[Bruno]

Sorry about the mass reply here...

Originally Posted by Anthony

They've already pretty much said "Bard == Arcane Leader". Not obviously harder to make functional than the Warlord.

So they've found a way to make them work in a dungeoneering environment! Cool. I guess we'll see them sooner rather than later then.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Rangers are in. Barbs, Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers are out.

My error, I mis-remembered. I know Monks are definitely on the list of "todo later" because they commented on it specifically in the PHB.

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Well, I guess it doesn't bother me so much because I still think of Tieflings from the 2.0 version, which were strictly more Outsiders, and less simply Demon/Devil Spawn.

Ah, I really wasn't introduced to them when I was playing 2e.

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Except that they weren't exactly a core race in 3.5.

So? They're a totally new race to 4e, as far as I can tell (unless they're from Eberron - I'm not really familiar with that setting. I don't have a problem with them introducing new core races. There were certainly enough Half-Dragons floating around in 3e/3.5 that I can see why they chose to make a draconid race "core" - they're less twinky than Half-Dragons but should keep the "KEWL DRAGON" set happy. (I'm one of the KEWL DRAGON set, for reference. I mock myself because I care. :)

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Rangers are in the core book. Barbarians aren't. (Man, I forgot the monk, too.) The thing is, the "Core Books" are what are minimally required for play, so by doing things the way they have, they are essentially recommending that people not bother with Barbarians and Druids and instead try these cool half Dragons and part Demons.

Except that in useage, as I noted, people don't think of "minimally required for play". Apparently, ANYTHING published by WotC, with the possible exception of campaign specific supplements, is part of the minimal book set to many players. WotC are certainly not recommending that people not bother, so much as they'll have to hold their water and wait until they finish playtesting the classes.

Which is an improvement over the 3.0/3.5 attitude of just publishing whatever and then making more money by publishing a new book in two years that fixes your problems.

It remains to be seen if they actually bother testing their code this time around, or just release it as soon as they finish writing it. 3.0 was especially bad for classes whos tables and text disagreed with each other...

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

I sure hope that most don't consider them canon, because that's a big mistake. I've been playing D&D since around 1979 or 1980, and it was only in the old E.G.G. days did someone (Gary) try to keep house rules and whatnot out of the system. The whole point of the examples of certain things (such as Prestige Classes) in the DMG was to give a few examples to use in your campaign. Just because some data came from a supplement with WotC on the front doesn't make it more a Core rulebook.

Unfortunately you're outvoted by the dollars spent by the teeming hordes of teenagers who are playing the game. I suspect it has a lot to do with the bulk of the D&D market beeing teenagers. I've mentioned it before that part of the fundemental nature of teens is the drive to find out what the rules of being a person are - often by pushing the boundaries to find out where they get yelled at (say, by being gaming munchkins).

However, once teens FIND the boundaries, they tend to viciously enforce them. Witness the continued highschool hostility towards "alternate lifestyle" kids, ethnic or religious minorities, and just plain "weird" folks (like roleplayers!).

The part of your brain that's capable of handling "shades of grey" and contextual rules usually doesn't fully mature until late in the teenaged years, or early in the twenties.

This leads to a lot of fanatical rules lawyering, legalistic thinking,

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

The big thing for me is that if I were DM-ing a campaign in 4.0, there are things in the Core Rulebooks that I would already disqualify (no Eladrin, Dragonspawn, or Tieflings as PCs), and that bothers me. In 3.0, I didn't have those concerns.

I've always had the stance that what races/classes I allow into my campaign is my domain. I've had D&D campaigns where no arcane spellcasting classes were alowed and no pure clerical casters, or where the only race choice allowed was Human (or Elf, in one case). I frequently forbid half-orcs to save on angst over ork stabbing.

Are you disqualifying Eladrin, Dragonspawn, and Tieflings because they don't fit your campaign world? If so, go for it!