Where is 4E incomplete? Forked: Does 4E have staying power?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All I know is, even though I stayed 3.5, it was my original intention to pick up the 3 core books (PH, DMG, and MM) and at the very least take what I like for my 3.5 game.

Once I found out that what was core in 3.5 (as in, what was in the first three books) was going to be stretched out over many more books than just the first three, I immediately decided to NOT order the 4E set. Seemed to me like one had to commit to buying several more books to get the same game features (classes, races, magic items, spells) that one could get in the first three 3.5 books.

It made the decision to not even *try* 4E that much easier. (Especially since the list price was $34.95 each.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you take the PHB2, MM2, etc as part of core, then one can't deny that "core" as it stands right now is incomplete, no.

What one CAN deny is that such a fact has any relevance or importance whatsoever to a real group who plays 4e. It does not. At all. This is the difference between theoretical dicussions on message boards and actually playing. One actually matters in the end, the other doesn't; guess which?
 

You're wrong. The Monster Manual has "Core Rulebook III" on the cover. Monster Manual III does not. Complete Divine does not. (Looking at Amazon covers.)

You'll need a quote from Wizards if you wish to assert otherwise.
Have a look here:

2007 Product Releases

See how under "Brand", Complete Champion, Complete Scoundrel, Drow of the Underdark, Monster Manual V, and Rules Compendium are all listed as "D&D Core"? These were the 3.5 D&D Core releases in 2007, according to WotC.

Being wrong is awesome!
 

Have a look here:

2007 Product Releases

See how under "Brand", Complete Champion, Complete Scoundrel, Drow of the Underdark, Monster Manual V, and Rules Compendium are all listed as "D&D Core"? These were the 3.5 D&D Core releases in 2007, according to WotC.
'Dungeons & Dragons Deluxe Dice' are also listed as core on that list. I don't think the definition of 'core' being used in this thread is the same definitions of 'core' being used on that list. It is possible that you may be wrong, from a certain point of view.
 

Have a look here:

2007 Product Releases

See how under "Brand", Complete Champion, Complete Scoundrel, Drow of the Underdark, Monster Manual V, and Rules Compendium are all listed as "D&D Core"? These were the 3.5 D&D Core releases in 2007, according to WotC.

Being wrong is awesome!

A brand category on an interwebs list is not the same as as printing "core rulebook" on an actual product cover. All the list does by saying "D&D Core" is say that its a crunchy rulebook as opposed to a fluff/expansion book.
 

If you take the PHB2, MM2, etc as part of core, then one can't deny that "core" as it stands right now is incomplete, no.

What one CAN deny is that such a fact has any relevance or importance whatsoever to a real group who plays 4e. It does not. At all. This is the difference between theoretical dicussions on message boards and actually playing. One actually matters in the end, the other doesn't; guess which?


I know a "real" group that plays 4e... and it matters to them.;)
 

A brand category on an interwebs list is not the same as as printing "core rulebook" on an actual product cover. All the list does by saying "D&D Core" is say that its a crunchy rulebook as opposed to a fluff/expansion book.
No, it's not the same. But is the word "core" required to be on the cover of the book for WotC to consider the book to be core? The question was not whether the word appears on the cover, but whether WotC considers it core. The product listing provides evidence they did consider them core. Delta asserted they were definitely not considered core.
 

This is where that argument comes off the rails, or at least for me.

Talking about "bad options" seems to imply that only optimal choices - specifically, optimal choices for combat - are choices worth making. However, if you're having fun roleplaying with a sub-optimal choice, then it seems to me it's worth including. Yes, playing a creature with a level adjustment created something of a disadvantage; so does having an ability score that's a 6, but I've heard plenty of stories from players who played as a monster, or had a low ability score, and not only had fun doing so, they made it into an integral part of their character's identity, adding to their enjoyment.

There's more to it than just optimizing the good combat choices.

As someone who enjoyed playing characters that my fellow gamers considered "sub-optimal" I have to interject here.

Playing a high LA monster race was not like playing with a 6 in a stat. It was like being 5th level when the rest of the party is 10th level. Sub-optimal is not a strong enough term for LA races.

I allowed full choice as DM and other than the occasional LA +1 race and the ultra-rare LA +2 race, none of my players were satisfied with the results a higher LA race would produce. Giving up a little power to play something you like is one thing, but at some point it becomes too much.
 


A brand category on an interwebs list is not the same as as printing "core rulebook" on an actual product cover. All the list does by saying "D&D Core" is say that its a crunchy rulebook as opposed to a fluff/expansion book.
I think more accurately, WotC was using "core" to refer to any non-campaign specific book, crunchy or fluffy.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top