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

[Larrin]

Its incomplete in the sense that we don't have some things that are part of the world...Frost giants, metallic dragons, half-orcs, or bullywogs. You can play a fully complete game with what you have....its just if you need a copper dragon, you need to wing it a bit and when it does come out you may have to retcon or something.

its not "crucial mechanics" incomplete, its "standard monster/race/class" incomplete, and maybe a little "specific mechanics for mounts/vehicles/hirelings/fotresses not in phb1" incomplete. You're free to fill in the gaps, you just might get overwritten in a little while by 'core' material.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I demand the right to play a nematode worm! Why are there no rules to let me play a tiny mindless invertebrate? No game that doesn't specifically support nematode worm PCs can possibly be a real RPG!

 

[Imaro]

One biggie for me is that it only has one controller...the Wizard. That's a serious lack of both short term and longterm options with that role. Something I think was planned to make PHB2 more essential. I think this makes the game incomplete when we have 3 strikers, 2 defenders, and 2 leaders but only 1 controller. So now, anyone who wants to play a controller will end up playing the same class as someone else... or playing the same class over and over again...if they don't buy more books.

 

[Delta]

Of course, WotC considered all non-setting specific books in 3e to be core as well. They used a different definition than most everyone else. MM3 was always listed as a core product, as well as complete divine.

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.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

You could play a minotaur before the article came out. The article just gave more options than are available to a "base" minotaur. And there is a whole section of the MM of playable races. You just don't get racial feats like those in the PHB.

Who really played these useless characters in previous editions? I mean really? Did you ever play a sculpter or a commoner? Or is this just hyperbole to prove how "$E suxxor!"

You CAN wait until 10th level to train as a fighter in 4E. You get a feat at that level and can take the Fighter multiclass feat.

And your background can still be that you were the commoner whose farm was burnt down and wants revenge. Bob the Farmer went straight after the orcs for revenge and got killed. You instead got training and will one day soon get revenge on those orcs (because, ya know from reading those 4E books, that orcs are pretty tough for 1st level characters now).

Video game reference. Again? Really? My experience actually playing the game varies greatly from your assessment.

 

[The Ghost]

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.

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.

 

[Imaro]

Its incomplete in the sense that we don't have some things that are part of the world...Frost giants, metallic dragons, half-orcs, or bullywogs. You can play a fully complete game with what you have....its just if you need a copper dragon, you need to wing it a bit and when it does come out you may have to retcon or something.

its not "crucial mechanics" incomplete, its "standard monster/race/class" incomplete, and maybe a little "specific mechanics for mounts/vehicles/hirelings/fotresses not in phb1" incomplete. You're free to fill in the gaps, you just might get overwritten in a little while by 'core' material.

This is a good point, especially since the Forgotten Realms books present races that haven't even been released yet as viable player options. That's so backwards I don't even know what to say about it.

 

[am181d]

Everyone is a hero and no one sucks.
Thats not roleplaying thats a video game.

So to clarify: Any RPG without rules for playing innocent bystanders is not a true RPG?

I should point out that the Commoner was an NPC class in 3rd Edition, and there are indeed rules for NPC commoners in 4e. (Just treat them as monsters.)

If we took a poll, I think we'd quickly determine that D&D players have played in more games featuring psionics than they have in games with "bystander" style classes. It's an interesting variant, but it's not a core requirement of role-playing games.

If you're going to pick apart 4e, pick it apart for the fact that there are very few options for spellcasters at each level, and that characters with the same race/class combo are going to to tend to look very samey because of the way the builds are constructed.

 

[Alzrius]

Playing a monster in 3E was almost always a bad option. LA and ECL were crippling disadvantages, and playing non-humanoids was even worse.

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.

 

[Gothmog]

Is 4e a complete game in that I can sit down with a PHB, DMG, and MM and run a game? Yep, and a damn good game too. All the tools you need to run a 4e game are already there. Thats not even up for debate, its a simple fact.

Is 4e complete in that there are some concepts, races, classes, powers, rituals, feats, etc that still need fleshing out, and that I'd like to see? In that case, then no, 4e isn't complete. However, when people start wailing that 4e isn't "complete" due to X being left out, that is a highly subjective thing. For example, some folks will complain 4e isn't complete until the barbarian, bard, druid, or munchkin nosepicker class is official. Can the game be run without those classes and still work fine? Yep. Or maybe another person could care less about the PHB2 classes, and be more about ranting that 4e isn't "complete" until psionics are back, or whatever their pet cause is. Each person will prioritize certain things above others due to their opinions and tastes, and as such, saying a game is incomplete because I can't play a fiendish gelatinous cube ranger/psionicist/ninja is being rather ridiculous. Since this aspect of "complete" is completely subjective and based on individual tastes, there cannot be an objective answer for completenes based on this kind of criteria.

Wizards has already said they are slowing down the release schedule in order to get things right the first time, and to prevent munchwankery crapfests like 3e's Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, or Defenders of the Faith, (and the later Complete X books to a lesser degree) for example. And if Martial Power is any sign, this approach is a great idea- Martial Power is a SOLID book, and much better designed than almost anything during the 3e era. If the price for this kind of quality and inclusion of some missing concepts is a little waiting, I'm all for it.