Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

My response was specifically to Mallus' post. Go from there. (Maybe he just made his point so poorly that my post was rendered moot because I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say? Quite possible.)
Here, let me help you out...

Some people have unrealistic expectations.

"Complete", when used in this context, shouldn't be mistaken for "all-inclusive". As in, 4e is complete while it is not all inclusive.

Hope that helps!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Even accounting for the endlessly-harped upon invalid options, there are still more character options in core 3e, simply because the multiclassing system generated so many variants. Saying otherwise is like blabbering to me that the sun is in fact the moon; it's one of those things that invalidates every other perspective a person may have on the two systems.
 


This "less options" nonsense has to die.

Well ... I don't think that a count of the number of options will say whether or not the system is complete. You could have 7 billion types of mages, but no agile fighters. Lots of options, but an incomplete system.

But I don't think the original statement was about the count of options. There are lots of options. (Whether there are more or less, that is a different question.)

I don't think the original question is whether or not WotC/Hasbro has been up front in saying that certain classes will not be available until additional books -- not the PH1, DMG1, MM1 -- are available. (There is a question of whether WotC/Hasbro has been forthright about what is "core" and whether there is a strategy to stretch out the content.)

I don't think that the original question was whether or not there was substantial quality and/or value in the first three 4E books. (I personally see big pluses and big minuses as an answer to this question.)

I gathered that the question was whether or not the core three books have provided as complete a game as was provided the first three core 3.5 (or 3.0E) core books.
 

More edition wars?

Where's my "ignore topic" function? ;)

AD&D people ranted 3.0
3.5 people ranted 4.0
4.5 will rant about 5.0

Hey, I didn't rant about 4.0 - and I used to play 3.5! ;)

But a more useful information for you: There is actually an Ignore Thread function! At the top of each thread page, under the "Thread Tools" roll-out button thingy... It's a nice feature to have!
 

Well D&D 4th edition is a game, not the latest bulk collection by Black & Decker...ergo not a set of tools.

Why do you hate Bosch? And as a long-time-ago Shadowrunner, I know that toolkit isn't just toolkit. There are Electonics (B/R) toolkits, Mechanics (B/R) toolkits, Planes (B/R) toolkits and many more! D&D is a Fantasy (B/R) toolkit. (And just one of many)
 


Why do you hate Bosch? And as a long-time-ago Shadowrunner, I know that toolkit isn't just toolkit. There are Electonics (B/R) toolkits, Mechanics (B/R) toolkits, Planes (B/R) toolkits and many more! D&D is a Fantasy (B/R) toolkit. (And just one of many)

I prefer De Walt myself. But hey suck for playing an RPG. Building a gaming table they are good at. I play games, not tool kits.
 

I gathered that the question was whether or not the core three books have provided as complete a game as was provided the first three core 3.5 (or 3.0E) core books.

That question has been answered. 4e is certainly more complete than 3e. Every class in the PHB is complete and workable through all levels of play. All the elements you need to run the game are included, including a starting town and setting (the Vale) that were not present in 3e.

The core elements of D&D gameplay are present, the basic four classes from which all others grow - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief; spells, dungeons AND dragons, levels, alignment, gelatinous cubes, its all there.

Yes, it's D&D. Yes, it's complete. No, this is not a discussion.

Yes, its vastly superior to 3e. There's your discussion. Ah, if only we had a search function wherein we could determine if whether or not 4e is better than 3e has ever been discussed before. If it has, it surely must be well off the main page by now...
 

That question has been answered. 4e is certainly more complete than 3e. Every class in the PHB is complete and workable through all levels of play. All the elements you need to run the game are included, including a starting town and setting (the Vale) that were not present in 3e.

So you've played every class in the PHB throughout all levels...to determine that they have all been created perfectly? Uhm, yeah...right, call me skeptical. Also where are my rules for creating traps in 4e??

The core elements of D&D gameplay are present, the basic four classes from which all others grow - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief; spells, dungeons AND dragons, levels, alignment, gelatinous cubes, its all there.

Wait a minute...so it's 4th edition but only has to adhere to the standards of basic D&D to be considered complete? What is that 1970's complete, because it's 2008, and four classes ain't gonna cut it (unless they're good ole 3.5 Gestalt classes )...and where are my Frost Giants! Oh yeah, and I don't see no metallic DRAGONS either (does this mean it's less Dungeons & Dragons than other editions?)


Yes, it's D&D. Yes, it's complete. No, this is not a discussion.

Sure it is, you're discussing and agreeing with yourself...Because all of the above is true... for you

Yes, its vastly superior to 3e. There's your discussion. Ah, if only we had a search function wherein we could determine if whether or not 4e is better than 3e has ever been discussed before. If it has, it surely must be well off the main page by now...


Yes because 4e is perfect, especially those Skill challenge rules...:confused: Oh, and it can't get off the main page if you keep posting in the thread.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top