The 4th edition came on the market with the 3 core books, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master Guide and the Monster Manual.
As such, the game should be considered as complete. These are the CORE books.
All the core races and classes should be there.
All the skills too. Whatever people argue, it is difficult to estimate what part of the players were using the crafting and profession skills. Then leave them in the PH where they belong.
We shouldn't wait for months or years to get the missing classes, such as the Bard or Druid or to use some skills which, ultimately will probably come back.
My intent is not to bash D&D4. I have an opinion about it, but that's not the topic here.
All i want to say is that i consider omitting such things from the core rules is a mistake from WotC.
A mistake which might cost them a lot, as roleplayers are attached to such things.
In which case, why not play one of the myriad of games which allow role-playing and are actually complete as advertised when you buy the book.
Isn't it silly to demand people shell out $120 (on average) to purchase a game that, as you just admitted, isn't even complete and fully playable yet?
Vance, I did not say that the game was incomplete or unplayable. I said that the designers decided to not put things into the first players handbook which were unfinshed.
The core rules of the game are all there, complete and fully playable.
A Skill system exists, there just isn't a Craft skill in it yet.
If there was NO skill system, then the game would be incomplete. The lack of a Craft skill does not make the game incomplete.
Cohort rules are not required to play D&D. Neither is Craft, the Bard, or summon momster spells. None of these things are required to play D&D. They add to the expirence, but they are not the core rules of the game.
They simply existed in a previous edition of the game. They will make an appearance again I'm sure, once the rules for them have been sorted out fully so that they add to the game without breaking it.
The 4th edition came on the market with the 3 core books, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master Guide and the Monster Manual.
As such, the game should be considered as complete. These are the CORE books.
All the core races and classes should be there.
All the skills too. Whatever people argue, it is difficult to estimate what part of the players were using the crafting and profession skills. Then leave them in the PH where they belong.
We shouldn't wait for months or years to get the missing classes, such as the Bard or Druid or to use some skills which, ultimately will probably come back.
My intent is not to bash D&D4. I have an opinion about it, but that's not the topic here.
All i want to say is that i consider omitting such things from the core rules is a mistake from WotC.
A mistake which might cost them a lot, as roleplayers are attached to such things.
Very well said. I don't want to hear "Well if you really want X {skill,class,ability, campaign flavor} it go check out JoeBob3s homebrewed one on EnWorld".
Ignatz
The core rules of the game are all there, complete and fully playable.
A Skill system exists, there just isn't a Craft skill in it yet.
If there was NO skill system, then the game would be incomplete. The lack of a Craft skill does not make the game incomplete.
Yes it does. The crafting skill IS core.
Cohort rules are not required to play D&D. Neither is Craft, the Bard, or summon momster spells. None of these things are required to play D&D. They add to the expirence, but they are not the core rules of the game.
The Bard IS core. He was in all the previous Player's Handbooks, since 1st edition. That's a core class.
Case and point, I could do more in the Indiana Jones RPG (which, itself, is very limited) from TSR than I can in 4E. To me, that's telling.
Could you make new characters in the Indiana Jones RPG?
You said that the designers left out unfinished material which will be available for purchase later. This, by definition, means the core game is incomplete.
You are playing a definition game now. The three books form a complete game. That the game can be expanded in the future does not mean that it is not a complete game today.
The 4th edition came on the market with the 3 core books, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master Guide and the Monster Manual.
As such, the game should be considered as complete. These are the CORE books.
All the core races and classes should be there.
All the skills too.
The problem is, how do you defined what a Core Class or Skill is, other then a Class or Skill that was included in the first Player's Handbook?
You can't say that way the 3rd edition handbook contained is the core. It was the core for that edition. Every previous editions had different races and classes.
What they did was set the ground rules for the system. Adding an additional class, race,or skill is easy to do because the class and skill systems exist in the core rules.
We shouldn't wait for months or years to get the missing classes, such as the Bard or Druid or to use some skills which, ultimately will probably come back.
My intent is not to bash D&D4. I have an opinion about it, but that's not the topic here.
All i want to say is that i consider omitting such things from the core rules is a mistake from WotC.
A mistake which might cost them a lot, as roleplayers are attached to such things.
I don't know if it was a mistake. We'll have to see if it was.
They didn't feel that they could cram the Bard and Druid into the book in the half finished format they were in. They knew it would dissapoint people having them left out, but it would be much more dissapointing to have the Bard be a crappy class to play in the new edition or be so overpowering that they overshadowed the other classes. They wanted to avoid both of those, so they left them out for now.
They specifically talk about how the classes left out in the Player's handbook which would be coming out in later books like the Monk because they knew people would want to see them.
Do I personally like that the classes were left out? No. I really wanted to see how the Bard would work in the new edition, because i feel it was one of the worse classes in 3rd edition and it would be really cool to see them rock in 4th.
But I do understand why the designers chose what they did, and if in a year we have a top notch product in the Player' Handbook 2, they will be prove that waiting was the correct thing to do.
You said that the designers left out unfinished material which will be available for purchase later. This, by definition, means the core game is incomplete.
Vance, by your logic NO game will ever be complete until there are no longer books being published for it.
The core rules of the game are all there, complete and fully playable.
A Skill system exists, there just isn't a Craft skill in it yet.
If there was NO skill system, then the game would be incomplete. The lack of a Craft skill does not make the game incomplete.Yes it does. The crafting skill IS core.
Cohort rules are not required to play D&D. Neither is Craft, the Bard, or summon momster spells. None of these things are required to play D&D. They add to the expirence, but they are not the core rules of the game.The Bard IS core. He was in all the previous Player's Handbooks, since 1st edition. That's a core class.
So, if you're defining Core as being in every previous edition of the players handbook, where was the Craft skill in first edition?
Ah right, the skill system didn't exist back then. In fact, Nonweapon proficenies didn't even exist back then.
This is the problem when we try and define what 'core' is between the editions of the game. Things have moved in and out of the core rule books through out it's history. You have to define core by edition, not by what came before.
I'm saying that it's incomplete as a role-playing game since any character that is - at some level - defined in terms of non-combat ability is currently impossible. I don't find "Wait a year and pay more money to get non-combat abilities, maybe, keep your fingers crossed" an acceptable argument for saying that the game is otherwise complete.
Vance, there are considerable non-combat elements in the game already.
Most of the Skills are by their nature noncombat.
Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, Thievery, Insight, all of the knowledge skills. All of them have purely non-combat uses.
Skill challenges are noncombat encounters.
The whole chapter on Rituals is non-combat.
How is that not defining a character in terms of their non-combat abilties?
I mean, there's a very obvious difference between deliberately leaving out basic aspects of a character until later and expanding on the core rules. Even if you don't consider a Bard a core class (which, after 30 years, it's hard to argue that point), there should be SOME mechanism in place to play the lute.
'Basic aspects'?
The mechanism for playing a lute in 4E to say, out loud at character creation, 'My character is able to play a lute', or during play to say 'I ask that guy playing the lute to show me the basics of how to do it'.
The mechanism for playing a lute in 4E to say, out loud at character creation, 'My character is able to play a lute', or during play to say 'I ask that guy playing the lute to show me the basics of how to do it'.There's a thought... let's take that logic a smidgeon farther, shall we?
How about... "My character can kill a monster with a sword." or "My character can cast a fireball."
Wow, that was easy. No need for a rules system at all I guess.
The way to do that is to say, out loud at character creation, "My character is proficient in using longwords" or "my character is a wizard".
The way to do that is to say, out loud at character creation, "My character is proficient in using longwords" or "my character is a wizard".And this is a lie, and you know it. I'm ashamed of you. You should feel bad.
And the ability or lack thereof of a character to play a musical instrument is at best 'character color' and doesn't need a mechanical system. You should feel silly for saying a game is incomplete because it doesn't provide one.
The core rules of the game are all there, complete and fully playable.
A Skill system exists, there just isn't a Craft skill in it yet.
If there was NO skill system, then the game would be incomplete. The lack of a Craft skill does not make the game incomplete.Yes it does. The crafting skill IS core.
Cohort rules are not required to play D&D. Neither is Craft, the Bard, or summon momster spells. None of these things are required to play D&D. They add to the expirence, but they are not the core rules of the game.The Bard IS core. He was in all the previous Player's Handbooks, since 1st edition. That's a core class.
I think this was pointed out that "was" is now the correct clause. One could also argue that "they will be" core again. But sadly, it is not that time.
No. You're trying to argue 'if it's not red, it's blue', while all the while it was red in the first place. It's the intellectual dishonesty being shown which kills me. But I see that a lot with '4E supporters' who INSIST that the game is now 'perfected', and all things are present, or will be, and that WotC has our money coming to them or some such nonsense.
You haven't really been reading my posts, have you? I have not said that 4th edition is perfect or is going to be. I am simply saying that the game has all the rules systems it needs, and anything you feel is missing can be added as a expansion tothe already existing systems with ease.
Not that all the skills or classes nessisary to be perfect are there, or even that they will be. A perfect RPG would make everyone happy and 4th edition obviously doesn't do that.
But it is a fully functional roleplaying game, with all the rule systems needed to play any kind of character you want to. Maybe not all the skills and races which have ever been part of D&D, but a good basic set. And the rules to add the skills and races which are missing exist.
Oh, and perhaps you should look up the definition of what "intellectual dishonesty" actually is. Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false.
That is not what I am doing. I am mearly disagreeing with you about whether 4th edition is a complete roleplaying game system.
I believe it has all the rule systems it needs, is easily expandable, and is thus complete.
You are saying that because not all the classes or skills have been printed yet, then the game is incomplete.
They are simply differing opinions on the game. There is no intellectual dishonesty involved, just disagreement.
There was one, it's cut, with no rules or guidelines on how to do it. Again, I can't think of a single RPG otherwise that cannot do something so insanely basic.
You mean, besides the roleplaying and ability checks already in the game?
What exactly stops me from saying "I play the lute to entertain my friends." and then that happens in the game? Does there HAVE to be a die roll after that sentence? And if there absolutly must be a die rolled, what stops it from being a Charisma check?
Oh and by the way Vance, since you keep demanding the name of a role playing game without any real rules about what a character can or cannot do, then why don't you go read the Amber Diceless Roleplaying system.
It gives no rules for anything except how you compair two peoples relative Strength, Weapon skill, Mental ability, and Charisma, which are set perminatly at character creation, and how a character travels between the various universes in that game. Everything else is just storytelling.
No lute playing mechanics, no running a marathon, no crafting, no painting. None of that at all. Just the explination that "This is a roleplaying game. If you want to do something, you do. You and the GM decide what happens when you do."
And the ability or lack thereof of a character to play a musical instrument is at best 'character color' and doesn't need a mechanical system. You should feel silly for saying a game is incomplete because it doesn't provide one.Are you going to argue 'need' here? Okay, here's the question.. why is it required to have 100 pages of glorified ways to 'hit monster with stick', but a couple of paragraphs on being able to perform a musical instrument a complete waste of time?
And, if you still argue that anything non-combat is 'silly', how can you dare say that 4E is not a 'skirmish game' as opposed to a 'role-playing' game? Certainly, if anything non-combat is handwaved as 'silly'... what's LEFT?
Again, the it's not really 4E that bothers me, it's the intellectually dishonest defense of 4E that does.
Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D or DnD) is a fantasy role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, and first published in 1974 by the Gygax-owned company Tactical Studies Rules, Inc. (TSR). It was derived from miniature wargames, with a variation of the Chainmail game serving as the initial rule system.
A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.
Vance, I support the theory that it is both. Just as every edition of D&D has been.
I think this was pointed out that "was" is now the correct clause. One could also argue that "they will be" core again. But sadly, it is not that time.
I think we can all argee on that last bit. When they are printed I will be quite happy.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One thing struck me from the article. Mr. Mearls said that they wouldn't errata the existing rules, they'd make new ones.
This was so well received in the (in)Complete Psion.
So at tournaments and living games we'll have the printed core books, revised rules from the 'optional' PHB II and revised rules Bill downloaded from the DDI.
He's also just said that we'll never see a free fix for the admittedly flawed skill challenge rules. As the Orbits girl says "fabelous."
In 3.x this issue existed, it was called a flaw. Now it's a perk.
And, if you still argue that anything non-combat is 'silly', how can you dare say that 4E is not a 'skirmish game' as opposed to a 'role-playing' game?
It is a little intellectually dishonest of you to claim that a 'skirmish game' cannot also be a 'role-playing' game.
Certainly, if anything non-combat is handwaved as 'silly'... what's LEFT?
I do not handwave non-combat as silly, it is the reason we all play the games. I did say that you should feel silly for your claims, in the same way that you claimed that I should feel bad for my posts.
That is not what I am doing. I am mearly disagreeing with you about whether 4th edition is a complete roleplaying game system.I believe you know the point of my argument is true, and are bending credibility heavily in order to defend the game. Yes, I believe you are, in fact, being intellectually dishonest out of an innate need to defend 4E.
You are wrong about this Vance.
I beleive what I have been saying.
I believe that your agruements are wrong.
It's as simple as that.
I wanted my Druid to be a male prostitute but there were no skills in the 3.5 PHB to support my character concept at all!!
Sure some dopes said "just say 'I turn a trick'" but I wanted to roll some dice then say 'I turn a trick' and if it is not in the books then what the heck am I paying them for? WAY TO DROP THE BALL WOTC!!!
And how did you miss Profession (protitute)? I won't even get into the potential uses of Knowledge and Perform skills.
I believe it has all the rule systems it needs, is easily expandable, and is thus complete.And, when shown not to be the case, the response has been 'well, you don't really NEED those rules'. Again, that's a level of intellectual dishonesty, because, apparently, I do.
Except that you have not yet shown 4th edition to BE incomplete.
You require a rule based crafting system. I do not.
Neither of our opinions matter one bit when it comes to the actual game system itself. There is no actual need within the rules for there to be a crafting system. You can play the game as written perfectly well without a Crafting system, Bard, Half-orc, or any of the other previously core elements from prior editions.
If your play style requires a detailed mechanism for forging a sword, then add a Craft skill to the list. Since there IS a detailed skill system available in 4th edition, and extensive suggestions on how to make house rules in the DMG, then you can do so easily by adding Craft to the skill list.
Your requirement for D&D having a craft system does not make the system itself incomplete. That is just your opinion of it.
No, if in the way that you're defining it, even "Monopoly" or "Pac-Man" could be considered a 'role-playing' game. A RPG, at some point, has to have rules or presentation to encourage 'getting into character' at some point. While there are nods to this in 4E, much of the books (so far) do, in fact, the direct oppposite.
Is the multiple page section on creating characters in the Player's Handbook one of the nods?
You need a good cry, really. You can't have it both ways here. If non-combat options are silly and dismissable, and shouldn't have pages dedicated to them, while fighters now get 'daily powers' of many pages... how is 4E NOT a Skirmish game?
Maybe we're still playing that definition game that you love so much. Can you post your definitions of 'skirmish game' and 'role-playing' game?
And, if it's how you really want to play, then why are you offended at the suggestion?
I'm not offended, I'm just taking part in a conversation. Did you say something offensive?
On those sessions where I and my players just want to loot a dungeon, 4E seems a much better fit for that play style.
What do you mean by better fit? Uses more of the published rules? Better match for the action you see in your head? Something else?
This is the problem when we try and define what 'core' is between the editions of the game. Things have moved in and out of the core rule books through out it's history. You have to define core by edition, not by what came before.
In some ways, that's true. But in others it is not. There's a game's core set of mechanical rules that is pretty much defined by edition. But there's also a core defined by tradition, particularly if the assumption that the edition process is a progressive process is meant to be true. 4e, more than any other edition I believe, fails to live up to D&D's traditional core. It does not include elements that have been added and edited since the beginnings of 1e AD&D without a clear sense that those elements were necessarily deficient and needed to be excised to continue to make positive progress on the game.
|
The 4th edition came on the market with the 3 core books, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master Guide and the Monster Manual.
As such, the game should be considered as complete. These are the CORE books.
All the core races and classes should be there.
All the skills too. Whatever people argue, it is difficult to estimate what part of the players were using the crafting and profession skills. Then leave them in the PH where they belong.
We shouldn't wait for months or years to get the missing classes, such as the Bard or Druid or to use some skills which, ultimately will probably come back.
My intent is not to bash D&D4. I have an opinion about it, but that's not the topic here.
All i want to say is that i consider omitting such things from the core rules is a mistake from WotC.
A mistake which might cost them a lot, as roleplayers are attached to such things.
The core is THE core. Nothing is missing from the core rules. WotC have redefined the core. The will extend the core as the game evolves but nothing can be missing since the core is what it is not what anyone else wants it to be.
Unless, of course, I want to play one of those elements - something I could do, either because the rules either supported it directly, or simply allowed it to be handwaved, for the past 30 years. 4E not only doesn't have the rules to allow it, but actively has rules to DISALLOW it.
There are rules to actively disallow crafting?
|
|
This is the problem when we try and define what 'core' is between the editions of the game. Things have moved in and out of the core rule books through out it's history. You have to define core by edition, not by what came before.
In some ways, that's true. But in others it is not. There's a game's core set of mechanical rules that is pretty much defined by edition. But there's also a core defined by tradition, particularly if the assumption that the edition process is a progressive process is meant to be true. 4e, more than any other edition I believe, fails to live up to D&D's traditional core. It does not include elements that have been added and edited since the beginnings of 1e AD&D without a clear sense that those elements were necessarily deficient and needed to be excised to continue to make positive progress on the game.
Using that kind of logic and new edition would require dozens of classes, dozens of races, huge lists of magic items, and an OED sized MM.
The core is not the build up of content kept alive in an all inclusive set of rules. The core is simply the bare bones heart of the game which is always limited and then expanded upon.
That is the way it has always been - it's tradition to release a small set of rules followed by volume after volume of additional material. It's been that way since day one.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The core is THE core. Nothing is missing from the core rules. WotC have redefined the core. The will extend the core as the game evolves but nothing can be missing since the core is what it is not what anyone else wants it to be.
And yet if the core rules lack what was in prior versions, they can be found wanting by those who preferred to have those elements now, rather than as part of a $115 expansion (assuming prices don't go up) next year.
I guess I don't see what your post added to the debate, since it seems to be focusing on semantics over the actual issue at hand, which is that a lot of folks like the elements that WotC has elected to brand "non-core", and would prefer to play a game that retains them without requiring additional cash infusions.
|
|
There are rules to disallow crafting?More specificlaly, there are rules in place to disallow any character currently possibly from having a skill in it, even if a such a skill was 'added' by the GM.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a GM can add a craft skill he certainly is able to add it to any given class and even *gasp* give PCs more skill choices in order to accommodate the new skills.
There are rules to disallow crafting?More specificlaly, there are rules in place to disallow any character currently possibly from having a skill in it, even if a such a skill was 'added' by the GM.
Really? Where? I'm not doubting you, I just want to read that section.
There are rules to disallow crafting?More specificlaly, there are rules in place to disallow any character currently possibly from having a skill in it, even if a such a skill was 'added' by the GM.
Sorry Vance, but I don't agree with you one this. From what I recall reading there is nothing that says "YOU CANNOT CRAFT! IF YOOUR PLAYERS THINK OF IT, SHOOT THEM!" or anything along those rigid lines.
Something not being there doesnt encourage or discourage it simply is. Does it make this thing you want to do harder? Maybe. But things being hard really haven't discouraged the human race as a whole.
I would be very open and interested if you could give page numbers and examples. This isnt to say that I don't beleive you but I would like to see where you got your opinion from.
|
|
The core is THE core. Nothing is missing from the core rules. WotC have redefined the core. The will extend the core as the game evolves but nothing can be missing since the core is what it is not what anyone else wants it to be.And yet if the core rules lack what was in prior versions, they can be found wanting by those who preferred to have those elements now, rather than as part of a $115 expansion (assuming prices don't go up) next year.
I guess I don't see what your post added to the debate, since it seems to be focusing on semantics over the actual issue at hand, which is that a lot of folks like the elements that WotC has elected to brand "non-core", and would prefer to play a game that retains them without requiring additional cash infusions.
Well - all language is semantics. I see folks defining "core" D&D as whatever they want it to be. WotC gets to define the core rules, not the fans, not previous editions, not even "tradition".
Look, I miss druids. I think it was a huge mistake to leave them out of the core rules. I dislike tieflings and eladrin. I would have preferred to have wood elves and high elves. I can even see having gnomes about though I never ever use them. So yes there is material that I wish was in the current incarnation of the core rules but that does not change the fact that they are the core rules.
No matter what choices WotC made for the races, classes, etc. someone somewhere would feel as if their favorite race or class was missing.
|
|
It is a product that, factually, offers less material than both its previous incarnation as well as most of its competitors, while having a higher price. You are arguing a lie.
What? It offers different material. That is true. But less? I doubt the page or word count is dramatically different between 3e and 4e. The game is not incomplete. You can play it as is. You will not hit a point in any game session and be forced to stop playing because of some huge gap in the mechanics.
But that would destroy the all-important balance of the game! *gasp* That's verboten.. the WotC law-ninjas will come get you. More seriously, each class rigidly defines your skills for you , and that's all you get.
A character can use a feat to become trained in any skill.
We're still waiting for that rule reference.
Page count is pretty much the same. There is a lot more art in 4E, much more white space, and the font is fargin' 12 point as opposed to 10.
Oh yes, I'll give you that one. The change in font size did torque me off. The large type definitely makes the books look to me like they were padded out to have a higher page count than was probably necessary. There is a metric ton of wasted white space in all three books.
|
|
In which case, why not play one of the myriad of games which allow role-playing and are actually complete as advertised when you buy the book.
Isn't it silly to demand people shell out $120 (on average) to purchase a game that, as you just admitted, isn't even complete and fully playable yet?
Now that I have worked my back up the thread I find the post that started this little flare up.
Well, 4e is complete "as advertised" as it contains everything that WotC wanted to include in its final core rules. And as i pointed out the game will not come to a crashing halt because it is missing some vital mechanic required to play the game.
4e does not currently have the number of options available in 3.5. 3.5 has dozens of books and year of material in its corner. 4e has the core books, one adventure, and some online content. To compare them for the options each edition has available to it is simply illogical.
|
|
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a GM can add a craft skill he certainly is able to add it to any given class and even *gasp* give PCs more skill choices in order to accommodate the new skills.But that would destroy the all-important balance of the game! *gasp* That's verboten.. the WotC law-ninjas will come get you. More seriously, each class rigidly defines your skills for you , and that's all you get.
Of course you can override the entire book, but, at that point, you're overriding the entire book, nae? How far do you house-rule on a system before you decide it's not the same game anymore?
Well now your just being silly. I can add skills and skill choices to classes and nothing will break.. The game will play just fine.