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

[Doug McCrae]

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

Yes. Not only that but you don't have to use 5*level 1 monsters in every encounter. You could use 3*level 5 for instance, which is only slightly more powerful (600xp total versus 500xp).

Combine that with the scaling technique you mention and you can be using monsters from level 1 to level 11 against a 1st level party, more than a third of the whole MM. This in fact is what I'll be doing for an upcoming campaign. So you're definitely not forced to use goblins and kobolds at level 1. You can put level 1 PCs up against scaled drow, trolls, gargoyles, minotaurs or wyverns.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that would have been "needless symmetry."

No, it would not.

But symmetry or avoiding it is not the major concern here. They had to make decision what to design and develop for the initial release and what to be kept for later.


I suppose the Warlock started out as a Controller, but they found out that it worked better as a Striker, and didn't feel like having the time to go through the entire R&D process for the Sorcerer or other Controller-Class before the release.

 

[Kzach]

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

You can't say the system is incomplete. It simply isn't. You can pick up the books currently on the market and if they never produced another book, you could happily play the system for years. There is nothing incomplete about it.

If you want to use the argument that incomplete constitutes not including certain classes/powers/feats/races/etc. then you have to allow that all systems are incomplete since none of them will ever cover every single possible variety of permutation that can exist.

Now if they had only published 1/3 of the PHB and said, "Mu hahahahaha! We're going to make you buy the other two halves separately!" then you could say it was incomplete.

Wait... didn't they do that with Basic?

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.

They could've included all four by excluding dragonborn and tieflings

 

[Psion]

You can't say the system is incomplete.

Er, he didn't say that. He said what he did think was incomplete in his post. To wit: schools of magic.

What did you hope to gain by quoting out of context and excluding what he actually did think was missing, and insert a refutation to a point he wasn't making? Hoping nobody would scroll up so people could look at your post and nod along with you?

Not cool, man.

 

[The Little Raven]

Hasbro is somewhat infamous in its hands-off approach to its subsidaries.

This. Every person I know that works for Hasbro or a subsidiary talks about their hands-off approach, so it's always confusing to me when outsiders go on about the "Hasbro interference" that the employees say doesn't happen.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

edit: see my next post

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

incomplete

I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete. For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment. Now it doesn't. I think that's incomplete.

Your argument is like saying that the next edition of Traveller would be complete without rules for spaceship combat, because the game was quite fun when played on a single world.

Certain elements of fantasy have come to define D&D over the last 30 years. They're gone now, because the current crop of designers couldn't reconcile them with their vision of the game. Which, unfortunately, is very different from my own.

Ken

You can't say the system is incomplete. It simply isn't. You can pick up the books currently on the market and if they never produced another book, you could happily play the system for years. There is nothing incomplete about it.

 

[AllisterH]

This. Every person I know that works for Hasbro or a subsidiary talks about their hands-off approach, so it's always confusing to me when outsiders go on about the "Hasbro interference" that the employees say doesn't happen.

That's why sometimes I think I'm talking to myself

When people say that 4E D&D was HASBRO-mandated, I wonder WHERE they get this idea. It isn't hard to find out Hasbro's policy with regard to its subsidaries.

I've never heard of Hasbro looking at a *specific* product line for a division. Hasbro may well like to gobble up smaller companies but they don't actually DO anything with those comapnies such as restructuring etc.

Rumour has it that at most, being part of Hasbro means its easier to have lines move across companies and to do cross-merchandising.

Hasbro most assuredly WILL look if a subsidary is not doing well or not as good as last year. Even then, Hasbro doesn't seem to panic and will give a subsidary time to right its own ship.

I still say the only reason Hasbro is looking at WOTC might be because of the Dreamblade fiasco. THAT was a boondoggle and I'm willing to bet it caused serious reprecussions.

 

[billd91]

I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete. For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment. Now it doesn't. I think that's incomplete.

Your argument is like saying that the next edition of Traveller would be complete without rules for spaceship combat, because the game was quite fun when played on a single world.

I find this a very strong argument, particularly when you look at 4e's pedigree. By taking the name 4th edition, it's implying a certain amount of continuity with the editions before it. Too much deviation from that, too much left out, and you run into issues of whether or not the game is complete either as the fans want it to be or as the designers intend it to be or in comparison with its predecessors.

I'd vote for it being incomplete. Playable, sure. But it's not as complete as any previous edition. The Monster Manual, in particular, feels very limited to me as it lacks a wide variety of mundane creatures much more available in previous editions.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete. For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment. Now it doesn't. I think that's incomplete.

I agree, I think 4e is a great game-core, but it falls short on the variety aspect. It lacks shapechanging, animal companions/ familiars... Grapple will be available in an add-on later? Flying was too much trouble so it's gone...

Everything that didn't fit the grid or was too much trouble got bumped.