|
[I feel a bit like Aint-it-Cool-News posting the following scoop! I can't vouch for or against its accuracy, but it certainly has a ring of authenticity to it. I'm posting it here in its entirety exactly as I received it.]
I was today at my FLGS here in Hungary, and to my big surprise they already had the Races & Classes preview book for sale. I have no interest in buying it, and had no time to read in it for a long time (or to make notes), but here are some details I can remember.
- The book is just fluff, no game statistcs or any rules in it.
- Diferent D&D designers have written different parts of the book, it's definatly teamwork. It is always mentioned who wrote which chapter or which paragraph.
- The races mentioned in detail are Humans, Dwaves, Eladrins, Elves, Halflings, Tieflings, and the "mystery race", Dragonborn. Each of these races gets some pages, humans I think had the most with 4 or 5, eladrin the least with 1,5. There are 4-5 paragraphs each on some other races as well. I remember drow and gnome, but there were maybe 2 or 3 more. The gnome part was titled "The problem with gnomes" or something like that.
- The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws. If I had to judge by the picture, they should get natural bite and claw attacks.
- Halflings looked just as 3ed halflings (no hobbits).
- The classes section had details about five classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlock. Each of thes gets 3-4 pages. Then - as with the classes - there is an "other classes" section with 3-4 paragraphes for each class. I remember paladins, rangers, druids, barbarians, swordmages and warlords among those.
- I couldn't find any mention in the book why they chose to write about some races and classes in detail, and why some get only some paragraphs. While for some of the "lesser" races and classs it did say that those would appear probably in later D&D proucts, I couldn't find any passage saying that those and only those detailed would be in the PHB. (Five base classes certainly seem to much.)
- Besides races and classes there were some chapters about the designwork, about the basic things they are trying to achieve, and so on. One interesting little info I remember is that there will be just one progression for all classes, and differences between them will come from their different character ablities, feats and so on. If I remember well, BAB (and AC?) was among the things mentioned. Hp was probably also on this list, butu I don't remember well anymore, sorry.
- There were two pages about the design history, which the different stages were, and when they began.
- The art looked good, often there was a pencil sketch (concept art), and the final colored version side by side.
That's about what I can remember. I had not much time to look through the book, and sadly I have no camera on my moblie, otherwise I would have taken a picture of the table of contents.
I no that I all this might soun a strange, since I have no prrof for it. But if you look at my old posts (I don't post much, so it shouldn't be to hard to find), you'll see that my FLGS started to sell Fiendish Codex II also well before it's street date. (I don't have access tot the search function, so I can't give you a link to that thread.) My screenname on ENWorld is morbiczer.
Anyone know who currently has the rights to Dragonlance? WOTC took it back right? It would be intresting if the second 4e world is Dragonlance. A few feats turning Dragonborn into Draconions.
Definitly sounds like its not worth a purchase. Take a look in a bookstore.
Anyone know who currently has the rights to Dragonlance? WOTC took it back right? It would be intresting if the second 4e world is Dragonlance. A few feats turning Dragonborn into Draconions.
Definitly sounds like its not worth a purchase. Take a look in a bookstore.
Yes, Dragonlance is back with WotC.
I was today at my FLGS here in Hungary, and to my big surprise they already had the Races & Classes preview book for sale. I have no interest in buying it, and had no time to read in it for a long time (or to make notes), but here are some details I can remember.
[list]The book is just fluff, no game statistcs or any rules in it.
Diferent D&D designers have written different parts of the book, it's definatly teamwork. It is always mentioned who wrote which chapter or which paragraph.
The races mentioned in detail are Humans, Dwaves, Eladrins, Elves, Halflings, Tieflings, and the "mystery race", Dragonborn. Each of these races gets some pages, humans I think had the most with 4 or 5, eladrin the least with 1,5. There are 4-5 paragraphs each on some other races as well. I remember drow and gnome, but there were maybe 2 or 3 more. The gnome part was titled "The problem with gnomes" or something like that.
The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws. If I had to judge by the picture, they should get natural bite and claw attacks.
Halflings looked just as 3ed halflings (no hobbits).
The classes section had details about five classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlock. Each of thes gets 3-4 pages. Then - as with the classes - there is an "other classes" section with 3-4 paragraphes for each class. I remember paladins, rangers, druids, barbarians, swordmages and warlords among those.
I couldn't find any mention in the book why they chose to write about some races and classes in detail, and why some get only some paragraphs. While for some of the "lesser" races and classs it did say that those would appear...
If this is D&D's next stop, I'm not going along for the ride. It's been a LONG and mostly good trip so far but this just smacks of crapulence...
If this is D&D's next stop, I'm not going along for the ride. It's been a LONG and mostly good trip so far but this just smacks of crapulence...
I wish I didn't agree so strongly, but I do. When Third edition came out it was justified. It was time for a change. But this really smacks of marketing rather than doing what's best for the game. This 4e may really be the death of D&D (and I am not the type to shout 'doom' just because there is a change around the corner).
3.5 D&D was all about giving the players the power of choice and the ability to build any character they could imagine. This so far seems like taking away options that are an essential part of D&D flavor (like half-orcs) and replacing them with exotic new options. I assume that to play a half-orc or a gnome you will have to buy some future supplement. This seems bass ackwards to me. The exotic stuff should be the supplement. I fear that too much of that sort of thing can actually kill the sense of awe and wonder that makes the game fun to begin with.
Yes, from the last thing I understood if they don't make the cut for the intitial books you'll have to wait. WOTC suggested that you use the gnome or half orc out the MM in the meantime, but this of coarse won't have all the information that the PH would have. Kinda sucks don't it. I've come to the conclusion that the developers of WOTC favored class is the rogue, seems to suit them.
Y'know this really doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would have. The races and classes thing has really been the thing bothering me about 4e, but it doesn't really look that different. I'm still not thrilled with the direction Eladrin are taking (I'd thought the division was going to be Elves = Rangers / Eladrin = Wizards with the former being xenophobic and tribal and the latter being cosmopolitan city dwellers) but the Dragonborn are certainly much more welcome than the Warforged and the Tieflings just don't seem as agregious as they did at first. I'd always kind of felt like humans were the coolest race in D&D before--everything else was either shorter or wimpier or both. With the loss of gnomes and the addition of some big burly folks it really seems like this might be changing in a good way.
I figured there were going to be a lot more strange things going on with classes too, but it seems like other than adding the Warlock they're not getting too crazy with it. I am really hoping there's more than just five classes in the final version of the game, and am a little bummed that it's looking like not. I'd expected that the mageblade and stuff would be replacing fairly meat and potatoes stuff like the ranger or paladin--but now strangely it looks like none of it is getting in but just the very very baseline stuff. Not sure how I feel about that. Not super happy, but maybe going back to the roots of the game will be good.
Can't say I'm sad to see the removal of the various iterations of BAB, saves, etc. A lot of the classes got ripped off the old way (like the Monk) with terrible progressions. I like the emphasis being shifted to special abilities and player choices rather than a big chart.
I still can't say if 4e will take off or not. A lot of people are really throwing up their hands over it. I figure I'll buy it though. Hopefully it doesn't cause the whole D&D franchise to tank. My hopes are with it. I guess we'll see.
A book that I will not even flip through now. Thanks for the info.
I guess they're trimming out the monk, bard and sorcerer (assuming it's a complete class list; I imagine a later supplement will have the new versions of these). I really hate that they got rid of the gnome and the half-orc in favor of two different kinds of elves (huge pet peeve to me), tieflings and what I take to basically be half-dragons. I'll still look through it to see what the artwork looks like, but I'm not flushing $20 down the toilet for this.
Although I will wait to see if this is actually true, I do have to wonder why they need to keep on inventing Dragon/Humanoid races. Why not just let people play as Lizardfolk, Kobolds, Trogs, Draconians, Spawn of Tiamat, and company?
|
So I was reading the latest interview regarding the Races and Classes book WotC is putting out and this caught my eye:
As for half-orcs, we’re still discussing them. But the race intrinsically makes me uncomfortable due to its implied origins, and until that’s solved, I’m just as happy to see them left out for now.
Now I have to assume that the "implied origin" that makes Michelle "uncomfortable" is that half-orcs would be the product of rape of a human woman by an orc. I can fully understand how this might be a problem for some folks.
What I don't get is that WotC is substituting this for a race (tieflings) whose origin comes from pacts with lower planar powers. How is that any better than a race that would be the product of rape? What kind of message do they want to send to the parents of their hoped-for new customers?
Anyway, this struck me as odd.
Try this idea, Aberzombie: the editor didn't like the associations involved with half-orcs and their origin. That's fine, I can understand that, even though in the FR it looks like we're going to be in for orc civilization in the future (thanks Salvatore!)
Now we get to warlocks, who make pacts with various magical entities like fiends or the fey (mentioned in that article over at WotC). In exchange, they get power.
Presume you're the warlock and Wizards is the fiend/fey/whatever that you made a pact with in exchange for your power.
Take home message: you should avoid races with connotations of rape (a good thing to avoid). But it's OK to sell you soul to the devil ;-)
(And to any that may take offense, this is entirely tongue-in-cheek.)
|
|
Take home message: you should avoid races with connotations of rape (a good thing to avoid). But it's OK to sell you soul to the devil ;-)
(And to any that may take offense, this is entirely tongue-in-cheek.)
And even though you are being tongue-in-cheek, that is exactly the kind of message that they seem to be making. And it seems to me that is the kind of message that can give people who hate D&D more of an argument against it.
I saw the dragonborn name come up relatively early and that made me smile, even if the poster didn’t know anything about the new context we were using for the race. Dragon-people in a game called Dungeons & Dragons? How obvious was that?... But then again, it took us this long to put them into the core, so it probably was a surprise to most.
F*&#Kin Trogdor! Making every nine year old roleplayer jump for joy.
Wotc interviewing it's own employee, thats just wierd. I wonder how long the R&D team worked on that interview.
Aberzombie wrote:
What I don't get is that WotC is substituting this for a race (tieflings) whose origin comes from pacts with lower planar powers. How is that any better than a race that would be the product of rape? What kind of message do they want to send to the parents of their hoped-for new customers?
Lathiira wrote:
Take home message: you should avoid races with connotations of rape (a good thing to avoid). But it's OK to sell you soul to the devil
I wrote:
YEP. GOOD CALL WOTC, once again your brillance (lack of) shows through. It seems common sense and good taste is no longer important.
|
Take home message: you should avoid races with connotations of rape (a good thing to avoid). But it's OK to sell you soul to the devil ;-)
(And to any that may take offense, this is entirely tongue-in-cheek.)
Um, I've actually always found people's blase attitude to orcs raping humans rather odd. For me, once you take race out of the equation (we're all intelligent humanoids here folks) it's a very dark thing to normalise.
Meanwhile the general opinion around these parts is that there's no devil to sell your soul to.
So I'm pretty a-okay with all of that.
<i know, i know... i've drifted dangerously close to the R word on the internet, hopefully i haven't put anyone's nose out of joint - that's not what i intend.>
Y´know, just the other day after reading some of the NPC writeups in the Denizens of Freeport book (newly acquired at the GR sale via Paizo :-)), which has a few very un-stereotypical Half-Orcs, I thought about the possibility of a half-orc not being the result of a rape, instead having an orc and a human having a "normal" relationship. I know, I know, this is highly unlikely given the nature of Orcs and all, but OTOH we accept that half-humans with fiendish blood exist in the game, but Half-Orcs are only the result of a rape - ever?
With rape vs. Half-fiends, I think Geraint has it precisely - half fiends are definitive something fantastic, whereas rape (and resulting pregnancies) is all to real in war areas. That is a huge difference.
Stefan
Wotc interviewing it's own employee, thats just wierd. I wonder how long the R&D team worked on that interview.
Probably as long as the FEMA staffers took for the California fire "news conference"...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
...I thought about the possibility of a half-orc not being the result of a rape, instead having an orc and a human having a "normal" relationship. ...
In one of my gameworlds orcish mercenaries have worked alongside humans so long that there are large numbers of half-orcs near most military forts. It is an era of peace now and most half-orcs are due to marriage between two half-orcs.
Re: half-races...
Half-elves are just about as likely to be the result of rape as half-orcs in some settings (i.e., Tanis Half-Elven in Dragonlance). Heck, just going by real-world history, it's not unlikely that a half-orc could result from the rape of an orc by a human. Rape is psychologically less about sexual attraction than about domination, after all.
If they want to remove non-magical half-races altogether, that's one thing. In fact, it would make sense that dragons and outsiders could crossbreed with just about anything due to their magical nature. However, "sanitizing" the posibility of orc/human crossbreeds while leaving others is just idiotic. All liasons with evil outsiders (tieflings) and chromatic dragons (some dragonborn) are consensual? Please, don't insult me.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It wouldn't be too hard to re-envision Tolkein's orcs, a newly-created race, as malleable to a certain extent. Orcs exposed to orcs stay orcs. Orcs settling around humans become half-orcs, and may eventually breed true humans. Orcs exposed to hill giants, on the other hand, become ogres. Other versions can be covered in Savage Species templates: feral orcs, insectoid orcs, reptilian orcs.
Orcs exposed to elves, sad to say, just get mean.
Re: half-races...
Half-elves are just about as likely to be the result of rape as half-orcs in some settings (i.e., Tanis Half-Elven in Dragonlance). Heck, just going by real-world history, it's not unlikely that a half-orc could result from the rape of an orc by a human. Rape is psychologically less about sexual attraction than about domination, after all.
If they want to remove non-magical half-races altogether, that's one thing. In fact, it would make sense that dragons and outsiders could crossbreed with just about anything due to their magical nature. However, "sanitizing" the posibility of orc/human crossbreeds while leaving others is just idiotic. All liasons with evil outsiders (tieflings) and chromatic dragons (some dragonborn) are consensual? Please, don't insult me.
I was just about to post pretty much exactly what you said (including mentioning Tanis Half-Elven), so... erm...
What he said!
I have no problem imagining that Orcs could have consentual sex with a human. As a matter of fact, I imagine it all the time...;P
As for the classes involved: I AM BUMMED. 5 Classes...5 CLASSES!? So, I'm going to have to pay for this core book and then pay for the next core book, and then the next and the next and the next in order to get the "complete" D&D experience? What I've always liked about 3E is that no matter that there are a hundred other supplement books with base classes, the core book has everything you need. Lots of classes for lots of interests. Mix classes to taste. But 5 classes? This clinches it, they really are making D&D just an iteration of Diablo.
...rape was a common thing back then; how many great heroes and demigods of mythology and legend ever came from "normal" relationships?
You bring up an excellent point CEB, Zeus just about raped anything that breathed and that's where many of the gods came from. I rarely hear people even mentioning this fact when speaking of the Greek gods.
I just found out
Tieflings are no longer a half-breed, but an actual race.
Tieflings were once a human empire that made a pact with devils.
You bring up an excellent point CEB, Zeus just about raped anything that breathed and that's where many of the gods came from. I rarely hear people even mentioning this fact when speaking of the Greek gods.
Aphrodite didn't rape anyone.... but she did sleep around.... a lot.
That is what makes the greek myths so much fun.
There were a soap opera, but one that was rated 18 (or X or whatever rating you use where you live).
Now... if we can get the christians to make the bible a bit more racy... Convert a few angels to fallen angels and get them to... recruit... by any means necessary....
*Braces self for backlash from the christians!*
Yeah. You have a point.
But they took the fun stuff out like the Nephilim some time ago.
|
|
Yeah. You have a point.
But they took the fun stuff out like the Nephilim some time ago.
That might have something to do with the fact that they never existed.
Anyway, back on topic. I was pretty sure that there it's been pretty much confirmed that there will be 8 classes in the first PHB. They only focus on five in Races & Classes, but that might be because they were the only ones that were pretty "solid" at the time. This book was finished well before the PHB was. I believe the classes are cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, warlock, warlord, and wizard. Of course they still left out half-orcs, gnomes, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers, so you have to buy several PHB's to get the complete game. This just reeks of naked greed to me.
Of course they still left out half-orcs, gnomes, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers, so you have to buy several PHB's to get the complete game. This just reeks of naked greed to me.Yeah, because prior to 4e you never had to buy additional "Complete" books to get more classes.
;D
I always looked at the "complete" books as EXTRA material, stuff that let you paly a little off to the side (i.e. Ninja, Spellthief, etc.). I do not want to have to buy another core book (which, according to the past, is generally more expensive than a "complete" book) in order to play as a standard base class.
From now on, we'll have to call the 4E books the "Incomplete" books.
|
|
No, you had to buy more books if you wanted to play non-core, exotic, brand new classes and races. Things like bards, druids, monks, and gnomes have been part of the game for ages. They should be a part of the first PHB of a new edition. It's one thing to pay extra to play a tiefling ninja,or dragonborn hexblade. It's quite different, and particularly distateful, to have to pay extra to play something as basic as a half-orc barbarian or a gnome bard.
No, you had to buy more books if you wanted to play non-core, exotic, brand new classes and races. Things like bards, druids, monks, and gnomes have been part of the game for ages. They should be a part of the first PHB of a new edition. It's one thing to pay extra to play a tiefling ninja,or dragonborn hexblade. It's quite different, and particularly distateful, to have to pay extra to play something as basic as a half-orc barbarian or a gnome bard.
Ditto, dawg.
|
|
I can see the reason for some of the changes. Most of the nixed races or classes have a rocky D&D history anyways.
half-orcs
Core race in 1st Edition. Non-core 2nd Edition. Core 3e. Non-core 4e.
Looks like the half-orc is only averaging 50%.
gnomes
I'm actually glad about this cut. It has no basis, but I am a gnome hater.
barbarians
1st Edition? Non-core. 2nd Edition? Non-core. 3e? Core. 4e Non-core. Looks like non-core wins.
bards
1st Edition? Core, but not as a beginning character class. 2nd Edition? Core. 3e Core. 4e Not core. Definitely been around. I hear a lot of 3e complaints about the bard, not sure on what basis though. I don't play 3e. I hate bard though.
druids
I'll admit, this one puzzles me. The only time I don't remember seeing druids was in Classic D&D when they where an add on class later on. I will say that in my 20+ years of gaming, this (and the bard) are probably the two least played classes (in my games anyways).
monks
1st Edition? Core. 2nd Edition? Not Core. 3e? Core. 4e? Not core. Like the half-orc he's 50/50.
sorcerers
No tradition. 3e innovation.
So, the argument of "but they are part of tradition" is only partly true. Looking at "tradition" the only ones on the list that probably shouldn't be messed with are gnomes, bards and druids. But, then again, in all my years of gaming...
Those have never been popular choices. I know thats only indicative of my experience and not others, but based on my experience I can understand the cuts.
|
|
Well, all of those may not have been completely core throughout the various editions or even popular, but they do exist, and it seems quite silly and arbitrary to retcon them out of existance, or send them to limbo for a year or two, because they want to charge you more for them later. There are many people who want to continue their campaigns for quite a while with the same characters. If someone has played their half-orc barbarian or gnome bard, or halfing monk for a while, and want to continue playing them in 4th edition, they have to cobble together some home-brew solution for their character until it receives official support. That isn't very appealing to many people, and leaves them feeling alienated. It doesn't sound like a very customer-friendly way of doing things, but I've come to expect that from WotC.
DangerDwarf: My argument is less about tradition and more about content. When I pay for a Core Book I want more than 5 classes, period. I feel it's an insult to the D&D community to only include 5 (if that is even the case, we are truly yet to be sure) and require the purchase of further core books to complete the core classes. If we are talking "CORE" classes than I feel they should be included in the CORE book (not bookS, mind).
Anything more than one core book makes me feel like I am being fleeced.
As to your breakdown of missing core classes, I don't care what they take out (call me a heretic) I just want them to replace it with something, not just empty out the books so they can cut it in half. I want OPTIONS! Not just Fighter, Arcane, Divine, Skilled. I want some fluffy classes, I want some choices.
Like in 3.5. That's what I want.
|
|
Well, all of those may not have been completely core throughout the various editions or even popular, but they do exist, and it seems quite silly and arbitrary to retcon them out of existance, or send them to limbo for a year or two, because they want to charge you more for them later.
Again, not a 4e thing. This is every edition change. Ever.
Well, all of those may not have been completely core throughout the various editions or even popular, but they do exist, and it seems quite silly and arbitrary to retcon them out of existance, or send them to limbo for a year or two, because they want to charge you more for them later.Again, not a 4e thing. This is every edition change. Ever.
I dont have my 2e phb, only 1e/3e and basic. Did the 3e players book leave out any races or classes that were in the 2e players book? I don't remember there bieng as many core races/class in 2e as 3e, but that could be my memory.
Once again it may be the best choice for WOTC to leave them out, just makes me less likely to jump right in. I'll wait for the "out soon" SRD and OGL info.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Well, as long as it has THAC0, kits, and Chronomancers. If it doesn't have kits, it's not D&D."
Back during the last years of 2nd Edition AD&D my roommate and I designed a convention module about Our Heroes pursuing a Lizardman villain as he was gathering items for a McGuffin Device that would de-evolve the planet back to the age of the dinosaurs.
As the plot advanced, we kept swapping out the party's character sheets for analogs in earlier and earlier editions of the game. So first the Player's Options went, then the kits. Then we jumped back into 1st Edition with all the bells and whistles. And so on, with the last battle happening on the Outdoor Survival map. We had intended it to just be fun, but it was an eye-opening experience for the players. (One guy kept getting, and then losing, and then getting, psionics; the guy who was sometimes a barbarian and sometimes a half-orc, had a blast.) The thief was getting really worried as we were getting near the end of the adventure, 'cause the fantasy supplements to Chainmail didn't have thieves.
And i regret to note that the re-envisioned tieflings actually fit in with Golarian's Chelexian history pretty neatly.
|
|
When I pay for a Core Book I want more than 5 classes, period. I feel it's an insult to the D&D community to only include 5 (if that is even the case, we are truly yet to be sure) and require the purchase of further core books to complete the core classes.
I agree there. If only 5 classes are included, that is fairly lame.
I disagree about the "core books" though. Rabid fanboys quickly turned the "Complete" books of 3e into core books. Don't believe me? How many threads hae yuo seen over the years with DM's asking for advice on how to get their players to agree to only using the "Core Three?".
How many players have you seen griping about only getting to use the "Core Three".
Heck, a thread even popped up here when Pathfinder was first launching questioning how decent the Gamemastery/Pathfinder stuff would be only getting to use the "Core" books.
I put quotes around "Core" because they are that in name only. People paid money for their Official Complete books. he whole Official aspect makes it core to many.
I agree there. If only 5 classes are included, that is fairly lame.I disagree about the "core books" though. Rabid fanboys quickly turned the "Complete" books of 3e into core books. Don't believe me? How many threads hae yuo seen over the years with DM's asking for advice on how to get their players to agree to only using the "Core Three?".
How many players have you seen griping about only getting to use the "Core Three".
Heck, a thread even popped up here when Pathfinder was first launching questioning how decent the Gamemastery/Pathfinder stuff would be only getting to use the "Core" books.
I put quotes around "Core" because they are that in name only. People paid money for their Official Complete books. he whole Official aspect makes it core to many.
You bring upan excellent point, the "core" books are what we make the "core" books. I personally have a problem with the Spell Compendium and my players constantly whine that it is a "core" book. My response: Like hell it is.
The only thing my players can count on is what is in their core players manual, that's it. Everything else is a gift from your beneficient DM. Although, I'm really nice, if you bought the book I'll make sure to figure in a way to allow you to use it. But it will be on DM terms..
And i regret to note that the re-envisioned tieflings actually fit in with Golarian's Chelexian history pretty neatly.Yeah, I thought the same thing.
Pathfinder is a new enough world I think they can move it to 4e. Im sure the Dragonborn could be from another region we haven't seen. After all the current AP does hint at numerous rituals the bad guys do.
The question is how long till WOTC puts out the races that are defnitly in Pathfinder but not the core books.
|
|
You're kidding?!? I never saw that one!!
2e never really had a Monk, even though one of the Kits was allegedly a Monk...NOt true.
The Scarlet Brotherhood supplement had both an Assassin and Monk class included.
2e also had barbarians and ninjas. They each had their own books. I believe I've still got a copy of each, somewhere. I believe half-orcs were in the Humanoids Handbook, or whatever the book about playing "savage" races in 2e was called. I think they were also in one of the Player's Option books.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
No, you had to buy more books if you wanted to play non-core, exotic, brand new classes and races. Things like bards, druids, monks, and gnomes have been part of the game for ages. They should be a part of the first PHB of a new edition. It's one thing to pay extra to play a tiefling ninja,or dragonborn hexblade. It's quite different, and particularly distateful, to have to pay extra to play something as basic as a half-orc barbarian or a gnome bard.
Not only do I agree, but you're missing stuff that won't be in the initial core for 4E - necromancers, conjerer/summoners, enchanters, and possibly abjurers. Most of this type of magic has been stripped from the wizard and left "for future development". Not only can't you play a character who does that kind of magic in June 2008, but you can't easily make NPCs who do that stuff for opponents.