As part of my prep work in designing the manor house in Winterhaven, I needed to stock the store room. So I cracked open my 4th Edition Player’s Handbook…
… and discovered that all the non-adventuring equipment has gone M.I.A. Even stuff that has obvious utility for adventurers is gone.
Ink and parchment? Gone. Chalk dust gone? Gone. Caltrops? Gone.
The 10-foot pole? Gone.
Was the 10-foot pole really one of the sacred cows that needed to be slaughtered on the altar of 4th Edition?
Another fun one: On the first page of the Equipment chapter, they tell you to look in the “Adventuring Gear” section for flasks of oil. Guess what isn’t in the Adventuring Gear section? Guess what isn’t in the book anywhere at all?
So I did the only thing I could do. I went back to the 3rd Edition Player’s Handbook and found what I needed. This is something I’ve been doing with rather ridiculous frequency as I repeatedly encounter areas where the 4th Edition core rulebooks aren’t delivering the same basic functionality as the 3rd Edition core rulebooks.
ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Justin Alexander
The Rule 0 Fallacy is where you claim a game isn’t broken because you can fix it. You’re admitting the problem exists even as you claim that it doesn’t.
In this case you’re claiming that non-combat support isn’t missing from the 4th Edition core rulebooks because you can add non-combat support to the 4th Edition core rulebooks.
Classic Rule 0 Fallacy. It goes without saying that you can fill these holes in 4th Edition. In fact, you’ll notice that this is the very first thing I did. It doesn’t mean, however, that the holes didn’t exist.
Of course, you’re also engaged in cherry-picking, which is another type of fallacy. It’s notable that you ignored cited items like caltrops and flasks of oil — which do require rules in order to use them as intended — in order to focus on the other items cited (which are iconic but don’t require meaningful mechanical support).
And if we’re talking about mechanically relevant, then we should probably spend a moment focusing on the fact that the amount of wealth available to the PCs is, in fact, part of the mechanical balance of the game. So the total gold value of the items in the manor house are only irrelevant right up until the point where the PCs decide to sell the valuables of Wayne Manor to fund their next big purchase. (And a large, well-stocked storeroom is, in fact, a valuable.)
In terms of non-mechanical relevance, there is a difference between blank-slate creativity and MacGuyer-style problem-solving. This isn’t a matter of one style being better than the other (it isn’t — although one style may be better than another for particular groups), but you do get significantly different results, which is why I tend to use an even mixture of techniques in my campaigns (And 4th Edition makes that more difficult.)
The last couple paragraphs have dealt with relevance in prep, but let’s take a step back and instead look at this from the POV of utility in gameplay. Assume the PCs have gone off the beaten track of your preparation and have just yanked open the door of a storage closet that you only just decided was a storage closet mere moments before.
And that’s when they ask the dreaded question: “What’s in there?”
Now, maybe you’re a gifted improviser who will never, ever draw a blank when presented with that kind of question. But even if that’s the case, one of the precepts I learned in improvisational theater is the value of having tools that will help break you out of your tendencies. Having a comprehensive equipment list can serve as that type of tool.
Saturday, July 26, 2008, 5:03:09 PM
Weebles
If I were running a Supers game where we visited Bruce Wayne’s manor and the DM had written up a specific amount of money Bruce Wayne had so that we could calculate what was in his broom closet, I’d find it a ridiculous waste of time. The guy is rich; if you want him to have something, he has it.
So, D&D. It’s a manor; this implies that the person who owns the manor is probably pretty loaded, or at least was at one time. Hence, what is the point of calculating how much gold the knick-knacks in his closet are?
I’m not trying to bait anger, I seriously just have no idea what the point of the exercise is.
Also, I don’t know what Rule 0 Fallacy is; I assume it being that handwaving something that isn’t in the rules means that the system is broken or a bad argument or whatnot (in which case, I disagree)?
Saturday, July 26, 2008, 3:47:10 PM
Justin Alexander
Weebles, I’m trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make here. ‘Cause it looks pretty much like a generic Rule 0 Fallacy right now.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 11:31:40 PM
Weebles
What rules were you looking for in regards to misc. flasks and ten foot poles? How much they cost? You’re stocking a manor’s storage room. Just say what’s in it. It IS a manor; is any one of your players, or you, going to argue that the manor’s owner did not have enough money for that set of oil flasks or the pole in the corner?
I’m going to assume you didn’t actually set a gold cap on what’s in the storage room, and were counting down from it as you put random stuff in the room.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 11:03:08 AM
Mortegro
The only argument I can make for Wizards (and I don’t personally believe in this, myself) is that the bulk of non-combat/adventure equipment you describe were things that most players did not want to micromanage or never bothered to purchase in the first place. The upside is you don’t even have to worry about micromanaging your layman’s supplies now, the downside is that 4th edition loses any sense of world realism. Small details are too annoying, according to Wizards, so they must gut them out at the cost of game-world integrity so they can reinforce that good ol’ fashioned combat everyone raves about.
Am I the only one who actually HATED when combat took more time than genuine roleplaying? Were it not for all my characters’ ability to remain involved in combat, I would have tired of the single 3-hour combat session more quickly.
I think what rubs me the wrong way the most is that a friend of mine who is a 3.5 encyclopedia love 4th edition and thinks it’s a good step in the right direction. I wish I shared his confidence….
Sunday, June 22, 2008, 1:08:26 PM
“John Lee”
In all truth, I’d have to say both. “Less charitable” is fairly close to my default view, but I “trust” Hasbro enough to believe they have a few designers waiting in the wings to pad out a sourcebook.
I trust human greed to keep me safe at amusement parks. I trusted Hasbro’s greed to make a good game. Perhaps I could have placed my faith in humanity on a better foundation.
Sunday, June 22, 2008, 6:57:29 AM
Justin Alexander
Re: John Lee. You’re kidding, right? You actually think WotC took the time to write a completely alternative version of the Equipment chapter, lay it out with full graphical presentation, repaginate the remainder of the book to remove any discrepancy, print a copy of it, and then ship that one-and-only copy to me and only me?
As for “connections”. Hey, I’ve got the book right in my hand and I’m looking at it. Doesn’t get much more connected than that.
Re: Stargate525. Definitely not in the DMG. The stuff just ain’t in 4th Edition.
There is literally one page worth of material (spread over half of one page and half of the next because of layout) dedicated to equipment which isn’t (a) a weapon; (b) armor; or (c) magical.
And I’m being generous, because that page of information also includes ammunition, arcane implements, and ritual/spell supplies.
By contrast, there’s about 6 times as much page space dedicated to non-combat equipment in the 3.5 PHB. And the 3.5 PHB used a significantly smaller font (so there’s more information per page).
When I’m feeling charitable, I just assume that they’re planning to use this missing material to pad out a splatbook at some point.
When I’m feeling less charitable, I say things like “4th Edition has severely gutted anything that isn’t related to combat”.
Sunday, June 22, 2008, 2:43:55 AM
Stargate525
My guess; it’s in the DMG. Why it’s there when magic items aren’t is anyone’s guess.
Saturday, June 21, 2008, 11:47:20 AM
“John Lee”
Are you serious? I doubt that Hasbro (and, by extension, Wizards) would be so blatantly negligent in a release. If this was a common error; I think I would have heard of it by now (and if I hadn’t, then someone like you with more connections would have). Perhaps this is isolated to your copy?
Saturday, June 21, 2008, 7:40:43 AM