anyway. I don't think you can do that with 4e, I think you can in 3.5. I liked the 3.5 business model better. You clearly don't.
So the reason I "ignored" (sorry I didn't know you expected an answer from me) your post was that I didn't really think we could argue over opinions. I can't convince you 'like' the business model of 3.5 better - and vice versa.
The mighy disco has spoken.
As such, I think 4e is miles ahead of 3e (4e doesn't look like it will need a 4.5e at this stage) and I definitely prefer the addition of new areas to the game rather then the mess that was 3e.
A lot of people here have good points, even the guys arguing against my point. But can I just clarify that it is not the cost that I am annoyed it is the delay. PHBII is set for "sometime next year" which means we have to wait over six months before the product is complete.
And for those who are claiming we are 'spoilt' in demanding more, note that it isn't one specific thing (i.e. I want a druid!) that is the problem, it is all of it. The missing classes, yes. But also there is one controller. I mean, check out the epic level feats! There are no where near enough of them to design a bunch of epic level characters.
Again: The product is not complete.
Patience builds character... in this case the character it will build is a bard, druid or monk :D
Would you prefer that 4E had been delayed while WoTC worked on these other classes until they could release them all in one book? The obvious disadvantages of this would be... that those of us who are happy to play D&D sans a few features of a previous edition couldnt enjoy it in the meantime? that the 'compete' PHB would have been twice as thick and thus twice as expensive?
As for your epic feat complaint, you realize you can still take feats from lower tiers to fill your epic-level feat slots if there arent enough attractive choices for you at epic tier? Putting the feats into separate tiers was a much better idea than the feat-chains we had to endure in 3E that were not adequate at doing what they were designed to do : restricting some feats from being taken at inappropriately low levels. So just because there are fewer feats to choose from in the higher tiers, does not make this a bad design choice... it just means that at the entry-levels to the paragon and epic tiers you will invest more heavily in the new more powerful feats you have access too, before eventually returning to an earlier tier for your remaining feats. If there were MORE feats the higher the tier, THAT would have been a bad design choice, since the most heavily played tiers of the game across game groups and campaigns are bound to be at the lower 2 tiers.
While I am sure additional feats, powers and various supplemental material will be released over the coming months and years for epic-tier characters, I do not agree that the epic-tier as it stands is 'incomplete', or merely the stepping stone to a yet higher tier. The PHB is quite explicit in its descriptions of the destinies that await heroes at 30th level... most of them involve the PC being retired once his destiny is fulfilled, giving closure to a character's adventures, a fitting end to an epic tale. Yeah yeah, previous editions had no hard cap on player levels, or had it at level 100 or some other arbitrary number, but there was never much supporting material written for characters of that level, and there were of course scaling issues that were never properly addressed, which of course is why a certain caliber of player loved it :P If it helps, think of level 30 as the NEW level 100... you know, like dog years or something, because 30 levels of 4E is proportionally equal to 100 levels in an older edition in terms of awesome?
D&D is largely composed of player-written material for its campaigns anyway... adventures the DM has created, even whole worlds, and not to mention the contributions of the PCs to a campaign in how they play the roles of their characters. To say that an edition of D&D is 'incomplete' without being handed every conceivable option on a silver platter by WoTC or whoever is just pure nonsense, because the game ultimately is what you make it... and a player who declares he cant play D&D without one piddling detail probably wasnt going to make much of it anyway.
I don't think comparing 3.5e with 4e is a fair comparison. 3.5e wasn't a new edition, it was an addition to an old edition to make it more balanced and as such benefited from the years of work done with the edition. I think 4.5e (should there be one) will definitely be comparable with 3.5e.
As such, I think 4e is miles ahead of 3e (4e doesn't look like it will need a 4.5e at this stage) and I definitely prefer the addition of new areas to the game rather then the mess that was 3e.
I agree with you. But to be honest, it 3e and 3.5e does feel like Windows Vista, while 4e feels like Apple's OS X. :P
And atop of that, they skipped the one rule when starting a new edition: Have it be simple for new gamers, and keep it familiar for those who have played the previous editions.
But I will leave the explanation for another topic, and move onto one worth discussing. :P
... that the 'compete' PHB would have been twice as thick and thus twice as expensive?
Actually, the complete 4E PHB in the layout of the 3E PHB would be no thicker than the incomplete 4E PHB as is (and would consequently be a lot cheaper than the 4E PHB and PHB II put together). ;)
Anyway, the price of the core books isn't set by the page count alone, that's a very minor consideration. WotC asks what they think they can ask (and presumably make sure the pagecount 'justifies' it).
Actually, the complete 4E PHB in the layout of the 3E PHB would be no thicker than the incomplete 4E PHB as is (and would consequently be a lot cheaper than the 4E PHB and PHB II put together). ;)
Anyway, the price of the core books isn't set by the page count alone, that's a very minor consideration. WotC asks what they think they can ask (and presumably make sure the pagecount 'justifies' it).
Besides the occasional bit of artwork, the 4E PHB is all rules, minimum fluff... the player classes require an average of 14 pages each compared to about 3 each in 3E... every race is given 2 pages for layout as opposed to 3/4 of a page in 3E... how can you look at the 4E PHB and say that its superior aesthetics are actually poor layout? the 3E PHB looks like a ratty old sketchbook with tiny fonts, information crammed in without regard for presentation.
I think the layout of the 4E PHB, once you get used to the differences is superior to the 3E PHB in every way... there is nothing I would cut out to make space, in fact the two editions are exactly the same numbers of pages, to attempt to cram in more content by crunching down the font, removing all the beautiful glossy color pictures, starting new sections in the middle of pages one line from the previous section... yuck.
With the removal of vancian spellcasting, the sorcerer is made redundant by the warlock... to have added the barbarian, bard, druid and monk would have required another 60 pages just for the classes and their powers, not to mention the additional pages needed for class specific items and feats.
tiny fonts
What you consider tiny fonts I consider big enough to still be easily readable yet small enough not to give me the feeling at least 25% of the space on a page goes wasted.
I didn't even say anything about the quality of the layout in general. I'm saying 4E seems not too care too much about using space efficiently. And as such, pointing to its pagecount as some sort of proof of full content is pointless.
Thanks in advance
In this thread there were a few mentions of new errata from Wizards and I was wondering where I could find this downloadable PDF at, I searched the wizards site but couldn't find it, any help anyone?
Thanks in advance
It's on the dndinsider.com site. Click on products then on Updates. They have pdf's for each of the three books as well as the last date of changes.
Direct link to the page
Took me a bit to find it myself.
Nice, but hardly cuts the mustard. There's a list of illusionist powers in DDI, but that doesn't let me play my conjurer. Without rage, our barbarian just isn't the same. No shapechanging makes the druid a sad not-panda.
True, creating a shape changing druid would not be possible at this time, but c'mon, the shape changing druid with natural spell was entirely broken.
Without rage, the barbarian isn't the same? You can't, for characterization and role-playing purposes, say that the barbarian goes into a rage? Or are you just looking for the rules that give you extra stuff for doing so?
In our 4E game, we have a fighter in the party who's description included the word "berserker". Now, there's nothing in the rules about being a berserker, but the character is played as if he is a berserker, and the player uses it as such. So he doesn't gain the temporary hit points, or additional strength, etc.
I do believe I predicted that WoTC was going to parse 4E into as many tiny pieces as they possibly could, sell you intentionally "incomplete" works, & then charge you again for all the "extra" missing stuff.
But I was completely drowned out by all the people who had been auto-sold on how great this new version was going to be....
But lo & behold, I was right.... Imagine that.
Patience builds character... in this case the character it will build is a bard, druid or monk :D
Would you prefer that 4E had been delayed while WoTC worked on these other classes until they could release them all in one book? The obvious disadvantages of this would be... that those of us who are happy to play D&D sans a few features of a previous edition couldnt enjoy it in the meantime? that the 'compete' PHB would have been twice as thick and thus twice as expensive?
If they had delayed the announcement of 4E till they were ready, we would never have known about it, true?
Bel
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy the basic core pack and homebrew everything. You could take things from other people's content on the forums and other websites. You could play a different game, or play any of the previous versions of this one. You've got options. No one's forcing you to do anything. Do you want to play the new game? Then play nice. Voice concerns, but don't act like children because the company that makes the game you want to play isn't doing things the way you want them to. You're being disrespectful to the designers, who really are players just like you, who are making changes that they'd like to see. They're even doing a lot more playtesting to make sure these same changes are things that the public at large would like. They can't please everyone, but they're damn-well trying.
Sure they're trying to make money from you. You think they're putting all this effort and work into something only to give it away for free? This is their job. They make a living off of this. Do you go to the gas station attendant and complain to him that you've got to keep coming back to get gas? You could ride a bike, or take public transportation. It may not be ideal, but those options are provided for you, and you're choosing not to partake. And heck, that attendant is trying to pump your gas for you. He didn't get up in the morning just for you to bite his head off for trying to do his job.
And I know I can't stop people from trolling the forums and calling people names, spouting thinly-veiled threats and accusations behind a wall of anonymity provided by the internet, but the vocal minority makes it a little more difficult to enjoy my browsing for well-reasoned and intelligent discourse.
----
And on that note, calling the books incomplete? In respect to what? If you're talking about 3.5, then the claim is absurd. This is not 3.5. It's not 3.75, either. It's new, it's got an entirely new set of core rules, mechanics, races, classes, options, et cetera. Just because it's not laid-out the same as the 3.5 rulebooks, with as much of the same things, is because they wanted it to feel new. It's not all the same stuff, it's not the same experience from before, because it is new. The PHB has some big text and white space? They could have crammed more in there? Of course they could! They chose not to, not to cheat you, but to make it easier to navigate the books, find specific information, and keep it from feeling bloated. Continue dwelling on your conspiracy theories, I know I can't reason with you on that respect. That doesn't change the fact that conspiracy theorists usually hole themselves up worrying about things that aren't true, and missing out on everything else as it passes them by.
For some misguided defenders of 4e against 3.5, this manifests as "you want to play a monk or other bare-fisted martial artist? You're spoiled! You should grow up and learn to deal with limited concepts and the inability to represent characters that could easily exist previously!"
There've been lots of posts since this one, and I'm not sure if this is specifically directed at my post, but I'd like to clarify my position regardless.
I don't feel that people who can't "deal with limited concepts and the inability to represent characters that could easily exist previously" are spoiled at all. Those who are upset that they can't make their old monk character with a Monk class aren't spoiled. Those who complain that the current setup of races and classes can't represent their 3e character adequately aren't spoiled. Those who whine "But I don't care if the druid wasn't balanced and it needs more work! I want it now!" are spoiled. Those who say "Who cares if it's redundant and they need to re-work it? The sorcerer was in 3e, so it has to be in 4e now!" are spoiled. There's a difference between not being able to remake 3e characters and complaining about it because they want to remake a character, and not being able to make 3e characters and complaining about it because they feel WotC owes them just because it's always been like that.
Several posters have complained about the druid coming out late and instead of considering that it doesn't fit in the Arcane/Martial/Divine scheme of the PHB 1, or admitting that it was way too powerful in 3e and needs to be toned down, or realizing that summoning, polymorph, and animal companions (its big schticks in 3e) haven't been worked out yet, they say Well, I don't care if some people's games are ruined because it's not balanced, and I don't care if it would feel weird in the PHB1, I want it now for my games because it's always been like that. Several more have complained about the bard coming out late and instead of considering that it doesn't quite fit as Arcane, or admitting that it wasn't very combat-effective in 3e relative to other casters, they say Well, I don't care if some people think the bard doesn't do well in combat, and I don't care if it would feel weird in the PHB1, I want it now for my games because it's always been like that.
That's what I mean when I say "spoiled"--players who don't care how a class fits into the overall 4e design scheme, or don't care what effect it would have on other groups based on untested mechanics, but who want a class only because it's always been that way...and even if you could make a good approximation of a druid with a Fey pact warlock or nature cleric, if it doesn't say "Druid" in the class description, they aren't happy.
Without rage, the barbarian isn't the same? You can't, for characterization and role-playing purposes, say that the barbarian goes into a rage? Or are you just looking for the rules that give you extra stuff for doing so?
No, no and yes, pretty much. 3E barbarians are built around their rage ability. They're not into having a special trick up their sleeve for every other situation, even if they probably have one or two. When it's money time, they get their rage on.
The druid in 3.x was overpowered because they did almost no playtesting and they even admitted NONE of them even played a druid at all before release so they had NO IDEA it would end up so overpowered.
They're being much more mindful of that this time around.
Yes they are holding back some of the 'good things' for later books but that's two-fold reasons. They want you to buy the later books and if they don't have some guaranteed 'desirables' in the book who's going to buy it? Also some of the stuff is being held off because it's too similar to other content in there (metallic dragons and chromatic dragons) so spreading it out amongst books means more variety in each book.
Also they're doing a different formatting of content in 4e. Now the PHBs focus on specific power sources and if you put too many power sources in one book you get an encyclopedia that focuses on classes and doesn't give the other information that a player needs to play, especially for the first book where the bulk of rules need to be. Later books can have more variety since the bulk of the rules for playing have been covered.
So far we've been given the names of 5 new races and 8 new classes. There will likely be some more rules (perhaps summoning and animal companions) as well as powers for the existing classes that weren't possible without the new rules. We could also see larger writeups for the new classes since they'll need to 'keep up' with the already released classes.
So far they've not said anything about new paragon paths or epic destinies but we'll likely have more of them and not just ones tied to the new classes and races. If the Warforged article is any sign we may see more racial specific paragon paths as well.
There's also likely going to be a bunch of new feats that affect existing races and classes as well as the new. We'll probably have a batch of new magic items and other items as well.
If they put in summoning and/or animal companions part of the PHB2 might include stat blocks for the possible results since the MM has very few 'normal animals' in its collection, especially the types a familiar or rangers animal companion would include.
I suspect summoning, animal companions, and familiars for balance will be mostly restricted to smaller animals that have little to no combat usefulness and be tied to rituals or class features. Ritual ones having a cost though might allow for more combat worthy since you can buy a riding or war horse or other combat-capable mount with enough gold so it balances out.
Sure a few favorite classes are left out but the truly core classes are all there. Barbarians, monks, psions, and bards while often around and options weren't truly core as they were missing (at first) from some editions and were often imbalanced, usually towards underpowered utnil splat books gave them more capabilities. WotC at least is going to put them out so it's not like they've said "hah no for you", its just " will be out later when it's ready and it's distinctive, balanced, and fun to play like all the other classes".