• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

I can see you really do not want to be around, if I ever cared enough to get offensive.

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

Was that just an invisible strawman?

Just because I think some of the combinations possible with the enormous amount of options there was in 3.x are retarded, it doesn't mean that I think that anyone using/liking the many options of 3.x are retarded. Or that I find their way of gaming retarded. Towards the end, I owned just about every 3.5 book released by WotC. And all classes/PRCs were fair game in my last campaign(s), with very very few exceptions. So we used plenty of weird combinations of classes as well. Again, further proof that I am not attacking anyone's style of play.

I just prefer quality over quantity. I prefer a well-thought out product, with balanced (read as non-broken) classes, spells, powers or feats. No matter the edition.

Cheers
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
The "continuity" comment is interesting. I am wondering about this.

Did many people expect 4E to go where it did? I know that one concern voiced among my group was that 4E would just be a 3.75, mostly a bug-fix release more like 3.5, and no major overhaul.

I certainly didn't see it go where it went now, even if in hindsight, the signs where there.

I think a lot have would expected an even loser class system (removal of multi-class restrictions, easer skill acquisition, more feats) more elaborate rules to create monsters, and a few fixes regarding magic item dependency. I am sure many hoped for a "fix of the math", though.

And I wonder if the latter and the former could have even hoped to work...
 


I'm sure you're not alone. I wouldn't be surprised to find DMs that have never used any metallic dragons in their games at all. You could probably find DMs that have never used pixies, lizardfolk, or if you search very hard, trolls.

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.
1) There is a difference between "Having Metallic dragons show up" and needing their combat stats.

2) Using them once or twice does not constitute "Do these need to be in the first core book/is it worth the 12 pages to devote to them". Especially when the response is "Over the last 20 years I've used them a few times." That doesn't sound like you're reaching for the Metallic Dragon entry all that pressingly that it needs to be in The First MM.

3) Again, using them as allies or to be rescued doesn't sound like you need their combat stats all that pressingly. I don't need the stats of NPCs the players are talking to/saving.
 

re: Monsters

Here's a question. How many "monsters" does the kobold entry in the 4E MM constitute? They're all listed under kobold, but at the same time, there's MUCH more difference between the kobolds of 4E versus say the goblin, kobold and orc of previous editions.
 

Jack99 said:
Samuel Leming" said:
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.
Pro-Tip: When someone makes an accusation, and the person accused says, "No, I haven't," It's a lot more constructive to give an example of the accuser doing what they have been accused of, instead of just saying "Yuh huh!"

The onus of proof lies on the one making a claim, not someone defending against said claim.

"Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Did to" is useless, and makes you look bad.
 


Pro-Tip: When someone makes an accusation, and the person accused says, "No, I haven't," It's a lot more constructive to give an example of the accuser doing what they have been accused of, instead of just saying "Yuh huh!"

The onus of proof lies on the one making a claim, not someone defending against said claim.

"Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Did to" is useless, and makes you look bad.


Didn't GnomeWorks post an example??? I'm just saying.
 

As for "Hasbro is Hands-Off", if this is the case, then that mean it was 4e's designers who intentionally crafted the GSL to torpedo 3PP and not the lawyers who made the GSL.
 

Grab is on page 290 of the PHB.
Grab is not grapple, it's been discussed before. From what I recall grapple will be presented on or before the monk.



Maybe you should look again.
4e Flight is like 4e Featherfall, curbed to the extent of being thematically worthless in the setting.



Rituals and social encounters don't fit on the grid, yet they are present in the game.

Rituals are decent, though some of the costs seem odd. They're a nice addition, and I like some of the mage stuff like prestigitation and such. Shame they didn't give clerics some also. An odd side effect is that mages will probably be the raise dead folks, since they get the ritual's.

Social Encounters are in the DMG, right? Haven't looked at them or their updates. If they're like Exalted's social combat, it's not a system I care for, but haven't seen it so can't comment.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top