Where is 4E incomplete? Forked: Does 4E have staying power?

[thecasualoblivion]

Forked from: Pramas: Does 4E have staying power?

As a publisher of 4e material, I feel confident saying that 4e, as released in the 3 core books, is far from complete. WotC intentionally designed it to not be complete in 3 books for marketing purposes. They have been open about that, so I don't see the point in claiming the game is complete. It's not. It was never supposed to have been. It's supposed to be incomplete to get people to buy more, and keep buying.

Where exactly is core 4E incomplete, compared to 3E core? I'm curious where the answers fall on the following spectrum:

1. The game doesn't need X to be complete
2. Something new was put in its place, and the end result still adds up to a complete game
3. X is something the game lacks, but there is enough A, B, C, and D that the game has enough material to stand on its own
4. The lack of X makes the game incomplete
5. 4E lacks X, but X was removed for design purposes and will never be reintroduced
6. People don't understand the significance of the lack of X

 

[Shadeydm]

Forked from: Pramas: Does 4E have staying power?



Where exactly is core 4E incomplete,

Core 4E is incomplete because its designers say so. Since they have said that the PHB2,3, etc, DMG2,3, etc, and MM2,3, etc are all core it is quite clearly incomplete by thier own standards until such a time as those books are published.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Core 4E is incomplete because its designers say so. Since they have said that the PHB2,3, etc, DMG2,3, etc, and MM2,3, etc are all core it is quite clearly incomplete by thier own standards until such a time as those books are published.

PHB2,3, ect are where new races and classes will primarily be introduced. In previous editions, these were released in Races of X, Complete X, Tome of X, ect. MM2,3, X gave us more monsters. Aside from calling splats "Core", I don't see the big difference from last time. By this reasoning, 3E core is incomplete without the Complete Series, further Monster Manuals, XPH, Tome of Battle, ect.

 

[Storminator]

Your spectrum of answers doesn't look very spectrumy to me...

Clearly there isn't a lot of differentiation if you're going to play the same basic character more than once. I'm pretty sure I'll be happy playing my battle cleric up to the Epic tier, but I doubt I could play a second battle cleric happily. I think this is vital to have eventually, but not vital to have now. I'll just play a different character next time. It's going to be a long time before I get back to battle cleric.

The rules for things outside of combat are pretty sparse. I'm not sure there's a great need for rules outside of combat, so I'm ok with this.

There's definitely a huge hole in spellcaster combat feats. Melee guys have feats coming out of their ears (tho once you pick a type of warrior, like spearfighter, the actual options neck down pretty fast). Arcane guys, not so much. I think it's a big hole, and pretty significant. I get the feeling a lot of wizards are pretty "meh" about that 8th level feat.

I think there's a lot of room for creative powers. This might be a category that is never complete...

PS

 

[Shadeydm]

PHB2,3, ect are where new races and classes will primarily be introduced. In previous editions, these were released in Races of X, Complete X, Tome of X, ect. MM2,3, X gave us more monsters. Aside from calling splats "Core", I don't see the big difference from last time. By this reasoning, 3E core is incomplete without the Complete Series, further Monster Manuals, XPH, Tome of Battle, ect.

Those 4E books are 4E core according to the publisher but apparenly you know better...

I didn't realize the Druid, Bard, Barbarian etc were "new" classes.

 

[malraux]

Core 4E is incomplete because its designers say so. Since they have said that the PHB2,3, etc, DMG2,3, etc, and MM2,3, etc are all core it is quite clearly incomplete by thier own standards until such a time as those books are published.

Of course, WotC considered all non-setting specific books in 3e to be core as well. They used a different definition than most everyone else. MM3 was always listed as a core product, as well as complete divine.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Those 4E books are 4E core according to the publisher but apparenly you know better...

I didn't realize the Druid, Bard, Barbarian etc were "new" classes.

Amongst the gaming community, "Core" is defined as PHB, DMG, and MM. Comparing 4E's core 3 against eight years of 3E isn't a terribly valid comparison.

As for Druid, Bard, and Barbarian: the game does not fall apart without these classes. There is enough overlap between Barbarian and Fighter that Barbarian can be skipped. 1E and 2E did not fall apart from a lack of Barbarian in the PHB. Bard is a fringe concept that while it has its fans, isn't going to ruin a game by its lack. Druid is the strongest argument of the three, but again the game doesn't die without it, not like it would if it lacked Fighter, Rogue, Cleric or Wizard.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

3e you could play a monster right off the bat. Even if doing so was kinda hard to figure out LA. In 4e you cant. Unless WOTC makes more minotaur as a playable race articles.

4e lacks options. You cant deny it doesnt. What if someone wants to roleplay a Sculpter with no useful combat skills or kewl powerz. Someone who waits till like level 10 to finally get training as a fighter, ot help out the jerks that drug him along for the adventure in the first place.
Or the Commoner who wants to take revenge on some Orcs for burning down his farm.
Ive read 4e core books several times, and without totally making up the rules (Something my players never really tolerated or many others that ive met) you cant do it. Everyone is a hero and no one sucks. Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

3e you could play a monster right off the bat. Even if doing so was kinda hard to figure out LA. In 4e you cant. Unless WOTC makes more minotaur as a playable race articles.

4e lacks options. You cant deny it doesnt. What if someone wants to roleplay a Sculpter with no useful combat skills or kewl powerz. Someone who waits till like level 10 to finally get training as a fighter, ot help out the jerks that drug him along for the adventure in the first place.
Or the Commoner who wants to take revenge on some Orcs for burning down his farm.
Ive read 4e core books several times, and without totally making up the rules (Something my players never really tolerated or many others that ive met) you cant do it. Everyone is a hero and no one sucks. Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.

Playing a monster in 3E was almost always a bad option. LA and ECL were crippling disadvantages, and playing non-humanoids was even worse. The 4E Monster Manual includes stats for making characters out of 17 humanoid monsters. Removing bad options is not lessening options.

As for playing Sculpters or Commoners, I would argue that no edition of D&D has ever truly supported this. 3E let you play a Sculpter or Commoner, but the game did not support this choice. If you played the game as written, the CR system would bite you and your party.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Forked from: Pramas: Does 4E have staying power?



Where exactly is core 4E incomplete, compared to 3E core? I'm curious where the answers fall on the following spectrum:

Entire types of magic and magical effects. Illusions,necromancy, shapechanging, travel beyond a gimped dimension door?

Magic items: Play with just the items in the PHB for an entire campaign vs. just the items in any other edition DMG.

Show me a selection of 4E fantasy creatures that don't exist soley for slaughter? I can find some in the core of any other edition.

Nope. No incompleteness whatsoever.