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

[Rechan]

Start proving me wrong? Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place. This happens in just about every thread.

What insult was that? That certain rules were "retarded"? That's not an insult of playstyle, that's an insult to the system. If I said "Pizza hut's pizza is utter garbage", that doesn't insult people who like Pizza Hut Pizza; that insults the quality of the product being produced. If you feel insulted, that's your problem being either too sensitive or reading into it what isn't there.

If you honestly think criticizing or insulting something insults those people who like it, then Enworld would have to be closed down; anyone saying anything negative about anything else would be an insult to anyone else who happens to like the thing receiving the negative comment. Until someone says "X sucks, and you suck for liking it," there is no insult directed at you.

More importantly, You claim people are insulting playstyles, that every thread has "Obligatory insults from 4e fans". The onus of responsibility is on your shoulders to prove the statement. For instance, if I said "ProfessorCirno is looks at pictures of wet meat. PROVE ME WRONG", it would be unfair because you cannot prove that you don't do something.

And since there is "obligatory insults from 4e fans", you should have an easy time finding some actual examples of 4e fans insulting 3e fans for their like of 3e.

Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.

Then report it instead of whining about it. Because this board does not tolerate insults.

Start proving yourself right. Otherwise, all I see is a persecution complex.

 

[Kzach]

I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete.

There is only one definition. And no, I don't believe it's arrogant to say that.

The system as presented is complete.

Just because it doesn't include elements you like or see as fitting into a standard fantasy milieu does not make it an incomplete system.

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.

This contradicts itself.

In the first sentence you essentially state that there is "one true fantasy concept". In the next you concede that there are multiple types of fantasy and that this system simply doesn't represent your own version.

If there really was one true version of fantasy, then you could argue that by not including certain elements of that version, that 4e is incomplete. But there simply isn't one true version.

By your definition, 1e was incomplete because it didn't include a bunch of classes until Unearthed Arcana. By your definition, 3.0 was incomplete because it had stuff-all prestige classes in the core books.

Your definition of what fantasy is, does not constitute a complete version of fantasy. 4e is a complete system, it's not really a disputable fact. That it doesn't include elements you feel should be included in standard fantasy fare, does not make it incomplete. It simply makes it not suited to your tastes (until a splatbook is presented which completes your version).

 

[Vocenoctum]

Huh. 4e PHB. 1 feat for mounted Combat. No skill. No Equipment.
3.0 PHB. 3 Skills (with many different foci) and 5 feats for Mounted Combat. Saddles, bridles, tack, barding, feed, pack saddles and more covered in the equipment section.

Yeah, you're right, 4e offers so much more.

I assumed the DMG had a lot more info in it? I only have the PHB to judge by so I didn't bother commenting. My gnome badger riding paladin didn't look likely either way...

 

[Andor]

There is only one definition. And no, I don't believe it's arrogant to say that.

The system as presented is complete.

So... What is this definition? I'm curious.

 

[Fifth Element]

But that won't make the game more complete. Especially if the concept was perfectly valid and only the implementation was underbalanced.

I don't think removing a truly useless option makes the game any less complete, either.

As to your second sentence, that's valid only if you define "complete" to mean "considers every possible option".

 

[ki11erDM]

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.

Your wrong and i have [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU"]proof[/ame]!

I am so going to get band for that.

 

[Jack99]

Start proving me wrong? Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place. This happens in just about every thread. Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.

I was going to explain it again, but it seems Rechan covered it just fine.

What makes you think 4e will be different? With such narrow classes and limited multiclassing, I think 4e will end up with even more optional classes, paths and powers.

Well. Eventually, 4e will probably have quite a few options as well. However, 4e multi-classing being restricted to two classes really limits the number of options out of the gate. On top of that, Paragon Paths are (mostly) linked to a class, so that limits the options also. Of course, in 3.x PRCs had prereqs as well, but they were much less dependant on class.

"Obligatory 4e fan insulting" was an interesting choice of phrase. Ah, the ambiguities of English grammar.

I am not a native speaker, but wouldn't that mean "the obligatory insulting of 4e fan(s)"?. If so, I agree with the OP. Seems to happen all the time.

 

[The Little Raven]

You understand what I meant, as you use the more freeform Flight as an example of what you didn't like.

No, I'm using Fly, the level 3 Wizard spell as an example of what I don't like.

You're saying your dismissive tone is because I didn't properly qualify the flight comment?

My dismissive tone is because you, like so many other anti-4e people, tend to make blanket statements as if they were fact when they are far from it. You make a ridiculous claim like "flight is gone," then scramble afterwards to qualify it because you know it's a load of BS.

Flight in 4e is an encounter, rather than a method of traveling. It would still avoid encounters as much as before, but is now limited in how often. Rather than design a system that takes flight into account, they nerfed it.

The system takes flight into account... by placing it in the higher tiers of power, where it belongs. Giving you an ability to invalidate whole swathes of encounters when you've only hit 1/4 of the entire level progression of the core game is ridiculously overpowered.

And it isn't a matter of avoiding encounters. Avoiding an encounter doesn't give you anything. It's the fact that if the encounter is against melee opponents, they become invalidated by the fact that they cannot hit you when you're flying and using ranged attacks.

So, your problem was the level you gained it at?

Among other things.

Because I didn't properly qualify Fly, even though you knew the difference? Even though you think Grab is Grapple, even though Mearls said Grapple is coming?

How many times do I have say "Grab is the replacement for Grapple." before you actually read it properly?

My point was that D&D is a core of a game, and any situations/powers that don't fit on the grid are out.

And your point is wrong. I don't see how Picking Locks or Diplomacy or Gentle Repose fits onto the grid, yet they are still present within the game.

Stick to fact, instead of your exaggerated (and often false) hyperbole.

Freeform Flight was removed and replaced with a limited flight that fits into the grid, Fantasy be damned.

The game was balanced, which requires a shifting of certain things. Yeah, no more "I can fly whenever, wherever" because it's broken. If you want a simulation of the world of make-believe, play something that is intended to be one, because D&D isn't and has never been.

 

[radferth]

There are some things I'd like to be there that aren't (druids, barbarians, metallic dragons, animals, a second controller class), but nothing is as glaring as when the 2e monster-binder thing didn't bother to include DWARVES. Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments over who said who had the burden of proof over who's assertion that something was left out.

 

[The Little Raven]

Good point. Thank God they included Banshrea, Battlebriars and Sorrowsworn. They were certainly common encounters in earlier editions, not to mention their rich mythical background.

Better than 14 pages of dragons that hardly ever get used as combat encounters, thus wasting 14 pages of a book that is supposed to be full of combat encounters.

And oh noes, they didn't stick with everything that has the tradition sticker stuck on it. God forbid anyone realize that "it's tradition" is the worst reason to keep something around.

Huh. 4e PHB. 1 feat for mounted Combat. No skill. No Equipment.

Yup, 1 feat and you're a badass in mounted combat, able to take advantage of special features provided by your mount.

3.0 PHB. 3 Skills (with many different foci) and 5 feats for Mounted Combat. Saddles, bridles, tack, barding, feed, pack saddles and more covered in the equipment section.

5 feats, 1 skill (Ride is the only skill used for Mounted Combat), and a bunch of gold spent on an option that is still relatively substandard.

Yeah, 3e's Mounted Combat is way better.

As for the 4e MM covering more possible mount types than everything ridable ever printed in 3e.... I don't even know how to respond to such an absurb claim.

Let's see... what bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 3e? Nada. What bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 4e? Extra +3 bonus to attack when charging, or a blanket +1 bonus to all Defense... real choices.

And ignoring overland travel encounters is still there in 4e, it's built right into the system with the teleportation ritual rules starting at 8th level.

Avoiding encounters is not the same as invalidating encounters. Invalidating an encounter gives you the reward, but removes the challenge.

Any more strawman arguements you'd like to make in favor of 4e's flight rules over 3e?

Any more points of mine you want to completely misinterpret?