Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mach1.9pants" data-source="post: 4426772" data-attributes="member: 55946">Hi all,Another 'personal opinion on 4E' thread I am afraid. It is said never start with an apology but I shall. If you are sick-to-death of these threads, I am sorry for another one, but I thought I had to say this.I have noticed that one thing that many people don't seem to like about 4E is the 'incompleteness'. Now those who say it lacks the depth of 3E are right, and it is ridiculous to think that a just released game can complete with the avalanche of 3E stuff available out there. But I am not talking about the number player options (classes, feats, PrCs, etc.) or opponent options (MM 1,2,3,4,5....) but the lack of completeness if the rules. I see it that any RPG book is unlikely to have all the rules expected to explicitly cover all situations (notwithstanding the flexible type of use DC10 and adjust as DM sees fit type rules). In 4E this initial lack seems to have been embraced. A lot of situational rules are missing, especially when you peruse the DMG and compare the number of things explicitly covered in 1E, 2E and 3E compared to 4E. These rules are intended to be covered in further core books PHB2, DMG2 etc. Many see this as a ploy to 'make' them buy more books, which is probably partially true. However I have decided I quite like it, looking with a long term view. Why....?Well the 3 core books (more relevant to PHB and DMG than MM) where presented in 3E as the game rules- complete! Now we all know they were not complete and further rules were added with such books as Stormwrack and Frostburn. And they were never going to be complete given the nature of RPG (esp DnD) rule publishing...they need to publish more to make money. In 3E these rules were often very 'bolted on', they didn't gel to well with the core books. In 4E (admittedly from what little we have seen with previews etc. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />) WotC seems to have realised this, published less 'all encompassing' first books so that further rules will FIT better.I like it that they have left out summoning until we get a whole pile of stuff in a separate book, and balanced actions. I like it that many old core classes are not available until we can get the full amount of rules required by having their own power source. Because I am taking a long term view that in the future when we do have these many more options they will fit better than the extras ever did in 3E (or earlier editions, anyone remember 'the complete..' series? eurghh!).I can say this because:1. I have enough stuff to play with in a new system to not miss those rules...yet.2. I am lucky enough to have the disposable income to buy those future books.3. I am an optimist! So I (despite the almost inevitable power creep of supplements) think that WotC will deliver consistency with the new rules.4. I (however) don't like the fact that the rules they have released have been so full of flaws  even to a real basic level..stealth and skill DCs anyone?<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/cry.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":.-(" title="Cry    :.-(" data-shortname=":.-(" />...but at least they are fixing them (Yay optimism <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)That is why I have decided to embrace the lack of 'completeness' in 4E. Anyway just my 2p (well more like 50 quid looking at the length of this post!)</blockquote>

Verification