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

[GnomeWorks]

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?

You have.

Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity.

"Retarded combinations"? How could you think that that wouldn't come across as offensive?

 

[Kzach]

"Retarded combinations"? How could you think that that wouldn't come across as offensive?

Yeah, I agree.

Jack should've known that the truth hurts

 

[charlesatan]

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.

It's mentioned somewhere (sorry, no link) that they wanted to include the Warlord and Warlock because it adds something new to the base classes, just as the Sorcerer added something new to 3.0 when it first came out. It's a conscious decision, yes, but hardly what I'd call a straight-out ploy.

And let's say you did omit those two classes, which two classes would you replace them with? The Bard? The Barbarian? The Druid? The Sorcerer? Remember, you can only pick two. And fans of the other two that don't get chosen will similarly say that their decision was a ploy.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

incompleteness

When I think of 4E being incomplete it isn't the classes.

It's the lack of Enchantment spells
It's the lack of Illusion spells
It's the lack of Necromancy magic
It's the lack of Summoning magic

I am sure there are other things (for example, it seems to me that there are way fewer magic items in 4E than in 3E, though I admit I havent counted). But the omission of enchantment, illusion, necromancy, and summoning really gets me. To me these are elements that should be present in any fantasy RPG.

Ken

 

[Imaro]

It's mentioned somewhere (sorry, no link) that they wanted to include the Warlord and Warlock because it adds something new to the base classes, just as the Sorcerer added something new to 3.0 when it first came out. It's a conscious decision, yes, but hardly what I'd call a straight-out ploy.

And let's say you did omit those two classes, which two classes would you replace them with? The Bard? The Barbarian? The Druid? The Sorcerer? Remember, you can only pick two. And fans of the other two that don't get chosen will similarly say that their decision was a ploy.

A controller...Honestly this is one of those things that feels incomplete to me. If two players want to play a "controller" type they will both have to play a wizard, on the other hand including the Warlock upped Strikers to 3 and the Warlord upped leaders to 2 (this one is fine IMHO, but 3 strikers vs. 1 controller isn't). I just feel like at minimum there should have been 2 of each role in the 1st PHB.

 

[wayne62682]

I just feel like at minimum there should have been 2 of each role in the 1st PHB.

Now that I agree with. Given that they knew they'd have 8 classes and 4 roles, they should have done this and had 2 classes per role.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Now that I agree with. Given that they knew they'd have 8 classes and 4 roles, they should have done this and had 2 classes per role.

But that would have been "needless symmetry."

 

[Imaro]

But that would have been "needless symmetry."

The problem is that roles have created "needed symmetry". Without certain roles in play, particular challenges become harder. Minions (one of the most touted features of 4e) are a much greater challenge when you don't have a controller. Even Strikers don't deal with them in an optimal way.

This is one of those things that the "balance" of the game has created. It's similar to the CR system in that without certain roles vs. certain monsters the challenges can be much harder than what the level & XP cost would indicate. In order to facilitate the most balanced play experience it seems prudent to give the most balanced options as opposed to specializing them when it comes to roles available to PC's.

 

[Mallus]

I can't say I find it anymore incomplete than say, Mutants and Masterminds... snip ... Other opinions?

Yes. Even though Mutants and Masterminds is a single book it's far more complete than either 3e or 4e, mainly because it takes a lower-level 'toolkit' approach. Also because it's a work of gaming-genius.

Other than that, I agree. I don't find 4e incomplete at all, except in the areas where there's been a deliberate re-thinking of the core mechanical assumptions (ie, no summoning spells because of the recognition of the importance of the 'action economy'), which amount to features rather than oversights (marketing based or otherwise).

 

[Particle_Man]

I would say that the game is mechanically complete. All the needed pc roles are available, and the monsters are themselves divided into roles that are also available as challenges at multiple levels of play. So if you need a level 15 artillery monster, you can get it.

For monsters, a lot more can be done with fluff. Need metallic dragons? Use the stats for a chromatic dragon and add a coat of metallic paint, for now.

For other pc characters, one would counsel patience. It took years for various base classes to come out in 3.x. The other classes will come, so we are really only investigating the order. Come to think of it, 3rd ed. is the only edition that had barbarians as a core class right off the bat. With 1st ed. it came out in the Unearthed Arcana, with 2nd ed. it came out as a kit, and I don't think it was ever a pc option for BXCMI D&D.

But some of the magic was deliberately excluded to stop the pc from controllng 30 dudes and bogging down the game and to control action economy, or are otherwise troublesome (illusions and polymorph magic has always been problematic, so I can see them taking time to work these out). I assume that the game designers are working on ways to incorporate other magics in a way that will work.

But work the bugs out they will. Patience, young padwan.