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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amongst the gaming community, "Core" is defined as PHB, DMG, and MM. Comparing 4E's core 3 against eight years of 3E isn't a terribly valid comparison.

I still find that really off-putting by WotC, that they've RE-DEFINED the term "core" as it has been used for the past TWENTY-FIVE YEARS or so. It's one I still refuse to let go.

As for Druid, Bard, and Barbarian: the game does not fall apart without these classes. There is enough overlap between Barbarian and Fighter that Barbarian can be skipped. 1E and 2E did not fall apart from a lack of Barbarian in the PHB. Bard is a fringe concept that while it has its fans, isn't going to ruin a game by its lack. Druid is the strongest argument of the three, but again the game doesn't die without it, not like it would if it lacked Fighter, Rogue, Cleric or Wizard.

This is quite true: "Incomplete" is dependent on definition of its user. I think that had 4E included the 3E classes in some form or another in the core 3 books, and the races from it, there might not have been as much agitation by the fanbase as we've seen. You're not going to please everyone, but it might have helped as opposed to relegating gnomes and half-orcs to second-class status (again, in the case of half-orcs). :)

3e you could play a monster right off the bat. Even if doing so was kinda hard to figure out LA. In 4e you cant. Unless WOTC makes more minotaur as a playable race articles.

I still have to disagree here; the 4E monster manual appendix was quite playable, from personal experience during the demo games we've run.

4e lacks options. You cant deny it doesnt. What if someone wants to roleplay a Sculpter with no useful combat skills or kewl powerz. Someone who waits till like level 10 to finally get training as a fighter, ot help out the jerks that drug him along for the adventure in the first place.
Or the Commoner who wants to take revenge on some Orcs for burning down his farm.
Ive read 4e core books several times, and without totally making up the rules (Something my players never really tolerated or many others that ive met) you cant do it. Everyone is a hero and no one sucks. Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.

Here's where I always have difficulty understanding why some gamers want the option to play, effectively, a "loser" with their D&D. I saw a thread on RPG.Net where the complaint was, "I can't play my necromancer monk halfling who makes hand-puppets from the corpses of the monsters we kill." How is the sculptor going to survive those 10 levels to get his first combat training, in a party where likely the other players are going to be running into violent threats that they ARE built to handle? How is the halfling necro-monk not going to be killed and eaten by the monsters he comes across, when his "build" by 3E standards is not even very combat-ready?

D&D since its inception has been focused on heroes in a dangerous world focused on violent challenges, and someone with NO merits in a fight (even if it's as simple as giving others a boost to their abilities) will likely contribute to the death of the party. If the whole group seeks a game where everyone is an NPC expert craftsman, that's one thing, and one for which the 4E skill challenge system is pretty equipped to handle (I personally liked Rel's idea of just extending the Skill system to include specifically requested non-combat skills, as everything's already in place to do that). However, in most games, at least half the party will be combat-effective, so making people who aren't in some way at all sounds counter-productive to group harmony.

Back to the question: Is D&D incomplete? I'd like it to be MORE complete, but I don't think it's INcomplete -- character options are narrower in scope, though, I can't disagree, and I'd love to see something like the "non-combat skill" extension to the existing system added to it, and I'd like to see MORE class features than just two per class added to each class. Four or five, sounds groovy, but I wish they had more than just the base two.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

So is 3E Core incomplete because it doesn't contain all the classes, races, magic items and spells that 4E does?
 

3e you could play a monster right off the bat. Even if doing so was kinda hard to figure out LA. In 4e you cant. Unless WOTC makes more minotaur as a playable race articles.

4e lacks options. You cant deny it doesnt. What if someone wants to roleplay a Sculpter with no useful combat skills or kewl powerz. Someone who waits till like level 10 to finally get training as a fighter, ot help out the jerks that drug him along for the adventure in the first place.
Or the Commoner who wants to take revenge on some Orcs for burning down his farm.
Ive read 4e core books several times, and without totally making up the rules (Something my players never really tolerated or many others that ive met) you cant do it. Everyone is a hero and no one sucks. Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.

There's something I consider a serious problem with this argument. You can create a character who isn't a "real adventurer" but who is along because there's one particular thing he wants to do or is needed to do. When you do then you're saying to the other players and the DM that they have to play a game about your character and what they want, or there's no reason for that character to stick around. After all, why should Mister Farmer stick around to get revenge on the orcs who burnt his farm if the other players decide to go hunting for the Maguffin?
 

True. The game does not fall apart due to the lack of these classes. However, there is a perception problem with these classes missing. When you remove something that has become a standard part of the game, even if you replace it with something else, there is going to be a perceived loss of value amongst some (many?) people. A lot will not consider the game to be complete or their value restored until what they had has been replaced.

It is one of those irrational things that we do. We have almost become conditioned to look for what is not there rather than what is there.

This I find interesting. It's basically saying that it's not that the game is actually incomplete, it's that the game is different then it was.
 

The message I got from the future books being considered Core was inclusionary. When (or if for the skeptics out there) the GSL is complete, 3PP would be able to use all Core material, right? So in 3E that included only the 3 main books plus XPH. Now those who decide to abide by the GSL would be able to use material from books that in previous editions were not considered Core.
 

How is it impossible to play a commoner with no powers in 4e? It's easy. Pick a class, any really, it doesn't matter much, because you won't get any of its powers. Maybe something you want the PC to grow into would be a good idea, or something with the right skill choices to match the concept. If all you get is a basic attack in a fight, you will be pretty useless compared to everyone else. The best part is, if/when this guy decides to get better at fighting, it's easy to just add the powers in at whatever rate you want. Not tough at all. Explicitly written out in the rules? No, but this is pretty unusual, and probably not the best thing to state in the intro books.

The sculpter's even easier. One of the PCs in my current 4e game is a metalsmith, and pretty good one, at that. All I'm sure is, that in 3e, he'd have no choice but to be a pretty crappy one, comparativly speaking, so 4e's got more choice in regards to PC skills (as opposed to Skills) than 3e.
 

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.

Sure. go here. Note that things like martial power are accessories. Note that if you change the year to 2009 PHB2 is an accessory. Check back to years past. All the splats are listed as accessories under core game products.

edit: note to self, read all of the second page before replying.
 

IIRC, wasn't playing a Monster out of the MM in 3.0e rather difficult? There wasn't LA listed, but the DMG gave guidelines for fudging it, right? If so, then its not really a strike against 4e relative to 3e at launch.
 


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 didn't need a book in the past even though the makers of the book considered it core, how is printing the fact that the makers of the book consider it core on the cover going to now cause you to need it?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top