4th edition doesn't try to deceive itself; it doesn't pretend to be an RPG that fits all styles of the "sword and sorcery" environment. 4th ed. DnD is an RPG in which the PCs are heroes (whether good or evil), the best of the best, from the get-go, thrust in a dark world full of magic and mystery, engaging in combat as dramatic as it is extraordinary. If you want to play in the "sword and sorcery" environment as a non-heroic (i.e. average joe, comic relief cripple, etc.) character or with less dramatic, perhaps grittier combat, then don't play 4th ed. DnD. That's not to say 4th ed. combat isn't deadly (good gods HP flies around like crazy in 4th ed.), or that you couldn't play a cripple (a cripple with devastating physical or magical attacks :p ) in 4th ed., it's just not what the game is about.
More to come, but for now I think that's a decent response to Ionnarin's thoughts.
L O N N A R I N. <3
-Barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and druid were not core in 1st ed. DnD. (and I'm actually okay with multiple releases, but that's a different discussion)
The D&D 1st Ed. standard classes were:Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin and Monk.
Now technically, 1st Edition used the concept of "sub-classes", so in this hierarchy, Druid was a sub-class of Cleric, Paladin and Ranger were sub-classes of Fighter, Illusionist was a sub-class of Magic User (the Wizards of 3rd Edition), and Assassin was a sub-class of Thief. See page 19 of the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, if you'd like the run-down.
Sub-classes or no, however, Druid and Monk were very much a part of 1st Edition, and they were further defined and extended in the supplement Unearthed Arcana.Barbarian was, I believe, a product of 2nd Edition, or at the very least, an add-on to 1st Edition, and Sorcerer was a 3rd Edition thing.
I think Lonnarin's point was they purposefully withheld classes that had previously been "core" classes in order to sell add-on books, which is a marketing decision, not a content decision, and that generally doesn't sit well with people who are fans of the classes.
it really is impossible to play 4e without a tactical map
The effects of magic are dramatically lessened.
4th edition has been 'dumbed down' for a video game obsessed generation
On the whole, the feel I get from 4e is that it is truly a game centered around tabletop tactical combat with minitures. While 3.x can get like that, it really is impossible to play 4e without a tactical map, whereas it can be fudged away in 3.x.
It made me cry blood.
4th is not DnD in my opinion, its simply a money guzzler that didnt read the book before it was marked with a name