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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My way avoids a lot of the "action economy" problem WotC mentioned, and it does it by adhering to the concept of "One character per player". As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to play more than one character, he can DM. My game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.

But your solution looks very similar to "no summoning". Your way would work in 4E, too - just claim people have "pets" and cohorts and they always fight some extraneous monsters and minions that the PCs then don't have to deal with.

Maybe that's really the only working solution, in the end, anyway.

 

[The Little Raven]

My way avoids a lot of the "action economy" problem WotC mentioned, and it does it by adhering to the concept of "One character per player".

It just shifts the additional actions to the DM, giving him more work.

As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to play more than one character, he can DM. My game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.

That's why I prefer them as character powers.

 

[Fenes]

It just shifts the additional actions to the DM, giving him more work.

Hence the "and your pets fight their minions... now, for the real fight..." solution.

 

[Plane Sailing]

There have been some rude/personal attack posts in this thread recently. Please don't do it again. Anyone doing so after this post will get booted.

Thanks

 

[Fenes]

But your solution looks very similar to "no summoning". Your way would work in 4E, too - just claim people have "pets" and cohorts and they always fight some extraneous monsters and minions that the PCs then don't have to deal with.

Maybe that's really the only working solution, in the end, anyway.

Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important. For me, summoning would be focusing on out of combat more than in combat. Dealing with other planes of existance and their denizens, making pacts to summon those, interacting with the summoned, dealing with other summoners, the whole "are those slaves or partners?" aspect, picking the right creature for some situations, dealing with the problems of summoning, social and other, darker problems... a summoner can offer so much more than a source of additional attacks in combat.

(Of course, I'd probably either change the summon spell duration, or focus more on planar ally-type spells.)

So, I'd not say "no summoning".

 

[Plane Sailing]

And IMHO, you are in the minority in that regard. For instance, every person I have ever met who played or talked about having a mage with a familiar, it was always them describing what the familiar did, how the familiar interacted wtih themselves and everyone else.

And in most cases, the familiar was forgotten by the player and only rarely brought out unless they were bored or needed something for it to do.

Order of the Stick makes this very joke, and that joke was made because it's a common experience for gamers.

Also, considering how summoned monsters lasted 1 round/level, there was very little "Interaction" going on. It was Speak Command and Monster Does Job. No conversation, no funny accent. It is a bag of hit points with a to-hit. A resource, like any other.

I freely admin that I'm not in the majority here, but as a DM I've had great fun with both these aspects (with the same player too). He was a 3.0e sorcerer with a raven familar, and the familiar would often chat to him backchat to him, request the opportunity to seek out some 'tasty treats' (eyes of fallen victims) and such. When the raven died to a wail of the banshee trap, the player was gutted.

That same PC at one point summoned a Formorian worker to do something for him (other than fight). They are in a back alley in the town, the sorcerer summons him and gives him a command. The Formorian tilts its head slightly and says "click click chirrrr?". Sorcerer bangs his head on wall upon realising that he doesn't speak any language that his summoned buddy knows, so they just look at each other until the spell wears off.

Comedy gold it was

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important. For me, summoning would be focusing on out of combat more than in combat. Dealing with other planes of existance and their denizens, making pacts to summon those, interacting with the summoned, dealing with other summoners, the whole "are those slaves or partners?" aspect, picking the right creature for some situations, dealing with the problems of summoning, social and other, darker problems... a summoner can offer so much more than a source of additional attacks in combat.

(Of course, I'd probably either change the summon spell duration, or focus more on planar ally-type spells.)

So, I'd not say "no summoning".

Sounds more like some kind of ritual (leading to quests, adventures, or skill challenges). And interesting, too.

 

[Rechan]

Hence the "and your pets fight their minions... now, for the real fight..." solution.

The point of having a pets is so that they contribute. If "they just walk over there and play patty cake with a minion", that's not a real contribution. Especially when said pet is a balancing factor for the class from a mechanical standpoint.

However, your "And they stroll over there and contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points", as referenced, very 4e. Because hey, summoning, pets, etc can be included; they just contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points and status effects.

4e is all about BSing the fluff text and hand-waving the minutia when it suits your story. NPCs don't have healing surges - unless you need them to, etc.

If you do not have the pets contribute to the action, then why should there be pages wasted on mentioning them? It's not "incomplete for animal companions and familiars" if they are merely cute NPC interaction.

 

[Rechan]

Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important.

I'm going to stop you right there.

With all due respect, D&D is a combat engine.

That's why 95% of the rules revolve around combat, in every edition. That's why all the splatbooks are geared towards combat options. I do not believe there has ever been "1001 Outfits and Chamberpots to fill your castle" book.

D&D came out of chainmail, which was a wargame. It has, and unfortunately, always will be shootin' fireballs at orcs.

Regardless of how you play it, this is how it is treated by, I feel, the vast majority. People can put as much fancy decoration as they want, but the system's function is to facilitate combat.

WotC designed 4e by using market research, and gaming data. They did a lot of research on how people played the games. They designed 4e to cater to how people played D&D, rather than how "they should" or "they might". It's practical application of "What do most people do when they sit down in front of their character sheet across from the DM screen".

In my opinion, your playstyle doesn't really have anything to do with what edition, or even what system you're playing, because what you seem to care about is the story and the interaction of Character to NPC. So I don't think you should be concerned with what's in the Core 4e book or not, because it's not going to really be catering to your tastes in a game.

 

[Fenes]

The point of having a pets is so that they contribute. If "they just walk over there and play patty cake with a minion", that's not a real contribution. Especially when said pet is a balancing factor for the class.

However, your "And they stroll over there and contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points", as referenced, very 4e. Because hey, summoning, pets, etc can be included; they just contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points and status effects.

4e is all about BSing the fluff text and hand-waving the minutia.

If you do not have the pets contribute to the action, then why should there be pages wasted on mentioning them? It's not "incomplete for animal companions and familiars" if they are merely cute NPC interaction.

Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.

I do not measure contributions by the "what good is it in combat" stick, but by the "what does it add to the game"-standard. And generally, I consider playtime/spotlight time to be the baseline one balances classes and characters after, not killing power. The two can overlap a lot in a combat heavy campaign, but do not have to.