Too bad we can't go back to the good old days when the basic concept for the races were human, elf, dwarf, halfling and for the classes were the wizard, warrior, cleric, rogue.
The more "content" you add, the weaker the system will become or need I remind people of the massive library one would need to contain the 2nd edition system?
Instead of having 30+ classes, it would be nice to just have the basic 4 races and classes and then have any further books tie around those basic 4 (human book, wizard book)
Perhaps, since the company tries to "simplify" matters, they should give this a try.
Imagine, if, for a moment, there were only four "jobs". Then you could release new packages based on these four that were just tweaks, little changes to the idea that presented it in a new way. So if I have the "Mage" archetype, it would be examined in different ways through different "vocations", ways that people do mage things. So a nature mage would be different than a mind mage, or a heavenly-word-mage, or a spell-component-mage, or an arcane archer mage.
So these "vocations" would each be coupled to the core four "jobs" that they perform. Thus, simplicity is achieve by having the Fighter (the tough guy who blocks foes), the Thief (who shanks people for massive damage), the Mage (who attacks with AoE and status effects), and the Priest (who boosts the party with buffs and healing). And these "jobs" would apply to the entire game, thus allowing you to publish different "vocations" with the same "job", just approaching it in different ways.
And there are 30+ classes? It's no wonder they need to make an "Essentials" line - too much too fast. Try explaining the game in its entirety to a new player, showing every class, every feat and their head would probably explode.
25 classes by my count.
Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, Wizard in PHB1 (8)
Swordmage in FRPG (1)
Avenger, Invoker, Bard, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, Warden in PHB2 (8)
Artificer in EPG (1)
Assassin in Dragon (1)
Runepriest, Seeker, Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion in PHB3 (6)
25 in all
Too bad we can't go back to the good old days when the basic concept for the races were human, elf, dwarf, halfling and for the classes were the wizard, warrior, cleric, rogue.
You mean the "good ol' days" where the classes were Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Dwarf and Elf?
The more "content" you add, the weaker the system will become or need I remind people of the massive library one would need to contain the 2nd edition system?
Why does this necessarily create a weaker system? Even (Basic) Dungeons & Dragons had a massive catalog at the end before they discontinued it and released Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition) (If you will recall, for quite a few years, Basic D&D and AD&D were releasing products concurrently, probably splitting their market.)
Instead of having 30+ classes, it would be nice to just have the basic 4 races and classes and then have any further books tie around those basic 4 (human book, wizard book)
And what would be in those splat books, hmmm? More racial options for humans, such as frostfell dweller, desert dweller, seaman, perhaps with unique traits that come from being born and raised in those regions or under that background. What would be in the Wizard book, hmmm? More spellcasting options for Wizards, such as new styles or sources of magic? How would that be any different from what we already have, really?
Don't like the new classes or races, don't buy 'em. You still have all your old AD&D books, nothing keeps you from playing it if it is your system of choice (I don't find it any simpler, not as many options perhaps, but certainly not simpler because of it)
Perhaps, since the company tries to "simplify" matters, they should give this a try.
I enjoy have new options to play with. Nothing prevents me from expanding on existing material on my own if I feel the desire to, and I have on many an occasion.
Wizards is in the business of making money. One thing they learned from 3.x was that we players, in general, love to have as many options as Wizards can pump out. (I say "in general" because you created this topic, which means that your mileage obviously varies)
Indeed!
Imagine, if, for a moment, there were only four "jobs". Then you could release new packages based on these four that were just tweaks, little changes to the idea that presented it in a new way. So if I have the "Mage" archetype, it would be examined in different ways through different "vocations", ways that people do mage things. So a nature mage would be different than a mind mage, or a heavenly-word-mage, or a spell-component-mage, or an arcane archer mage.
So these "vocations" would each be coupled to the core four "jobs" that they perform. Thus, simplicity is achieve by having the Fighter (the tough guy who blocks foes), the Thief (who shanks people for massive damage), the Mage (who attacks with AoE and status effects), and the Priest (who boosts the party with buffs and healing). And these "jobs" would apply to the entire game, thus allowing you to publish different "vocations" with the same "job", just approaching it in different ways.
We kind of tried that in 3rd edition and it didn't work so well. In this regard, having a few new classes is actually good in my opinion. And the classes themselves are nicely distinct while also remaining unique enough to keep the game running well.
Not to mention that there are other issues too, how far can you expand from the core 'vocation' before you go too far or inadverently create a hybrid that does too much or too little? In some respects more material gives us greater balance as well as a way of looking at the classes differently. It also means that new knowledge can be fed backwards through the different power suppliments.
Don't get me wrong, I love the older versions of D&D, pick one of the classes, a race (in some versions) and go, but over time, the game has had to become more complex to keep the younger generations interested (Warning - this is just my opinion, dispute it all you like, but it is my opinion), and a very easy way to keep younger people interested in the game is to give more options and allow more complexity. I mean when I started playing D&D in the 80's most kids were not exposed to video games, let alone knew how to build PC's etc. Nowdays, I can barely remember what I did to kill hours and hours of time i now fill with DVD's, Video Games, hell I even work in the IT industry. (Oh yea.. it was write my homebrew campaign and all the "extra stuff" I wanted in my games onto reams and reams of paper...)
I think a parallel can easily be drawn with the development of D&D and youth culture since the 1970's. If the game had not evolved with the target audience, it would have died a long time ago. Now the complexity thing (Again just my opinion) seems to have peaked a little, everything seems to be getting easier these days (look at the popularity of things like iPods etc, very easy to use, and to pull apart and fix too I might add), and I think along with that, the complexity of D&D seems to have peaked with 3rd ed, and with 4th edit has rolled back a little. (I find 4th ed far less complex than 3rd ed, but still more so than 2nd ed)
Anyways, that is just my thoughts on why the game has so many options now, compared to the older D&D.. i do still love to break out the old versions though, when I can find somebody interested in playing them.
We kind of tried that in 3rd edition and it didn't work so well. In this regard, having a few new classes is actually good in my opinion. And the classes themselves are nicely distinct while also remaining unique enough to keep the game running well.
Not to mention that there are other issues too, how far can you expand from the core 'vocation' before you go too far or inadverently create a hybrid that does too much or too little? In some respects more material gives us greater balance as well as a way of looking at the classes differently. It also means that new knowledge can be fed backwards through the different power suppliments.
....Lol, he was describing 4ed. Jobs=roles. Vocation=class.
Now - "Less Is More?"
You internet people are CRAZY.
And there are 30+ classes? It's no wonder they need to make an "Essentials" line - too much too fast. Try explaining the game in its entirety to a new player, showing every class, every feat and their head would probably explode.
Too bad we can't go back to the good old days when the basic concept for the races were human, elf, dwarf, halfling and for the classes were the wizard, warrior, cleric, rogue.
The more "content" you add, the weaker the system will become or need I remind people of the massive library one would need to contain the 2nd edition system?
Instead of having 30+ classes, it would be nice to just have the basic 4 races and classes and then have any further books tie around those basic 4 (human book, wizard book)
Perhaps, since the company tries to "simplify" matters, they should give this a try.
Totally disagree, more options are what make the game interesting to play. If it was the same basic 4 classes and 4 races it be a snooze fest and D&D would be tossed aside, many people would lose interest because they would've played everything already. Giving more races and classes gives people something to look forward to, new and fantastical races to explore and play with.
As for more options making it a weaker system, again disagree. One of the good things with 4.0 is that they have a structure for it. Basically all classes and races are kept to the PH, except for the few cases with certain campaign books which is fine, and the special case of the Revenant & Assassin for D&Di. Then they have the specific Power books to keep all class options relating to a single power source in one spot. They even go so far to keeping the majority of magical weapons/items/armors in the Adventurer Vaults unless specifically pertaining to class/race releases.
What this means is that even if say you only cared for the Runepriest and Seeker for classes and didn't care for Psionic power source, then yeah maybe you'd need to buy the PH3 unless you have an Insider subscription. But you can ignore buying the Psionic Power book. 3.5 had the true problem of stuff being scattered all over the place which for a guy who came into it in it's last year, made it very hard sometimes to find stuff for my character or whatever. Now I can't speak for previous editions, but to me 4.0 goes a long way to making it a nice format that Wizards can keep building on with whatever new power sources they feel work, new races and classes and so on.
If there's classes and races you don't like, then don't play them, if you DM then don't allow them and tada! Problem solved.
Granted I might have to point a gun at some of my players and tell them NO, you can't play that.
Indeed!
Imagine, if, for a moment, there were only four "jobs". Then you could release new packages based on these four that were just tweaks, little changes to the idea that presented it in a new way. So if I have the "Mage" archetype, it would be examined in different ways through different "vocations", ways that people do mage things. So a nature mage would be different than a mind mage, or a heavenly-word-mage, or a spell-component-mage, or an arcane archer mage.
So these "vocations" would each be coupled to the core four "jobs" that they perform. Thus, simplicity is achieve by having the Fighter (the tough guy who blocks foes), the Thief (who shanks people for massive damage), the Mage (who attacks with AoE and status effects), and the Priest (who boosts the party with buffs and healing). And these "jobs" would apply to the entire game, thus allowing you to publish different "vocations" with the same "job", just approaching it in different ways.
ALL HAIL DRAGONCAT THE TRUTHSPEAKER! KAIZER OF AWESOME! CALIF OF EPICNESS! OVERLORD OF LULZ!
ALL HAIL DRAGONCAT!
Wait a minute - I thought "More Options = Always Better?"
Now - "Less Is More?"
You internet people are CRAZY.
I agree with this statement.
I definitely agree. People are constantly demanding new options, more detailed subsystems, more stats, more classes, more kinds of weapons and armor, more skills. The fact is that that is what the vast majority of players want to see.
Experienced players rapidly get bored with Fighters, Rangers and Clerics. They want Swordmages, Artificers, and Avengers. They want hybrid classes. They want Psionics.
But what about the new players? How do they keep up? Well, fortunately the solution for them is pretty easy. Point 'em at the PHB and tell them to pick something from it.
Problem solved!
Wait a minute - I thought "More Options = Always Better?"
Now - "Less Is More?"
You internet people are CRAZY.
Totally disagree, more options are what make the game interesting to play. If it was the same basic 4 classes and 4 races it be a snooze fest and D&D would be tossed aside, many people would lose interest because they would've played everything already. Giving more races and classes gives people something to look forward to, new and fantastical races to explore and play with.
More options is always better for experienced players. For new players fewer is better.
Fire-up the Character Builder, which is really the easiest way to help a new player make a character, and just look at the bewildering number of options and choices. There is a heck of alot of feats to read through. I've been playing for 18 years and I often give-up half-way through feat selection and snag an old standby.
But what about the new players? How do they keep up? Well, fortunately the solution for them is pretty easy. Point 'em at the PHB and tell them to pick something from it.
Problem solved!
There's the answer right there. Don't force the new person's head to explode. Then later when they want to expand...show them more.
I agree with pointing them to the essentials or the PHB1
Or even easier! Point them to Essentials.
It's almost like that was the point of essentials.
Oh wait it is.
Play 3 games and realize that a different feat would help you better, swap it at next level.
And most GMs would let a new player make more then one change and make changes between levels untill then understand the system better.
ALL HAIL DRAGONCAT THE TRUTHSPEAKER! KAIZER OF AWESOME! CALIF OF EPICNESS! OVERLORD OF LULZ!
ALL HAIL DRAGONCAT!
I liked it better when people gave me accolades for what Dragoncat said.
More options is always better for experienced players. For new players fewer is better.
Fire-up the Character Builder, which is really the easiest way to help a new player make a character, and just look at the bewildering number of options and choices. There is a heck of alot of feats to read through. I've been playing for 18 years and I often give-up half-way through feat selection and snag an old standby.
Can't you select which sources you are pulling from in the CB? Just cut it down to PHB 1 if you have a new guy getting confused.
PHB
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard/Sorcerer (and Spelialist wizards)
10 classes vs. 8 in the 4th edition PHB.
Then other classes introduced other mechanics in the system, sometimes not melding very well with the system. The first Psionic book was replaced because of the broken mechanics.
Forgive me, but the like the new direction for this edition.
So, there are 24 classes, not including the DDi exclusive Assassin, not 30. How many classes did 3.5 have? Lets count the Wizard and the Sorcerer as one, right, a different varriants of the same class. The Specializations are more focused Wizards, so they are not a seperate class... so
PHB
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard/Sorcerer (and Spelialist wizards)
10 classes vs. 8 in the 4th edition PHB.
Then other classes introduced other mechanics in the system, sometimes not melding very well with the system. The first Psionic book was replaced because of the broken mechanics.
Forgive me, but the like the new direction for this edition.
Now now let's not give doom criers any favours :P
For a proper comparison of the two editions, 3.5 e had lots more than 4e at this point of its life (i.e. between 2nd and 3rd year of its release cycle):
11 from PHB
2 from Heroes of Horror (both broken like hell but heck...)
3 from Tome of Magic (of which one had issues working at higher levels - Truenamer I'm looking at you)
3 from Complete Divine
3 from Complete Warrior
3 from Complete Arcane
3 from Complete Adventurer
4 from PHB 2
4 from EPsHB
1 from ECS
Totalling 37 spread over all sorts of products (vs only 3 4ed classes in non PHB sources).
For a proper comparison of the two editions, 3.5 e had lots more than 4e at this point of its life (i.e. between 2nd and 3rd year of its release cycle):
Totalling 37 spread over all sorts of products (vs only 3 4ed classes in non PHB sources).
Aye, but there is a major difference between a 3.5 class and 4th edition class.
For example, the differences between the Fighter and the Samurai were minor; the Samurai just had its bonus feats chosen for it, and it failed more. A Wu Jen was almost exactly like a wizard, except their spell selection was a bit different and they had tiny, nearly-irrelevant class feature differences.
You could make five classes, all vancian, with barely three abilities different, provide them with different spell lists drawing from different parts of the same pool, and voila! Classes.
4th edition, meanwhile, presents each class as its own set of abilities and powers. That's why a 3.5 class is two or three pages, and a 4th edition class is twenty.
This won't happen in 4th edition. What this means is that there will be less classes than the previous edition overall, but better choices within those classes.
For a proper comparison of the two editions, 3.5 e had lots more than 4e at this point of its life (i.e. between 2nd and 3rd year of its release cycle):
11 from PHB
Didn't I just go over that? There was 10 classes, with one class having two different mechanics (and names)
For a proper comparison of the two editions, 3.5 e had lots more than 4e at this point of its life (i.e. between 2nd and 3rd year of its release cycle):
11 from PHB
Didn't I just go over that? There was 10 classes, with one class having two different mechanics (and names)
Yes you have and I responded with a 'no aid for doomcriers' comment. If it has different mechanics, it's a different class, heck one could argue that certain 4e classes are very similar, but their mechanics set them apart (Warlord vs Ardent). Besides, when you consider the fluff behind the two classes, they were no longer that similar.
Despite actual numbers 3.5 had very few unique classes and some of them were very difficult to play (again Truenamer) or ridiculously overpowered (Archivist, although this class wasn't that unique to begin with), which was a definite weakness.
I've played all the different versions of D&D over the past 14 years. In D&D and AD&D I felt like it was to limited on my creativity to make a really cool character. Then I pick up Skills and Powers and got my mind blown on how I could fully make my character my own. Then 3rd ed comes out and I go all boo hoo because in order to rebuild my non-musical bard as a fighter wizard. And with all the min/maxing of 3.0 and 3.5 I'm see as playing a useless character because I don't plan to really do anything with the wizard levels. In truth I just gave up on once again playing the jack of all trades characters I loved to play in the past, and went fully into the fighter Prestige class Dragon Samurai. Then came the Adventure base class at the tale end of 3.5. Finally I had my jack of all trades back and then the axe falls about 4.0. When the switch comes I have to wait until PHB2 and the Bard v4 comes out. Now with the Party roles of 4.0 i have a choice to either be the jack i want to be and step on the toes of the other party members or give into their bitching about just taking the powers that feel like I'm just their to play chess with the DM. Which in turn cause him to wish I wasn't ruining his tactics each time i do something.
Where am I going with this?
The fact that we have all the books for the different editions floating around means we don't have to stick with the current version. We're is it said that we have to all play 4th. The RPGA isn't going to bust down your door in full riot gear and take away your 3.5 or AD&D books if you and your group says 4th sucks. When ever I DM I use almost every edition of the books and allow the players to bend the rules about making their characters because I want everyone to be happy. Granted this is bending with my permission. Honestly I never plan to run/play another 4th ed game because i hate the game and the only way i would is if players could pick a class and then pick their powers from any class that has the same power type if they can give me a good reason why.Want to play a savage knife fighter then a barbarian using rouge skills makes sense. Which is why i like how 4th does multi-classing as feats but limited the usefulness of the cross training the way it does by making you only able to use that other class skill once a fight or day make rules sense but it doesn't have the flavor of old school multi-classing did when you could use it when ever you could.
So in closing here's what I really wanted to say. If you are running a game and don't like how part of it works then just make a house rule. Isn't that how we got to this point in the game any way. Some group made up a rule and everyone liked it until it became so popular it became a part of the game when the next edition was printed. I mean for the first 10 years of my gaming life I didn't know a single DM that let players use the psionic rules because they saw them as being broken. So everyone just run the game how you want to and stop bitching about how its become to complex and costly. You want it simple and cheap then put in the time to make up you own material instead of paying money for someone else's hard work.
The fluff for the Sorcerer was not fully explored until the Dragon Magic stuff was expanded on in later books. It was horrid.
Didn't realise the Dragon Disciple PrC was released with one of the later books.
I'm playing in the "encounters" series and having a very fun time. One of the players at my table is a battle-minded something or other. What the heck is that? I guess he shoots psionic blasts or something. It's a little distracting because I don't own that book so I don't have an understanding of how that character works.
It seems there are now about 20 books for 4E? And there are about 10 more being released each year? So in five years there will be about 70 books at the current pace? I just don't remember books being released at such a fast clip. I'm guessing that WOTC must plan to release a new version every three or four years?
I'm not complaining. I love D&D and 4E is fun so far. But I think I'm going to stick to the PHB and that's it.
I've been "out of the game" for several years and just got back in. At this point all I have is the 4E PHB. When I look at all the books released since 2008 and all the books scheduled to be released in the next few months, my head starts to spin a bit. There's a lot out there folks! It's intimidating.
I'm playing in the "encounters" series and having a very fun time. One of the players at my table is a battle-minded something or other. What the heck is that? I guess he shoots psionic blasts or something. It's a little distracting because I don't own that book so I don't have an understanding of how that character works.
It seems there are now about 20 books for 4E? And there are about 10 more being released each year? So in five years there will be about 70 books at the current pace? I just don't remember books being released at such a fast clip. I'm guessing that WOTC must plan to release a new version every three or four years?
I'm not complaining. I love D&D and 4E is fun so far. But I think I'm going to stick to the PHB and that's it.
I think that's a Battlemind, a new class from the new PHB3. It's a psionic defender. Because PHB3 just came out you're bound to see classes and races from it discussed a lot right now.
I have only the 3 core books, but if I actually played the game I'd probably go for the PHB2 and maybe 3 as well (for hybrids and githzerai).
It seems there are now about 20 books for 4E? And there are about 10 more being released each year? So in five years there will be about 70 books at the current pace? I just don't remember books being released at such a fast clip. I'm guessing that WOTC must plan to release a new version every three or four years?
WotC is releasing one book a month right now. During 3e/3.5e, they'd release 3 or 4 a month a lot of the time. So while it seems a lot, it's actuall a slower pace. I think even TSR during their last few years usually released more than one a month.
PHB
AV
MP
PHB2
AP
DP
AV2
PrP
MP2
PHB3
That's 10 books over the course of the last two years, which is significantly less than one a month. And arguably, depending on your campaign setting, AV and AV2 could also be things that are primarily used by the DM.
The fluff for the Sorcerer was not fully explored until the Dragon Magic stuff was expanded on in later books. It was horrid.
Didn't realise the Dragon Disciple PrC was released with one of the later books.
It was released in another product in 3.0, then republished in the 3.5 DMG. The real breakthrough for the dragon blood background for the Sorcerer, though, was in one of the books that had a lot to do with the Kobold race. That was near the tail end of the 3.5 run.
Now for home games, if players want to use all sorts of supplemental books and DMs allow it, that's great. If I had more time to dedicate to the game, I can certainly see the appeal of buying new books and learning new things. THat keeps the game fresh and fun.
Again - not a complaint - just a suggestion. Public play events shouldn't allow players to use stuff that is not in the three core rulebooks. The more supplements there are, the more challenging for newbies to have an enjoyable experience.
The only problem with that Gold is that all the players handbooks and monster manuals and dungeon master guides are core material now so if it apppears in one of them or in a dragon mag you will see it a public event. There is just too much to put into one book now, they have to spread it out over several books just to get all the basics covered. Gnomes did not see play until PHB 2 and they are a core race from days long gone by. I started playing 4th deition a year agoand at first I found it overwhelming at the amount of content I soon found out what I wanted to play and was off to the races, there was a slight learning curve with the new rules but after a few sessions I was right back in full swing.
Thanks for the replies. In my opinion, then, public/general events such as "Encounters" should only allow races/classes/items from the core rulebooks. THat way all the players (and the DM for that matter) will be on the same page. It's very distracting when a player has to explain a new class feature to a DM. And DMs simply cannot be up to speed on every book the day it comes out.
That would be a terrible idea. WotC is first and foremost in the business of selling their products. It would be just plain bad business if players couldn't use their newest purchases at any and all sanctioned events.
As for DMs, it is somewhat true that no one should have to be intimately familiar with every new release, but when an individual agrees to run an open event like LFR or Encounters they should at least try to keep semi up to date. If a quick perusal of each player's character sheet (preferably with the related books at hand for reference) isn't enough, than perhaps the individual just isn't cut out to DM in such an environment.
The fluff for the Sorcerer was not fully explored until the Dragon Magic stuff was expanded on in later books. It was horrid.
Didn't realise the Dragon Disciple PrC was released with one of the later books.
It was released in another product in 3.0, then republished in the 3.5 DMG. The real breakthrough for the dragon blood background for the Sorcerer, though, was in one of the books that had a lot to do with the Kobold race. That was near the tail end of the 3.5 run.
DD originated in Tome and Blood which was one of the first player oriented splat books for 3.0 so not a new concept by any means, and then you had dragon magic feats for sorcerers in Complete Arcane (AFAIR) - again way before Dragon Magic was released.
Say what you want, the fluff has always been there, and the class had enough mechanical differences (spontaneous casting vs vancian, different interaction with metamagic feats, no need for basic components, heck it didn't have access to all wizard spells) to warrant being called a different class and not a 'wizard with a twist'.
Back on topic though - I concur with the variety is good sentiments - if your DM allows it, go on and use it! As for not being able to figure out what a fellow character is doing exactly (the battlemind example) - don't look at it as a bad thing! Psionic classes (as example, though primal classes work with this example just as well) are not meant to be common and well known. If you can't work them out it only helps with the air of mystery surrounding them giving endless RP possibilities.
PHB 1 had your most basic and common classes (bar the warlock, which should have been released in PHB 2 instead of the sorcerer or bard imo). The further you go with PHBs, the more obscure the classes are.
The only problem with that Gold is that all the players handbooks and monster manuals and dungeon master guides are core material now so if it apppears in one of them or in a dragon mag you will see it a public event. There is just too much to put into one book now, they have to spread it out over several books just to get all the basics covered. Gnomes did not see play until PHB 2 and they are a core race from days long gone by. I started playing 4th deition a year agoand at first I found it overwhelming at the amount of content I soon found out what I wanted to play and was off to the races, there was a slight learning curve with the new rules but after a few sessions I was right back in full swing.
That’s a good point, AH. Gnomes are a staple of D&D and prohibiting them from public play wouldn’t be a service to anyone. I guess this conversation is moving away from the original topic, but it has got me thinking how one of the challenges of D&D has always been how to keep things simple for beginners and more robust for experienced players with lots of time to dedicate to the game.
Thanks for the replies. In my opinion, then, public/general events such as "Encounters" should only allow races/classes/items from the core rulebooks. THat way all the players (and the DM for that matter) will be on the same page. It's very distracting when a player has to explain a new class feature to a DM. And DMs simply cannot be up to speed on every book the day it comes out.
That would be a terrible idea. WotC is first and foremost in the business of selling their products. It would be just plain bad business if players couldn't use their newest purchases at any and all sanctioned events.
As for DMs, it is somewhat true that no one should have to be intimately familiar with every new release, but when an individual agrees to run an open event like LFR or Encounters they should at least try to keep semi up to date. If a quick perusal of each player's character sheet (preferably with the related books at hand for reference) isn't enough, than perhaps the individual just isn't cut out to DM in such an environment.
I see what you’re saying, Tharag. I will say that the character sheets prepared with the online character builder make it pretty handy for a DM unfamiliar with a power to just take a look at the character sheet and get enough info to run the session. So in that respect I like 4E.
They're doing a pretty good job at keeping the system balanced. There are a few outliers, but overall a good job. So as a DM I just worry about building my encounters, I don't worry about the players they can handle themselves. So if a players says his power does X, then ok, let it fly. If I find it questionable, I'll look it up either during a break or between sessions. As a group we're fairly flexible in allowing some houseruling to reach the proper flavor on a character, but anything that deals with that, should be discussed with the DM first.
Usually if I look up a power between sessions, theres nothing wrong with it. Sometimes I'll find minor mistakes that are fairly common... Was used as an immediate reaction during the players turn (actually saw this at Encounters this week as well, but since I was another player I decided to keep quiet.. I think the attack missed anyways 
), bonus is of a type that doesn't stack with another, etc.. Common mistakes that could happen to anyone.
Personally though I try and keep up with basics, what the class does, how it works, class abilities. But I have yet to read through an entire class's powers more than 2 or 3 levels above my own character's level. So the first couple times my players are able to surprise me, and their allies with their new found abilities.
On Teaching New Players
-- Earlier I'd said to teach a new person I'd ask them what they'd want to play, then get them on the character builder... I've since decided differently. (Taking a page from Chris Perkins in the various podcasts) I'd find out roughly what they want to be, and then build them a character, and jump into a game. We'd forget about the rules, until we reached a point where they need to know a specific rule or mechanic, and then I'd tell them. They don't need to know the ins and outs of strategies, and optimization, and so forth.. Just get them playing! Once they level, then they get to see the character builder, as they get to choose their new options, and I work with them to swap out powers/feats that aren't appealing to them.
I'm doing this currently, but on the opposite end. My wife has played twice, and not regularly, once like a year ago, and then maybe a few months ago. But I've realized that she's more of a DM type person than a player, she likes to be the bad guys. So she knows how to read most of a stat block. So I handed her the Monster Manual and gave her the basic on how to build an encounter (levels close to players at almost 1-1 ratio). And as she needs rules, I let her know them.
Her: Damn, I can't reach him to attack.
Me: Well there's an action you can do called a charge, that allows you to attack at the end of your second move.. with a +1 bonus
Her: Do I need to have a power to move you, because I really want to push you into that fire.
Me: Nope, you can bull rush, d20 + Strength Modifier vs. Fort.
I played last time right after encounters, and I'd have to say it was probably more fun in her session then encounters were (and I had a blast at encounters). After all, I got to chuck a burning brand into a pit filled with rats... Then realized I should of pushed the ladder into the pit before chucking the torch.
-- Earlier I'd said to teach a new person I'd ask them what they'd want to play, then get them on the character builder... I've since decided differently. (Taking a page from Chris Perkins in the various podcasts) I'd find out roughly what they want to be, and then build them a character, and jump into a game. We'd forget about the rules, until we reached a point where they need to know a specific rule or mechanic, and then I'd tell them. They don't need to know the ins and outs of strategies, and optimization, and so forth.. Just get them playing! Once they level, then they get to see the character builder, as they get to choose their new options, and I work with them to swap out powers/feats that aren't appealing to them.
I'm doing this currently, but on the opposite end. My wife has played twice, and not regularly, once like a year ago, and then maybe a few months ago. But I've realized that she's more of a DM type person than a player, she likes to be the bad guys. So she knows how to read most of a stat block. So I handed her the Monster Manual and gave her the basic on how to build an encounter (levels close to players at almost 1-1 ratio). And as she needs rules, I let her know them.
Her: Damn, I can't reach him to attack.
Me: Well there's an action you can do called a charge, that allows you to attack at the end of your second move.. with a +1 bonus
Her: Do I need to have a power to move you, because I really want to push you into that fire.
Me: Nope, you can bull rush, d20 + Strength Modifier vs. Fort.
I played last time right after encounters, and I'd have to say it was probably more fun in her session then encounters were (and I had a blast at encounters). After all, I got to chuck a burning brand into a pit filled with rats... Then realized I should of pushed the ladder into the pit before chucking the torch.
So, there are 24 classes, not including the DDi exclusive Assassin, not 30. How many classes did 3.5 have? Lets count the Wizard and the Sorcerer as one, right, a different varriants of the same class. The Specializations are more focused Wizards, so they are not a seperate class... so
PHB
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard/Sorcerer (and Spelialist wizards)
10 classes vs. 8 in the 4th edition PHB.
Then other classes introduced other mechanics in the system, sometimes not melding very well with the system. The first Psionic book was replaced because of the broken mechanics.
Forgive me, but the like the new direction for this edition.
Now now let's not give doom criers any favours :P
For a proper comparison of the two editions, 3.5 e had lots more than 4e at this point of its life (i.e. between 2nd and 3rd year of its release cycle):
11 from PHB
2 from Heroes of Horror (both broken like hell but heck...)
3 from Tome of Magic (of which one had issues working at higher levels - Truenamer I'm looking at you)
3 from Complete Divine
3 from Complete Warrior
3 from Complete Arcane
3 from Complete Adventurer
4 from PHB 2
4 from EPsHB
1 from ECS
Totalling 37 spread over all sorts of products (vs only 3 4ed classes in non PHB sources).
there is a difference between this and 4e i think your missing....those other books your getting the other classes from were considered "supplement Books"
the way the multiple PHBs , ive heard being described as additional CORE Books, and the "Essentials" series being considered as the "supplements" this would mean a DM has a range to include play from 11- 37 classes in 3.5 with Core in 4e being 24. as a DM its a lot easier to disallow classes from "Supplement books" where as disallowing Core book classes is like fighting tooth and nail. i am in favor of multiple options, but i like being able to limit (as DM) or being able to be limited for story purposes or just plain mechanics (as player)
so i think the rapid succession of books is merely business as usual, and a good thing. however i think more of the content should be labeled differently. and in addition i think more time should come between editions then in previous. its a little offsetting to have books become archaic so quickly after investing so much into them.
there was mention of seperating the classes more by mechanics in 4e...indeed this is nice.. but by no means new....personally my two favorite classes are one each of 3.5 and 4e....Swashbuckler and Artificer, they offer very very unique flavor and game mechanics.
The fluff for the Sorcerer was not fully explored until the Dragon Magic stuff was expanded on in later books. It was horrid.
Didn't realise the Dragon Disciple PrC was released with one of the later books.
It was released in another product in 3.0, then republished in the 3.5 DMG. The real breakthrough for the dragon blood background for the Sorcerer, though, was in one of the books that had a lot to do with the Kobold race. That was near the tail end of the 3.5 run.
DD originated in Tome and Blood which was one of the first player oriented splat books for 3.0 so not a new concept by any means, and then you had dragon magic feats for sorcerers in Complete Arcane (AFAIR) - again way before Dragon Magic was released.
Say what you want, the fluff has always been there, and the class had enough mechanical differences (spontaneous casting vs vancian, different interaction with metamagic feats, no need for basic components, heck it didn't have access to all wizard spells) to warrant being called a different class and not a 'wizard with a twist'.
.
My point isn't that the classes were not different mechanically but that the mechanics themselves didn't need to be seperated at all. There was no need to keep the Fire and Forget system, all the caster classes could have used the Sorcerer mechanic instead, with "known spells" for the wizard be "memed" spells instead. The Sorcerer, as a separate class, was not needed.
This new edition has, at least, made it a moot point. The Daily Spells needing to be memed can be housed ruled as an one the fly use like the Cleric using only one of the Channel Divinity powers per encounter. I hope that eventually this is errata'd in, though that may be dreaming a bit.
