Fourth Edition just feels... incomplete

[lutecius]

Obviously, WotC wants to sell books, so, I'd say, if the initial game leaves you wanting more, that's just good marketing.

If found core 3.5 quite adequate, for instance, and purchased few suplements. Even core, between feat choice and multiclassing, there were numerous possilble 'builds.' I've played a series of fighters, rogues, fighter-based mulitclasses, and sorcerers over the years, and no two of them were even similar, let alone alike. If I play one or two 4e warlords, and find that a third one wouldn't be any different from the first two, maybe I'd go out and buy Martial Power. I'm sure that's the theory.

Exactly. I am sure this incomplete feeling is part of the plan. They want the next books to feel like must-haves, essential parts i.e. core rather than options and splatbooks.

So they intentionally left iconic classes, monsters and (arguably) races out of the first books and replaced them with erm… less obvious choices that would have been kept for later books in previous editions. Whether the new ones are better or not is beside the point, you just know the druid and metallic dragons are coming.

3e had a different approach. Not only outsiders like the bard, barbarian and monk were all in the first book, but new things like the sorcerer were actually added, they didn’t take anything else's place.

Also, the streamlined, standardised classes and powers with minimal fluff do feel like they’re all the same to some extent. So you may instinctively expect truly different mechanics (maybe actual summoning, polymorph, lasting charms) to come at some point.

 

[Kichwas]

Well I'd say it seems incomplete...

But lets look at my list of PCs since 3E came out...

A 1/2 Orc monk
An elf Bard
A human sorcerer
A gnome sorcerer
An elf druid
A human fighter
...

I'm 1/6 on that list.


Other than allowing me to make an evil paladin or a wizard that doesn't run out of spells, I can't think of anything in 4E that is actually, for me, an improvement.

Its a lot of changes, but change is not by definition good or bad, it just is. When you make a new edition, the changes need to be mostly very much good. There needs to be something notably broken about the old first. There are 4 things I didn't like about past versions of D&D: classes, levels, alignment, and spellcasters running out of magic.
- 2 of those have been addressed, and I'm smart enough to know that addressing all 4 of them would be jumping a shark too big to call the result D&D. It's why I own more than just one RPG...

What else in 4E was needed? I don't know.

Back to incomplete... Is it just me, or is the game missing a good half of the list of monsters that used to always show up in a core book?

It seems low on monsters and low on classes and low on PC races. Instead, for PCs, we got a bunch of new splatbook races tossed into core... why? I can't fathom an answer for that. Yes, 3E had one splatbook class (sorcerer) in core, but not at the cost of anything core, save for perhaps Illusionist and Assassin (already dropped from core in 2E). This time around we're missing quite a bit...

And the new monsters just confused the heck out of me. Rather than giving me a generic member of a creature and the easy tools to customize it for my needs, they give specific encounters and then some lackadaisy tools for tweaking those up or down, in a different book...

Call me crazy, but in 3E, I really got a kick out of meeting an Ogre and not knowing if it was a fighter, monk, rogue, or even Sorcerer until it tried to wack me with something... Or being 10th level and seeing a Kobold and knowing my DM was probably about to kill half the PCs with a pack of rogues, clerics, and sorcerers. Sure, I can do that with the Kobold in 4e... by building a pack of rogues, clerics, and sorcerers who are kobolds... but in 3E my DM would do that with anything that had a brain, as 3E was just set up that way...

 

[Aldarc]

I too feel 4e is "incomplete". The OP summed up my feelings quite well.

While I think some of the classes look a lot more fun to play than their 3e counterpart, like the Fighter. My favorite class, Wizard feels like an empty, hollow shell. The spell selection is so light compared to the core 3e PHB that I am totally unable to play my favorite character concepts (i.e. Summoner, Illusionist, buff-master). Instead the Wizard is pigeon-holed into being being the iconic damage dealer in a pointy hat.

I was so excited about 4e too. I guess now I'll have to wait until a few suppliments are out before I really start enjoying the game. Unless I can find a DM who will let me convert 3e spells to 4e.

Your favorite class concepts for the wizard are become their own classes.

 

[SSquirrel]

I concur as well. The facts that multiclassing barely works; that builds (not just the recommended builds, but anything that synergises well) give you very limited, if any, options; that most likely several characters in a party will have the same epic destiny all suggest to me that the core rulebooks are for rules, not content. I can see why Martial Power is coming out so quickly--it and its Divine and Arcane counterparts will be must-haves.

Similarly, while the rules are solid, the specific content seems off. The Careful Attack/Twin Shot design error is one example. Or compare Searing Light with Blinding Light: the Str-based cleric gets a major shaft here. I recall similar examples, but not what they were offhand.

Do you realize that you just compared a L7 power with a L17 in the Cleric example? Searing attacks Reflex, Blinding attacks Fortitude. Strengthen the Faithful is a comparable L7 Str based ability and it does the same damage, plus it lets you AND a friend adjacent your enemy spend a healing surge and gain health+your Cha mod.

I'm not sure what the Ranger design error is supposed to be, I haven't seen any threads about it. Careful is designed to be more sure of hitting and twin strike gets 2 hits in on one monster or split up. Different powers used in different situations.

I can't see any single glaring hole, other than the 'missing' classes & races.

Well I wouldn't say I'm missing them Bob

 

[Eldragon]

You're favorite class concepts for the wizard are become their own classes.

Yep, whereas in 3e one could do these things from the PHB. Which is why 4e seems incomplete to me. Most of the characters I ever created were core rules only, since the 3e PHB had just about everything I need. So Now I'm just going to stick to 3e until WotC has had a year or two to print off enough source material to get 4e to feel a little meatier.

Mechanics wise I like 4e a whole lot better, but I'm not willing to give up Haste, Polymorph and Summon Monster anytime soon.

 

[billd91]

I think this move has to do more with the fact that a single DMG has to be constantly passed around between players to figure out what some magic items do. Not to mention that a player will have to consult the DMG to create a higher level character with magic items.

Did people actually have a significant problem with this? Give the player an index card, pencil, and the DMG once and the problem is solved. And if the DM isn't involved in the creation of PCs, particularly higher level ones with magic items in the offing, then he darn well should be. Again, not much of a problem.

 

[SSquirrel]

I think the wrong set of core books are being compared. Compare the 3E (not 3.5) with 4E. If 4E does an eventual 4.5 release, compare those. Yes we're down a couple of races (the least played it appears) and have 3 new in their place. We're down 4 classes (Bard, Monk, Barbarian, Sorceror) and Warlord got added into the mix. Of course, the Gnome is in the MM and they and another 15 races are given the quick and dirty PC treatment in the last pages. Most of these races were at LEAST +1 LAs in 3E, if not several like the Minotaur.

Magic items are very different yes, but they also stated up front that the insane stat boosting of 3E from MIs was going the way of the dodo. GOOD! Comments about the 1E DMG being more awe inspiring for magic items, sure. Then again, we're talking at least 20 years ago and likely most people's first game. You can't put your original sense of wonder in a system into a bottle to release again w/every new edition.

Enough changes in race/class options, plus the boatload of new things each class can do....it's made me interested in D&D again. If I ever play anything based on 3E again it will most likely be something non fantasy like M&M or Arcana Evolved/Ptolus.

 

[joethelawyer]

how can you say you weren't interested in dnd when you have been here since 2002 and have 998 posts?

dont mean to be confrontational, i just get suspicious when people claim that 4e brought them closer to oneness with the almighty when they seemed to have nothing wrong with their faith already, just by virtue of their being here on this board.

joe

 

[SSquirrel]

I haven't been interested in 3.5 for most of it's existence. I love D&D, but I played almost nothing but D&D for several years after years at college of playing several different games. I got burned on nothing BUT D&D. When Arcana Unearthed (and later Evolved) was released it was a big breath of fresh air for me for several reasons, one of which was a significant relaxing in the Vancian magic system I had hated for years.

I haven't had interest in picking up a PHB and making a character in several years. Other systems sure, but not my D&D PHB. 4E has done something to revive that for me.

EDIT:A lot of those near thousand posts are also about debating systems to improve 3E into something I would rather play I love the core idea of D&D, but around the release of the 3.5 books I was sick of poor quality crunch books heading farther into niche-land, whcih only got worse thru the life of 3.5. Basically I loved D&D when I began playing it 20 years ago and I still love it today, but along the way it's been something I didn't like, even if I did love it.

More edits:Oh yeah, I also haven't had a regular group since about 2005, which has put a real crimp in my gaming period. I would happily sit down for at least a dozen different systems, but I might well pass on a 3.5 game

 

[Lanefan]

I'm just sitting here shaking my head at the idea of any DM letting their players into the DMG (in any edition) to look up magic items.

They belong in the DMG, with information about their properties safe in the hands of the DM to give out when discovered either via field testing or spell e.g. identify. Were I ever to run 4e, one major headache for me would be to re-do the whole magic item table and then tell the players to ignore that entire chapter in the PHB. (then again, I know myself; I'd likely take a path of less resistance and swipe an item list from 1e or 3e or some other system)

So, other than advice on how to run a game, what of use *is* in the DMG? (it'll be about 2 weeks until I see the books)

Lanefan