Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?

[Andor]

Better than 14 pages of dragons that hardly ever get used as combat encounters, thus wasting 14 pages of a book that is supposed to be full of combat encounters.

If you never used anything in the MM as as anything but a combat encounter you might have a point. Perhaps at your table that is true, my games have not been so limited.

And oh noes, they didn't stick with everything that has the tradition sticker stuck on it. God forbid anyone realize that "it's tradition" is the worst reason to keep something around.

"It's tradition" is far from the worst reason to keep something around. Consider Palladium as an example.

Let's see... what bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 3e? Nada. What bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 4e? Extra +3 bonus to attack when charging, or a blanket +1 bonus to all Defense... real choices.

In 3e Hippogriffs are faster, cheaper, and less likely to eat your horse. Griffons are tougher and have better attacks. Equally real choices, and they have they advantage of being organic to the creature, rather than being some utterly random thing a designer stuck in because it tickled his fancy.

I mentioned 3 skills in 3e btw because Animal Empathy could be used to aquire one of those monsterous mounts and Handle Animal was used to train them. In 4e you use.... um... apparently there is no training in 4e. Tough luck.

I forgot to mention Lances btw. 4e forgot those too. But hey, it's not like they are iconic weapons or anything.

Avoiding encounters is not the same as invalidating encounters. Invalidating an encounter gives you the reward, but removes the challenge.

Huh? The only time flight allowed you to remove the challange but get the reward is when the enemy A) Has no ranged attacks, B) Has no ability to retreat to cover, and C) Had some kind of monetary treasure. I don't know about you but I have never seen all 3 of those things come up at once while the party as a whole had flight in 29 years of gaming.

 

[Vocenoctum]

No, I'm using Fly, the level 3 Wizard spell as an example of what I don't like.

So you recognize the difference between 3e flight and 4e flight.

My dismissive tone is because you, like so many other anti-4e people, tend to make blanket statements as if they were fact when they are far from it. You make a ridiculous claim like "flight is gone," then scramble afterwards to qualify it because you know it's a load of BS.

I've since qualified it and you continue to argue against the original quick statement I made in the original post in between EN's crashing. I didn't make a list of debating points, just showed some of the fantasy elements that were cut from 4e because they were too much trouble. You ignore the other elements( shapechange and such) and focus on Flight which I didn't properly qualify. You then continue to be dismissive of everything I've written because it's easier than saying "yeah, freeform flight is gone, but I like it better without it" rather than bash someone who doesn't like some of 4e.

The system takes flight into account... by placing it in the higher tiers of power, where it belongs. Giving you an ability to invalidate whole swathes of encounters when you've only hit 1/4 of the entire level progression of the core game is ridiculously overpowered.

It takes it into account by putting it on the grid.

How many times do I have say "Grab is the replacement for Grapple." before you actually read it properly?

You can say it all you want, I see a huge difference in them. I don't even care about Grapple though, I just used it as an example of something cut from core to be added later. You can't wrestle until the new system is released. You seem to think Grab replaces Grapple, and yet you have no comment on the Grapple to come? Must be easier to argue that way.

And your point is wrong. I don't see how Picking Locks or Diplomacy or Gentle Repose fits onto the grid, yet they are still present within the game.

Stick to fact, instead of your exaggerated (and often false) hyperbole.

I"m sticking to opinions, because that's what this thread is about. You don't get to set the rules of a discussion, and justifying your manner of talking to someone as their fault doesn't mean you're being polite.

The game was balanced, which requires a shifting of certain things. Yeah, no more "I can fly whenever, wherever" because it's broken. If you want a simulation of the world of make-believe, play something that is intended to be one, because D&D isn't and has never been.

D&D is not meant to be an exact replication of a world, and 4e is the core of a system to play within such a world. I don't mind abstraction. Hit Points are abstraction. Removing Shapechanging because balancing the earlier system required too much work is overbalanced. I don't see how a Familiar would have unbalanced things, but they had to make room for a giant font.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you never used anything in the MM as as anything but a combat encounter you might have a point. Perhaps at your table that is true, my games have not been so limited.

I don't need combat statistics for things that aren't used in combat. Thus, I don't need a gold dragon combat stat block in order to put a gold dragon NPC that my players will never fight in my game.

"It's tradition" is far from the worst reason to keep something around. Consider Palladium as an example.

That's a bad example, since Palladium's "Don't change it" policy is why I'd never buy a product by them. They need to learn to keep up with the times, not fixate themselves on "the olden days."

I mentioned 3 skills in 3e btw because Animal Empathy could be used to aquire one of those monsterous mounts and Handle Animal was used to train them. In 4e you use.... um... apparently there is no training in 4e. Tough luck.

We're talking about Mounted Combat, which doesn't require Animal Empathy or Handle Animal... and Animal Empathy isn't a skill in 3.5, it's a Druid and Ranger only class feature.

And just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible. No edition of D&D has had detailed rules for procreation, but only an idiot would claim that reproduction is impossible and that's because D&D is not a simulation of a fantasy world. It's a game.

I forgot to mention Lances btw. 4e forgot those too. But hey, it's not like they are iconic weapons or anything.

Lances are just spears.

 

[The Little Raven]

So you recognize the difference between 3e flight and 4e flight.

Yes. One is overpowered, the other is not.

You ignore the other elements( shapechange and such) and focus on Flight which I didn't properly qualify.

Yeah, I ignore the stuff that is actually missing from player choices (like shapechanging), and focus on the thing you claim was missing, when in fact, it is not.

You then continue to be dismissive of everything I've written because it's easier than saying "yeah, freeform flight is gone, but I like it better without it" rather than bash someone who doesn't like some of 4e.

The only thing I've dismissed is your offhand claim that particular things (flight, or anything that doesn't happen off the combat grid) are non-existent in 4e, because they're worth dismissing.

It takes it into account by putting it on the grid.

So, it does take it into account... which is a complete 180 from what you were saying in your previous post.

You can say it all you want, I see a huge difference in them.

I see a huge difference too: one was overpowered with a relatively minor cost, and the other is balanced.

You seem to think Grab replaces Grapple, and yet you have no comment on the Grapple to come?

I'm not a speculator, that's why.

I"m sticking to opinions, because that's what this thread is about.

Then stay away from facts, or the distortion thereof. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

You don't get to set the rules of a discussion, and justifying your manner of talking to someone as their fault doesn't mean you're being polite.

Since you're new, you probably don't know this: I'm not overly concerned with polite. I'm not here to win popularity contests or to make friends. I'm here to discuss and debate.

D&D is not meant to be an exact replication of a world, and 4e is the core of a system to play within such a world. I don't mind abstraction. Hit Points are abstraction. Removing Shapechanging because balancing the earlier system required too much work is overbalanced. I don't see how a Familiar would have unbalanced things, but they had to make room for a giant font.

This attitude that if it was in the game before that it has to be in the core, immediately, is exactly why we had things like wild shape and polymorph being constantly revised throughout the entire lifespan of Third Edition: tradition is not a substitute for proper game design.

 

[Vocenoctum]

So, it does take it into account... which is a complete 180 from what you were saying in your previous post.

It's not a 180, you just ignore everything that doesn't fit your arguement.

I'm not a speculator, that's why.

Right, if the game designer says "Grapple is on the way", you should stick to "grab is the new grapple!" even though it's just you.

Then stay away from facts, or the distortion thereof. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

There are no facts, even what is considered "the grid" is a matter of debate.

Since you're new, you probably don't know this: I'm not overly concerned with polite. I'm not here to win popularity contests or to make friends. I'm here to discuss and debate.

Since I've been here longer than you, I know that you must still be polite in discussion. I'm also aware that "discuss and debate" is meaningless when you just want to argue.

This attitude that if it was in the game before that it has to be in the core, immediately, is exactly why we had things like wild shape and polymorph being constantly revised throughout the entire lifespan of Third Edition: tradition is not a substitute for proper game design.

We can separate a couple things here. "In the game" and "typical fantasy" are two different things. Shapechanging and illusion are staples of "typical fantasy" and their absence from 4e is noticeable. Shapechange and Illusion missing from this edition while being present in previous edition is a different topic. I may not like that gnomes are gone and green dragons are hideous, but that's a different "incomplete" than saying "hey, the game feels incomplete without shapechange".

And once again, you don't set the rules in the matter.

 

[Imaro]

I don't need combat statistics for things that aren't used in combat. Thus, I don't need a gold dragon combat stat block in order to put a gold dragon NPC that my players will never fight in my game.

So did your players fight alot of Unicorns? Because they made the cut.

That's a bad example, since Palladium's "Don't change it" policy is why I'd never buy a product by them. They need to learn to keep up with the times, not fixate themselves on "the olden days."

Hmm...I guess it all depends on what youe opinion of "the times" is. This is quite the nebulous statement.

And just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible. No edition of D&D has had detailed rules for procreation, but only an idiot would claim that reproduction is impossible and that's because D&D is not a simulation of a fantasy world. It's a game.

Just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible...what? I guess I should have saved the money on those books according to your philosophy, nothing needs rules...or at least that's what I think your trying to say.

Lances are just spears.

Yet we have Katars (just daggers)...Rapier (just a thin longsword)...Crossbow (just a mechanical bow)...Javelins (just shorter spears)...etc.

 

[Rechan]

So did your players fight alot of Unicorns? Because they made the cut.

Actually, there's a huge incentive to use Unicorns in 3e. A druid can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally IV for a 4th level spell. That would summon a Unicorn. Its spell-like abilities (especially the healing) are very useful.

In 4e, you bet your ass they'll be fighting unicorns. Because the unicorns make great allies/steeds, since they're Leaders, providing buffing and healing to allies. Also, instead of being farting-rainbow good, they're Unaligned.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Rudeness and crap like "Aha, we see that being irrational is the hallmark of the 4e fanboy" aside... the thread seems to boil down to

"I define 'complete' as being a playable game without further purchases"
vs.
"I define 'complete' as having not left out X,Y,and Z which I think should have been kept"

I mean, I get where people are coming from, but it feels like they're talking past each other.

If you don't like 4e because Fly doesn't last a full hour or something like that, fine, I respect that, but you've got to realize that a lot of people don't consider "Fly lasts a full hour" to be a necessary condition for completeness.

 

[Imaro]

Actually, there's a huge incentive to use Unicorns in 3e. A druid can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally IV for a 4th level spell. That would summon a Unicorn. Its spell-like abilities (especially the healing) are very useful.

In 4e, you bet your ass they'll be fighting unicorns. Because the unicorns make great allies/steeds, since they're Leaders, providing buffing and healing to allies. Also, instead of being farting-rainbow good, they're Unaligned.

Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder? Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.

More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.

 

[The Little Raven]

So did your players fight alot of Unicorns? Because they made the cut.

No, they didn't, but now that they aren't virgin-loving exemplars of animal goodness, I probably will use them.

Hmm...I guess it all depends on what youe opinion of "the times" is. This is quite the nebulous statement.

By "the times," I mean keeping up with the current state of game design. Palladium refuses to make much-needed changes to their system, because they don't want to invalidate previous books.

Just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible...what?

So, you don't need to waste page count on things like that, just like crafting skills. It's a game, not a world simulation.

Plus, if you really needed it, you have the Nature skill, since knowledge of natural beasts should give you insight into training them. Train Beast: Nature check, DC 10 + 1/2 the level of the beast. 10 if a totally mundane animal.

I guess I should have saved the money on those books according to your philosophy, nothing needs rules...or at least that's what I think your trying to say.

I'm saying rules aren't needed for everything, and the lack of a rule doesn't mean such a thing is impossible. Rules are not the physics of the game world.

Yet we have Katars (just daggers)...Rapier (just a thin longsword)...Crossbow (just a mechanical bow)...Javelins (just shorter spears)...etc.

Except all of those things have distinct differences between them and their closest counterpart. A katar is used very differently than a dagger, nevermind the game mechanics that make it different (higher damage, high crit property). Same with the rapier (a light thrusting weapon) and the longsword (a heavy slashing weapon). The crossbow is hugely different from the longbow or short bow. And the key difference between the javelin and spear: javelins are ranged weapons, while spears are not.

A lance is just a spear. That's it.