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

[Rechan]

Doublepost.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder? Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.

THey could have, but are DMs going to USE them? Besides. WotC had to fill the Feywild with something.

More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.

And fewer DMs are going to use Metallics than Chromatics. That minority that wants metallics to be used in combat is not enough to warrant it being in the book.

As I said before, it's no different than putting psionics in its own book.

 

[CountPopeula]

I have a couple of things to throw in here.

If the 4th edition books included all the same core classes and races as 3e, would people be disappointed in that? I would. I think the exclusion of some old classes and races for the inclusion of new ones is a good idea. I don't think it makes it incomplete.

I don't think naming the new PHB as PHB 2, 3, 4 etc. is doing anything other than giving players a little more leverage when dealing with unreasonable DMs (and how many times have we heard "core classes only!" from some uptight, grumpy DM on the message boards, if not at the table?) and sells on name recognition. It also can serve to make the line slimmer, selling more of one book than of 3 different books. For example, Stromwrack, Sandstorm, and Frostburn are probably my favorite 3e books. But they're all stretched out with spells and prestige classes that aren't all that good. If you took the rules from all three books, and most of the races, and about 1/4 of the prestige classes and spells... you'd have a pretty good book.

Lastly, I think Wizards has avoided putting out too many true "splatbooks." The 3e prestige books and arguable the updated "complete" line, but... Mongoose and Green Ronin put out what are really splatbooks, like the Advanced Race Codex line or the Slayers Guides. If 3e and 4e were splatbook based, the line would look more like White Wolf's, with a parade of "Classbook: Fighter" and "Racebook: Human" that are 90% setting-based, system-free and 10% power creep. This is something TSR did a lot that wizards cut back considerably, I think. The books that get called splatbooks from WotC at least have some utility to them, and add things like new races and classes. True splatbooks only deal with existing races and classes, without adding much to the game. Wizards, to their credits, gives a lot more content in their books than the splatbooks White Wolf, Green Ronin, and Mongoose put out.

 

[Ourph]

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

Bingo! Modifying monsters is so easy with the guidelines in the DMG that any claim of "incompleteness" regarding the MM is laughable. I've played in 4 sessions of 4e now, all using 1st level characters, and we've yet to see a Kobold or Goblin. All of the monsters have been either straight out of the MM or slightly modified (sometimes renamed) from monsters in the MM.

 

[JeffB]

I think there could be a bit more variety in the rituals, and I feel there were alot of sub-par new(ish) creatures subbed for some old classics I'd much rather have -However there is quite a bit of variety in many of the old standby monsters that I use most often (gnolls, goblins, trolls, orcs, etc) which kinda makes up for it.

Monks I've never liked or had place for in my campaigns, so I'm glad to see them go, and I'm indifferent about gnomes, bards and barbarians. I would have liked to seen the Druid though in the PHB. They make great NPC foes or friends if nothing else.

I'm one of those core book only "unreasonable grumpy DMs" and always have been, and I don't (as of yet) feel anything is so blatantly missing to make the game feel incomplete to me. In fact, 4E is likely the first edition to have me making additional corebook 2/3/4. etc purchases if something is useful to me. I like the simpler rules-set, and when I'm not feeling overwhelmed with needless complexity (whether it's 3.X or Rolemaster, or similar rules-heavy systems), I'm more open to adding new material.

The only thing I'm *really* feeling the need for product-wise is GOOD adventure material-The GSL is a joke. Hopefully Necro and & Goodman will come through.

 

[lutecius]

It terms of Background, yes classes have always been really interchangeable, its an abstract concept at best, which was weakened even further by so many classes fighting over so few clearly defined roles.

The Joy of 4th is classes finally have properly unique power sets, so you can have a Nature Fighter, Nature Paladin, nature Wizard who will all be nature themed, but diverse mechanically. (And that's without even multi-classing, which opens it up even more.)

I cannot think of a single character type you cannot currently play, that will not end up being effective under the basic rules. (Apart from arguably broken ones, like Summoner) Sure classes will come along to add more nuances to that, but the basic system is incredibly solid.

Somehow I agree with what you’re saying, this actually one of the reasons I dislike 4e. The classes play too much alike for me and I just don’t believe in these roles. More generally I think fantasy concepts and archetypes should inspire the game mechanics, not the other way around.

But to get back on topic, either__class are really interchangeable and mechanics don’t fit a particular theme, which kind of defeats the point of power sources. But if not for the mechanics, I don’t think such strong archetypes as "inspiring fighter" or "jump around wizard" deserved to make the cut. A bard or enchanter could have been the other leader and a 2nd controller (druid) would have made more sense than a 3rd striker.

or__the mechanics do fit some themes better than others and the complaint that some class were left out still stands.

 

[vazanar]

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.

I don't think summoning, famaliars, bards, animal companions and odd effect magic items were at the end of 3.x. To some people it will be incomplete unless some of those things are added. My group didnt really use splat books. I don't like that I feel I need to. (and yes I know companions and summoning were evil/broken to many groups)

Overall, I like 4e. Honestly animals and such can be added by the dm as they want. Warlord makes sense over Bard since the first splat is martial. However, the magic items are dull. My group was never huge into all the stat increasers so the neat magic items disapearing was a huge disapointment. I think most of those types of magic items need to be made by the DM now. The design of the new system doesn't really allow for them without breaking the balance of an official product.

 

[Hussar]

So did your players fight alot of Unicorns? Because they made the cut.



Hmm...I guess it all depends on what youe opinion of "the times" is. This is quite the nebulous statement.





Just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible...what? I guess I should have saved the money on those books according to your philosophy, nothing needs rules...or at least that's what I think your trying to say.




Yet we have Katars (just daggers)...Rapier (just a thin longsword)...Crossbow (just a mechanical bow)...Javelins (just shorter spears)...etc.

Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder? Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.

More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.

Actually, unicorns made it into a number of Dungeon modules, so, they were used fairly often. Also, since they were summonable, and metalic dragons were not, it would make them more common.

Also, you're comparing a single monster to five. Five monsters that took up pages of pagecount in the monster manual vs the one it takes to write up the unicorn in 3e. There's a significant difference in what you're comparing.

Cutting metalic dragons frees up about 10 pages in the monster manual. Cutting unicorns frees up one. Not too hard to see why metalics get the boot.

 

[Rechan]

Cutting metalic dragons frees up about 10 pages in the monster manual. Cutting unicorns frees up one. Not too hard to see why metalics get the boot.

Chromatic dragons receive 12 pages. I can't imagine why Metallics wouldn't receive the same amount, since they would have the same age categories and have the same number of dragons.

 

[GnomeWorks]

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

I don't care to deal with jerks, so you're probably right.

Was that just an invisible strawman?

No?

So we used plenty of weird combinations of classes as well. Again, further proof that I am not attacking anyone's style of play.

Poor wording, then, on your part.

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.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

Did you read the whole of my post, or just flip out after the first line and decide to go off on me?

I said "yes, you did," then proceeded to quote what Jack had said that seemed to be in bad taste. He got it, when he responded; I'm not entirely sure how or why you did not.