Yes, and while I have not yet seen the actual rules package yet; from everything that I've been told, I don't think its NDA-breaking for me to say that it really sounds like the Core is going to be kept to a level of ultra-simplicity, that this is the design goal.  There's going to be stuff in it, but not any of the stuff like warlords or healing surges that would make pre-4e fans run for the hills.

Again, though, that's not yet based on actually having seen the material. Just on what I've surmised through some high-level conversations.

RPGPundit

While I understand the issues with healing surges, I'm not sure what the fuss is about stuff like Tieflings and Warlords. Both fall in to the category of really simple shit to house rule away. The first thing I do with any fantsy or SF game is torpedo Races and classes that don't fit my campaign concept.

P.S. Tieflings are a cool idea with a shit name.

Quote from: Aos;514814While I understand the issues with healing surges, I'm not sure what the fuss is about stuff like Tieflings and Warlords. Both fall in to the category of really simple shit to house rule away. The first thing I do with any fantsy or SF game is torpedo Races and classes that don't fit my campaign concept.

P.S. Tieflings are a cool idea with a shit name.

Call them cambions if you like...I don't mind tieflings, apart from the horns, though I don't think they should be numerous/important enough to be a "core" race.

I dislike warlords in particular for the same reason as healing surges: the yelling at people to make them feel better. I suppose this could be a built-in power with X/day use rather than spending surges and I can just kick them to the curb. That would be OK.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;514843I dislike warlords in particular for the same reason as healing surges: the yelling at people to make them feel better. .

Warlords would really bother me. They are the one class that 4E critics point to as an example of 4E silliness. Including it would just be a bad idea, basically showing that WOTC hadn't listened to lapsed customers. As an optional class that is fine. But dont want it as part of core.

Tieglings i can live with, though i really dislike them (along with dragonborne and eladrin). My hope is they go back to the standard races, if only for the sake of setting continuity with previous editions.

I'll take the warlords as long as they each come with tower shields and martinis...

Quote from: Daedalus;508719Don't care really. I am playing and running Barbarians of Lemuria for my fantasy kick and getting that old school role playing feel.

Dungeons and Dragons just doesn't scratch that itch anymore.  D20 is a way over complicated system and I hated in the 3.5 and 4ed days wasting time looking up rules.   BOL is easy for combat and everything else and games go much smoother (ALA the Red Box Days)

The thing about BoL I can't get over is that for all it talks about being a S&S game about adventuring warriors where magic is rare, I notice that it has a rules setup where wizards and alchemists have these subsystems and resource management to play with, while warriors make to-hit rolls over and over and maybe narrate swinging from a rope or flipping over a table. That just doesn't look any different or better from playing OD&D. But I'm thinking that most of what I want from a simpler game with the basic D&D setup can be met by Old School Hack or Savage Worlds.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;514843Call them cambions if you like...I don't mind tieflings, apart from the horns, though I don't think they should be numerous/important enough to be a "core" race.

I dislike warlords in particular for the same reason as healing surges: the yelling at people to make them feel better. I suppose this could be a built-in power with X/day use rather than spending surges and I can just kick them to the curb. That would be OK.

The horns are my favorite part.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514860Warlords would really bother me. They are the one class that 4E critics point to as an example of 4E silliness. Including it would just be a bad idea, basically showing that WOTC hadn't listened to lapsed customers. As an optional class that is fine. But dont want it as part of core.

Tieglings i can live with, though i really dislike them (along with dragonborne and eladrin). My hope is they go back to the standard races, if only for the sake of setting continuity with previous editions.

I actually like all those races, and stuff like the Thri Keen and the Mul from Dark Sun far more than I like the original core races. how anyone can dislike dragonborn more than Halflings or Dwarves is beyond me, really. That said the inclusion of such races doesn't bother me at all. I can just ban them from my game. I've gone dwarf free since the early 90's, for example. However, when it comes down to it I think that races are so simple to add/ban from one's game that what gets included in the core shouldn't even be an issue. Maybe they should just have humans in the core and have the races in modules that way nobody gets their sensibilities offended.

Quote from: Aos;514900I actually like all those races, and stuff like the Thri Keen and the Mul from Dark Sun far more than I like the original core races. how anyone can dislike dragonborn more than Halflings or Dwarves is beyond me, really. That said the inclusion of such races doesn't bother me at all. I can just ban them from my game. I've gone dwarf free since the early 90's, for example. However, when it comes down to it I think that races are so simple to add/ban from one's game that what gets included in the core shouldn't even be an issue. Maybe they should just have humans in the core and have the races in modules that way nobody gets their sensibilities offended.

I like thri keen and muls as well, but they work in darksun, not standard d&d cAmpaigns. Dragonborn and tieflings i actively dislike. But the problem with including strange races in the phb, is it makes it harder for the gm to keep out that material if it isnt part of his setting.

Only if said DM is without a spine.

Not to be a dick, but I find that attitude to be the same kind of thinking that led to the WoTC era attempts create rules that insulate gameplay from bad GMs. The rules will not, can not protect us from whiny players. If a DM can't make a stand about what races will be in the campaign, he should probably move over to the other side of the screen.

Quote from: Aos;514905Only if said DM is without a spine.

Not to be a dick, but I find that attitude to be the same kind of thinking that led to the WoTC era attempts create rules that insulate gameplay from bad GMs. The rules will not, can not protect us from whiny players. If a DM can't make a stand about what races will be in the campaign, he should probably move over to the other side of the screen.

I guess I see it more as coming from an attempt to put power into the players' court when it comes to character choice. Overall 4e felt to me like it was trying to protect players from "bad GMs"

It is a question of having a spine. It doesnt take much to ban core classes, but there is going to be more fallout from banning a core class or race than non core classes and races in many instances. I dont think my players would have a problem with it personally.

Including them in core also leads to setting and flavor changes I simply didn't like. Not my cup of tea at all. The new races in the 4e PHB I actively disliked, particularly stuff like dragonborne.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514911I guess I see it more as coming from an attempt to put power into the players' court when it comes to character choice. Overall 4e felt to me like it was trying to protect players from "bad GMs"

I agree that many choices in both 3e and 4e were made to protect players from bad GMs, that was part of my point, really. The other thing I was trying to get at is that the rules cannot protect a DM from bad/ uncooperative players either. Dealing with that shit is the DM's motherfucking job. The DM who cannot make rulings is fucked fucked fucked fucked no matter what races are in the book. Using all the races because they are in the book and you wish to avoid conflict with the players will allow one to avoid said conflict for precisely as long as character generation takes.  After that the DM is fucked and so is the campaign. Truthfully I think they should put like 20 races in the core and explicitly say, "don't use all of these, just pick the ones you like and fit with your campaign concept."

I think cutting races from the core is s solution in search of problem and that problem is spineless weak ass DMs who can't say no to their players, and really, fuck them, because they are already doomed.

Quote from: Aos;514905Only if said DM is without a spine.

Not to be a dick, but I find that attitude to be the same kind of thinking that led to the WoTC era attempts create rules that insulate gameplay from bad GMs. The rules will not, can not protect us from whiny players. If a DM can't make a stand about what races will be in the campaign, he should probably move over to the other side of the screen.

I agree, and I think this is where the books themselves, in their advice sections, in their methodologies, heck, the rules themselves, the way they are designed by edges and on/off switches rather than center, for instance, are not helping. There's been a very noticeable shift in these terms in the game culture where the basic attitude is "if the GM doesn't allow this or that he's a dick". It didn't come out of nowhere, and if the rules books themselves are not the sole culprits, they are part of this picture, without a doubt in my mind.

Thri-Kreen are just Phraints from Arduin but nowhere near as cool.  
If I wanted Dragonborn, I'd just use Draconians, which actually make sense.
Tieflings were better as the Cockney Gutter-children of Planescape where, you know, they won't be burned at the stake on sight like they would be ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE MULTIVERSE.
Oh and, Deodanths FTW!

Quote from: Aos;514913I agree that many choices in both 3e and 4e were made to protect players from bad GMs, that was part of my point, really. The other thing I was trying to get at is that the rules cannot protect a DM from bad/ uncooperative players either. Dealing with that shit is the DM's motherfucking job. The DM who cannot make rulings is fucked fucked fucked fucked no matter what races are in the book. Using all the races because they are in the book and you wish to avoid conflict with the players will allow one to avoid said conflict for precisely as long as character generation takes.  After that the DM is fucked and so is the campaign. Truthfully I think they should put like 20 races in the core and explicitly say, "don't use all of these, just pick the ones you like and fit with your campaign concept."

I think cutting races from the core is s solution in search of problem and that problem is spineless weak ass DMs who can't say no to their players, and really, fuck them, because they are already doomed.

You know if they put twenty or more races in the phb, then I wouldn't mind (though I still think dragonborne suck as a race). But what they did in the 4E PHB kind of ticked me off. They put in new classes and races I had no interest in and took out ones I either wanted or needed for setting purposes.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514860Warlords would really bother me. They are the one class that 4E critics point to as an example of 4E silliness. Including it would just be a bad idea, basically showing that WOTC hadn't listened to lapsed customers. As an optional class that is fine. But dont want it as part of core.

FACT: All classes are optional.