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

[delericho]

It doesn't have everything previous editions did but having the barbarian half-orc isn't a sign of a complete game to me.

Other opinions?

I think I'm going to have to agree. 4e is a complete game.

However, while it is complete, it also has some shocking limitations and omissions. The near-complete absence of enchantment and illusion magic is one key example. The game is also rather short on low-level monsters (try building a 1st level adventure of any length that features neither Kobolds nor Goblins).

 

[Ginnel]

. The game is also rather short on low-level monsters (try building a 1st level adventure of any length that features neither Kobolds nor Goblins).

Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters

 

[Fenes]

I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had. Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity. To get things right before they are released. And they have. So yeah, with regards to options, some might say 4e is less complete. I say it is better.

I don't care how many options a game has - just that it has all the options I want. 4E so far lacks enough options for my taste.

 

[Jack99]

I, however, have used the stats for all the metallic dragons at one time or another. Usually as allies of the party or creatures to be rescued. Hardly useless. Especially not for the world building DMs out here.

I never said they were useless. Using myself as an example, I was merely pointing out that at least some DM's rarely ever used the stats for metallic dragons. Yes, I also believe that to be the majority, but that is an all together other matter. My players have interacted plenty of times with metallic dragons. I just rarely needed the stats, as they are for combat (in my mind).

Jack, what gets me is that you're constantly posting that your style of playing D&D is superior to mine.

I do not believe that I have posted such a thing. I said that I think 4e is mechanically superior to 3.x. Is that what is bothering you? In fact, how do you even know that my playstyle is different from yours? Because I like 4e? I am sorry you feel that I have attacked your playstyle, because I haven't. Maybe if you point out to me where I am rude (your words) and attack your playstyle, I could help explaining what I meant?

Why can't you understand that the current D&D situation is not an improvement for people that prefer a more old school/immersive/emulationist/simulationist/whatever they call it now days style of D&D?
Sam

Oh, I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the "logic" they use to produce said statement. Especially since I consider myself pretty old-school and immersive, while preferring 4e.

 

[Jack99]

I don't care how many options a game has - just that it has all the options I want. 4E so far lacks enough options for my taste.

That's fair enough. The number of options one feel a game should provide is a matter of personal taste. However, some people seem to not like 4e (or say it is a bad game) because it has less options at launch that 3.x had (at the end), which is a stance I find unreasonable.

 

[delericho]

Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters

I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is still very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.

 

[Jack99]

I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is still very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.

I had a bit of the same feeling, as a DM. Then last time (that we played), while eating, I asked my players how they felt about it. The general consensus was that even though many of the monsters were the same (as in same race) they felt very differently due to the many different powers/special abilities. They really felt that orcs were different to goblins who again were different to hobgoblins who again were different to the orcs they have met. And not just in roleplay, but also in roll-play.

But looking at the index, I agree, it does seem short.

 

[charlesatan]

I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is still very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.

As a GM, I do feel that the MM list is short. However, I also felt the same way about the 3.5 MM as well.

Also, 4E has to make encounters for 30 levels instead of 20 levels.

 

[wayne62682]

I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had.

Not only that but since 3e had "system mastery", most of those choices sucked from a mechanical standpoint. Maybe half of those numbers, if that, were actually solid choices to pick. The rest were fool's gold.

I don't want that with 4e. I don't want there to be "fluff" paragon paths that are largely useless in light of another path. Nor do I want classes that are barely effective, or feats which anyone can easily see is useless filler if you can't qualify for anything else.

4e feels complete to me. Things like the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, etc. aren't that big a deal to me. I recall in 6 years playing 3.5 one person playing a sorcerer, two playing a druid (and not abusing it), and the one time I played a gnome bard for a one-shot I was nearly laughed off the table for playing such a "useless" choice. I'd rather have WotC take the time to properly balance than rush things out to appease the notion of "It's always been in D&D" and end up with 3.x all over again.

System mastery is a worthless concept in a game, and should be left to rot. 4e is complete in the sense that they got rid of that and are willing to take their time with things in order to get them right the first time.

 

[Kzach]

But as it is, there's only so many pages you can include in a book without raising its price point, or allot development/playtesting time for various races/classes.

Definitely, but I think it's fairly obvious that it was a conscious decision to exclude the bard/barbarian/sorcerer/druid and put the warlord and warlock in their place.

It's somewhat disingenuous to say that they weren't aware that there would be a demand for those classes. Whether classic or not, the expectation that they would be included was obvious as they'd been a staple of D&D since 3.0, if not before.

I don't necessarily begrudge them that, however I also don't pretend that it's not a ploy to create a future revenue stream.