Quote from: Arduin;706442Not really relevant.  The company (WotC) decided that they weren't.  Thus, they left them out of the PHB and put them as an OPTION for the GM in a splat book...

Though Mistwell's entitled to his opinion as to what's core to the D&D experience, he is wrongfully conflating the absence of a rule for hitting something with the absence of a couple of race/class options (of many) to give his opinion more weight.

In any case, we seem to be drifting from what the OP asked. And we seem to agree that the PHB is the way to go for the OP, even with the absence of gnomes.

Quote from: Arduin;706442Not really relevant.  The company (WotC) decided that they weren't.  Thus, they left them out of the PHB and put them as an OPTION for the GM in a splat book...

They didn't do any such thing.  They did not call them an option.  They called them out as core quite specifically.  You're the guy claiming if it's not in the first PHB then it's not core and is optional, not WOTC.  They did the opposite of what you're saying they did, and intentionally split the core between the two books.

Here is a picture of the book.  See what it says at the bottom?

Quote from: Skywalker;706451Though Mistwell's entitled to his opinion as to what's core to the D&D experience, he is wrongfully conflating the absence of a rule for hitting something with the absence of a couple of race/class options (of many) to give his opinion more weight.

You know, simply asserting that is the case without supporting your assertion isn't meaningful.  It's the equivalent of you saying "nuh uh!".

Mistwell's actually right here: WotC was very explicit in its idea that all the PHs and DMGs and MMs were core. Didn't they have a slogan to the extent of "Everything is Core", too?

I guess that idea came up with the whole thing about the character builder and DDI making all the content equal online or some such. Of course the idea didn't fly, but still, it very much was a "thing" in 4e.

That's where I got the idea, then.  

But is it true?  Doesn't sound like it.

Aside from what's said on the cover, what's the merit to the phb2 being core?  Does it have rules content?

The later 'core' books really do contain what many older (OK, 3E) players would see as necessary bits of the game: druids, bards, fighters who can use two weapons, monks. Or if you want metallic dragons as well as chromatic, they're in (I think) MM II rather than MM I. The later books more or less really are as 'core' as the earlier ones, though filler is spread through them all fairly evenly.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;706475The later 'core' books really do contain what many older (OK, 3E) players would see as necessary bits of the game: druids, bards, fighters who can use two weapons, monks. Or if you want metallic dragons as well as chromatic, they're in (I think) MM II rather than MM I. The later books more or less really are as 'core' as the earlier ones, though filler is spread through them all fairly evenly.

I'm having trouble understanding.  Take the dragon color thing.  Could you not take a Red, change its alignment and call it a Gold?

Take the druid.  Is the cleric material not sufficient to play one, if you had to?

Still trying to scope it out.

Though each reply like yours reinforces my decision to skip 4e.  

Too damn many books!

Quote from: Mistwell;706466They didn't do any such thing.

Yes, it was de facto as they weren't in the PHB WITH the rules for the players to play.  EVERYONE would purchase the PHB as it had the CORE game mechanic rules.  NOT everyone would purchase the splatbook (aka PHB2) as it DIDN'T have the core game rules.

Quote from: mcbobbo;706487I'm having trouble understanding. Take the dragon color thing. Could you not take a Red, change its alignment and call it a Gold?
 
Take the druid. Is the cleric material not sufficient to play one, if you had to?
 
Still trying to scope it out.
 
Though each reply like yours reinforces my decision to skip 4e.
 
Too damn many books!

You can reskin classes or monsters to a degree but may get a few things that don't fit like particular skills or powers, so you might need to be a bit fast and loose with the rules if you're doing that. The 4E druid is I think more wildshape-based, instead of having the focus on healing and radiant damage. but in the initial bunch of WOTC articles they suggested reskinning rangers as monks (basically using TWF as flurry of blows), using wizard for psion and a few things like that, so it is possible to an degree.

Quote from: mcbobbo;706471But is it true?  Doesn't sound like it.

As said, the PHB1 gave as many options as any previous PHB for D&D and can be used by itself for years. It is the book you are looking for if you want to get a good feel of 4e from one book.

There are a few races, classes, monsters, and magic items that appeared in previous editions that were moved to later supplements due to the chnages in the structure of 4e. These are in the minority though and each case another option is given in its place. FWIW most of the omissions are from 2e and 3e, and they were less notable to older D&D players IME, especially B/X or BECMI players.

How important these options are to you for a complete D&D experience is a personal judgement. And this isn't exclusive to 4e as every iteration of D&D changes how they use the space in the core 3 book set. I would advise against believing that the later supplements are necessary simply because WotC calls them 'Core'.

Quote from: Mistwell;706466Here is a picture of the book.  See what it says at the bottom?

That reads to me as "Please give us more money, you saps"

Another 4e derivative that is worth a read to get an idea of what 4e was trying achieve without 4e's 'likely to offend' single minded focus is Heroes Against Darkness (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/107559/Heroes-Against-Darkness). It's a free retroclone that manages to take several aspects which 4e excelled in (the good tactical play, balance, and ease of use for the GM) but applies it to a more recognisable old school experience.

I would drop the freefrom guidelines for skills altogeter, and it also needs the 4e ritual system grafted onto it, or something similar for non-combat magic. But it's worth checking out. And it's free.

Quote from: mcbobbo;706471That's where I got the idea, then.  

But is it true?  Doesn't sound like it.

Aside from what's said on the cover, what's the merit to the phb2 being core?  Does it have rules content?

I believe your initial question was what you would need to (mostly) understand 4E, correct?

In that particular context you do not need PHB2 or 3 (they're not core in that sense). They will not significantly enhance your understanding of the game. They may contain classes or race that some people consider necessary to play the game but the only rules they contain are the 4E equivalent of optional or house rules.

To put it as directly as possible, you could not play 4E with just PHB2 or 3. You can play it with just PHB1, even if by some definitions you'd be missing "core" classes or races.

Quote from: mcbobbo;706487I'm having trouble understanding.  Take the dragon color thing.  Could you not take a Red, change its alignment and call it a Gold?

Take the druid.  Is the cleric material not sufficient to play one, if you had to?

Still trying to scope it out.

Though each reply like yours reinforces my decision to skip 4e.  

Too damn many books!

Tweaking monsters that way is very easy and natural to many gm's. (Like me)

Others prefer to have every type of dragon and class fully detailed.


Fyi as a person very familiar with 4e, I don't really recommend it as a game system.

I just use it for a group that likes it.

Alternatively, you can check out the free D&D 4e Starter set also on dndclassics.  It is a pretty concise set of rules (came out in 2009 or so IIRC, so it is not the be all end all of the rule set).

Also of note with 4e, use the monsters from the Monster Vault 1&2, MM 3, and the Dark Sun monster book.  It seems the monsters in the MM 1&2 were broken mathematically.

Cheers