Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
428 of 475 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
4th Edition: Pulling back from the complexity of 3.5, June 7, 2008
4th edition D&D = Different.
That fact alone would have spawned endless teeth gnashing from loyalists of prior versions - but what differences are we talking about? How different is it?
In a word: very.
4th edition is a sea change in the core rules that is easily on par with the change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.
Start with the thematic changes:
The core races have changed. Humans, Halflings, Elves, Half-Elves and Dwarves are back - they've just been supplemented with three new races. Dragonborn (dragonmen), Eladrin (magical fey of the wood) and Tiefling (humanoids with an otherworldly taint).
Classes from 3.0 and 3.5 have been dropped from this volume (There is no druid, monk, bard, or barbarian). These classes are promised in future Player's Handbooks. Not the most auspicious beginning.
Thematic changes like this are easy to spot - but are perhaps the least important changes in the game. I dislike the concept of Dragonborn ("Dragon-anything" is a label I feel makes its subject seem cartoonish and clichéd), but as a GM - I can easily fix this. In my world Dragonborn will be lizardmen, with a backstory that I choose. I take the rules and make them my own.
The WotC game designers have clearly tried to shift the game mechanics towards customized character development: (a rules buffet, so to speak) - so anyone who wants to have a druid could achieve a reasonable facsimile of powers and rituals and achieve the rest thematically.
Many will have a problem with this - but I frankly don't. Being able to mix and match classes in 3.5 was a radical shift (and a brilliant one) and the re-thinking of that model that occurs in 4th Edition provides more options, not less.
The artwork (particularly the book's cover) will come in for a large amount of abuse - but again, this is such a minor issue. Quality artwork is important for RPG (imagery is the lifeblood of storytelling), but any one picture will have those who love it/hate it. So long as the majority of the art isn't bad (like the schlock in 2nd edition) any gamer is free to switch to pictures they *do* enjoy.
Again, thematic changes will get a lot of attention, but any GM is free to re-imagine any theme that they have a problem with.
On to Rules:
This is where the true sea change is. Any discussion of what is happening in 4th edition can be boiled down to this:
4th edition wants to simplify things and speed up your gaming sessions.
3rd edition and 3.5 attempted to create flexibility and lots of independent rulesets (feats, prestige classes). This was good - but the complexity inherent in this model caused a lot of problems. When scalable feats collided with spells and class abilities - often the only guidance the GM would have is the precise language in the rulebook. Is a charge an attack action? No, it is a full round action that allows you to attack - and so on.
I sincerely believe that 3rd edition was superior to 2nd edition, but I never had as many rules disputes when I played 2nd edition.
4th Edition was clearly intended to address this issue.
Base attack bonus tables? Gone. You get a bonus of half your level, rounded down, to pretty much anything you do (as well as to many stats, like your AC). The advantage of this is twofold - it's easy to remember and it always scales.
All attacks are now attacks: be they claw, sword or spell - the character will roll a die, add their modifiers up and try to hit a defense number. This streamlines combat spells, since instead of a saving throw, you will have a passive defense number that your opponents will try to beat. One roll, from the attacker - always.
This kind of symmetry will allow players to better remember what to do. I'm a target, I do nothing. I'm attacking, I roll.
The combat round has gotten an overhaul, as well. Characters are now allowed to perform the following in a round: A standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions. These labels exist in a hierarchy, so the character can forgo a standard action to take an additional use of a lesser action.
Standard actions are the big actions (attack, use a power, etc). Move actions are exactly what you'd think. Minor actions include readying a weapon or maintaining a spell effect. Free actions are virtually unlimited (drop something, speak, etc).
The groupings are intuitive- and the initial adjustment aside - this structure will add some real clarity to the always problematic question of "what can I do in a round?"
Now the biggest shift of all: Powers
All 3rd edition/3.5 casters get weaker and less useful every time they cast a spell, resulting in the entire party needing to stop and camp just to get their magic back.
If the party had an early morning encounter that was intense enough - the caster would spend the rest of the day "empty" and pretty much useless.
4th edition tackles this issue head on. Character have powers that can be used once per encounter. Meaning: no matter how many encounters your spell caster has in a day, they will have something to contribute.
This is brilliant. A real slap-the-forehead moment, even for gamers who (like me) have been playing for decades. Once per encounter powers are scaled to not be show stoppers - but they scale as you get more powerful.
Powers that refresh for encounters are supplemented with powers that are refreshed after an extended rest (much like old times). The difference is that the rest need only be 6 hours long, which fits better with the model of dungeon crawls and treks in the wilderness.
Spells weren't the only resource PCs needed to hole up and replenish. The other one was Hit Points. The old healing model was: everyone gets a pittance for resting, and then the healers burn magic to *really* fix people. This system exacerbated the previous problem of spellcaster depletion. Caster rests, uses all their spell slots to heal other PCs - and is useless for the rest of the day.
Now - everyone can heal by themselves. Every PC has a healing reserve - a set number of times they can heal 1/4th their total hit points. In combat, most PCs are allowed to do this only once - magic and special abilities can increase this.
This seems weird for lots of reasons, but it will free players to pursue action instead of good places to rest. Clerics can still be healers, without being straitjacketed to the role. This is good, really good news for gamers. Parties will still have to hole up and rest, but healing reserves and encounter based powers will ensure that they will never be completely out of options.
And powers aren't just for spellcasters! This, too seems weird - but warrior types are given abilities called "Exploits." These are essentially special moves that enhance the warriors martial abilities. Call them magic or call them tricks their guild master taught them - they are expended in the same way as powers - and the advancement model ensures they will scale better than 3.5's feats.
The last big change to magic is the creation of Ritual Magic. Rituals are spells that take too long to cast in combat (10 minutes or more) but have long lasting, or purely utilitarian effects: summon mounts, scrying, etc. Moving these abilities out of the realm of combat with casting times decreases the likelihood that their effects will collide with combat rules in unforeseen ways. As a GM - I like this a lot. Players will still get creative, but when combat is ongoing - I hate to stop and figure out if a utility spell like Prestigitation can have an effect on combat.
There are many other changes:
-Three tiers of level advancement, each containing 10 levels - entering any new tier affords you new powers and development paths. Each tier contains powers scaled to that tier - no more feat free-for alls.
-Skills have been (mercifully) simplified so that there is better parity among PCs of the same level (The bonus follows the same format of 1/2 level + bonuses). You either are trained in a skill, or you are not. Training nets you a flat +5 bonus. (Gone is the insanity of 3.5 where a level loss had you searching prior versions of your character to reset your skill levels. Remember what INT drain did to skills? the horror!)
There is a lot to like here. The long suffering DMs of 3.5 will finally get some speed back into their game. It will be an adjustment, but the goals of this system are admirable.
That said, I have three gripes.
One is just a personal bias. 3rd edition required miniatures for combat in all but name. 4th edition codifies miniatures. The idea of a purely "in your head" encounter is a rapidly fading memory for gamers like me. Sometimes, you just want to do a combat on the fly, without figures and without maps. WotC has clearly come down on the side of precise tactics - and I truly wish they'd made more accommodations for DMs who don't like to map every improvised encounter site.
Second - while the 4th edition PH's index is merely lacking; its glossary is non-existent. In books of this size - a one page index is just inadequate. To be fair, the books explain any terminology as it is introduced *very* well, but any player who needs to know what a term means would have an easier time scanning a glossary than the entire rulebook.
(DnD Insider claims to have many features to simplify things - but online access has not been the hallmark of my gaming sessions. This may change - but a good, frequently-updated glossary should be available for download on their website.)
Lastly, the unpardonable yet unavoidable aspect of 4th Edition: It is so near the release of 3.5 - and has so many changes that it cannot help but spawn a 4.5 edition in the near future. I was a playtester for 4th edition, so I know they've gotten a number of kinks out of it. But there is no way playtesters and designers got it all. Like every other edition, players will find the weak spots of the new system and eventually rules will get revised.
There is such a thing as buyer's fatigue. I've bought every ruleset since the Expert Set, and having invested deeply in 3.5, I am being asked (along with every other 3.5 player) to start over - again.
I like the rules - and I obviously love the game - but there is a limit to the number of times a game can switch rulesets. If 4.5 comes out in the near future and we are yet again asked to pitch our (still like new) rulebooks in favor of the latest products - I suspect I will not be the only DM to slam on the brakes.
There, rant over.
Game on!
|
|
|
21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Out with the old, in with the new - not your grandfather's D&D, July 23, 2008
I have played D&D for 30 years and have played all editions. I am currently DMing a 3.5 edition Forgotten Reams campaign. My group has been highly anticipating the new edition. Sadly, we are all disappointed with what the new edition has become. One member of the group even called it blasphemous. The game has changed so much now that it is almost not recognizable as our beloved D&D. It is so different than any of the earlier editions. No backward compatibility and really no comparison.
I have read the Player's Handbook from cover to cover and tried to have an open mind. I summarized my thoughts while reading and many of these thoughts were not favorable. I know that many people will like it and many new people will be brought to the game but there will also be many players that will dislike it. The few that are on the fence will most likely admit that it is a very different game but will play it because it will still be a fun game to play. The following are my thoughts:
Things I like
* Ability Scores - seem balanced across classes and realistic.
* Difficulty Checks - d20 is still a Core Mechanic which is great.
* The powers are intricately thought out and balanced. Keywords in powers are informative and clear and provide the balance in the game. They are also well written and easy to understand. Spells in 3rd edition should be written like this.
* Milestone and Action Points - I like the idea that characters can earn extra action if they are more successful. Somewhat like being more inspired.
* Rituals are cool because they are the most like spells and have a unique feeling.
* Action types seem to be the same which I have liked. They are actually much more flushed out with actions such as Delay Action, Ready an Action, and Shifting.
* The wizard class still seems cool though not as varied as the old rules. They still wield mighty powers but so does every character.
* Great strategy is now involved in combat. Each combat round is now an opportunity to be unpredictable, cooperative, and creative in your use of attack and utility powers.
Things I don't like
* Healing surges - Every character should not have the ability to heal themselves. This is the most ridiculous new rule in my opinion. Also, after an extended rest, a character can regain all hit points. What happens to that deep gash on your leg? Oh, just sleep it off.
* Alignment - Some alignments are no longer valid (Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Neutral). This does not sit well with me because I very much like the old alignment system. Mentions in the rules that similar aligned people are on the same "team". Also mentioned when "law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory" which sounds like Lawful Evil. Without Lawful Evil, where can Darth Vader turn? Chaotic Good gone? What happens to all the planes? Alignment was an area of brilliance in the game and was another way to completely customize your character. By simplifying this formula, it can be seen how the game is catering to those who don't have the patience to learn a rich and complex system.
* Retraining - Apparently, when a character goes up a level, you can discard an old feat, power, or skill and learn a new one. Characters should not be able to discard things they already know. It is not very realistic and doesn't make sense. I used to be an Olympic quality swimmer but one day I forget how to swim well so I dumped my athletics skill and really have been into history lately.
* Powers - I don't like that so many attack powers also give bonuses to others while attacking. Too much to keep track of and all characters become much too powerful. Within blast areas, quite often enemies take damage and allies get bonuses... not very realistic. How is this determined? If you have a bad thought about one of the members in your party, are you no longer an ally so that fireball turns your skin black? Not to worry though because you can just spend a healing surge and shake your ally's hand and all is well. There are also so many numbers (bonuses, penalties, conditions) that need to be remembered for each character every round that it seems complicated. A computer would be able to keep track of these which may be the point.
* Combat - Almost required to play on a grid map. This must have been the way it had to be to make the game successful online. Putting together a party is starting to feel like putting together a Magic The Gathering deck and then people can battle parties (and powers) online.
* Skills - Very limited list now and no way to customize proficiency in each skill. Seems like each skill now includes a group of skills from edition 3.5.
* Magic Items - They can be identified after a short rest. Disenchanting an item provides a fine silvery dust that can be sold for gold pieces. This dust is considered concentrated magic and is used in rituals. A magic item power can be recharged by spending a healing surge. Huh? Thrown magic weapons rematerialize in the character's hand after the combat round. Double huh?? Magic items are very different now and there are not nearly as many Wondrous Items and Potions.
* Seems like the powers of the Ranger are very geared towards either being a two-weapon fighter or a ranged fighter. What if I want a Ranger for the roleplaying aspects but don't want to be forced to fight with two weapons or ranged attack. The biggest problem with this arrangement is that you become pigeon-holed into playing a Ranger in a very limited number of ways.
* Warlords are mandated to be leaders. I always felt that leadership was earned in a party through respect of the other characters. Paladins can already be pretty pretentious. If a Warlord attempts to join your party, run away as fast as you can.
* Most wizard spell powers do not increase in damage as a character goes up in levels. This is a huge change from the old rules. No longer can you do 40d6 with a single spell. Bummer!
* The Destiny Quest and achieving immortality at 30th level is silly. Not all characters need to move on out of the world when they reach 30th level and the fact that it can only happen when all characters of the party reach 30th level is stupid.
* Savings throws are too simplified. Everyone has the same chance of success or failure regardless of level or the type of save being performed.
* Keywords seem very related to keywords in Magic The Gathering and have the same sort of effect in the game. Actually, the entire game has a checks & balances similar to Magic The Gathering. The game also seems like a battle in a Warlords video game. One member of my group even considered the Player's Handbook a strategy guide for Diablo II.
General Thoughts
* Some of the magic and mystique of what make D&D so great is gone from the game. It seems to be more about how well you can beat up on those around you. Very combat focused now.
* Seems like there are very limited character choices from the Player's Handbook. This might be intentional in order to sell additional books.
* This game is now so different that it should not have been called D&D. It's as though this was a new game system from another manufacturer. It would be like someone telling me that someone rewrote The Lord of the Rings such that Gandalf decided to wear the ring and battle Sauron himself. This may have made a good video game but I can't see playing with this system for the long-term. Too restrictive so I would be moving on to the next game.
* Seems like some of the mystery is taken out of the game. Used to be that a character might not know why attacks were not affecting monsters. Now it looks like some of that will go away. Do characters and monsters always know what effects are in play?
General Information
* I looked at the difference between 3rd and 4th editions for a particular class. In 3rd edition, there are 405 choices of spells for the cleric. In 4th edition, there are only 94 different powers. This limits creativity, options, and customization of cleric characters. The Fighter, however, goes from having virtually no special abilities (except bonus feats) to having 89 powers which provides much more variety to that character class. The Paladin has gone from 53 spells and special abilities to 83 powers. Rangers go from 51 to 88. Rogues go from 12 (and extra skill points) to 87. The wizard goes from 371 spells (and bonus feats and spells from other supplements) to 101 class features and powers. The 4th edition does not contain the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer classes from the 3rd edition. Warlock and Warlord are new character classes in the 4th edition.
|
|
|
103 of 130 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
New roleplaying game, roleplaying not included..., June 25, 2008
I am sure by now that this review will be a rehash of what others have said, but I have never felt so moved to write a review, so I am just going to go with it. For starters, I have been either a player or a DM for over 15 years. I started in 1st edition and easily made the transition to the 2nd edition. I was really excited about the changes to the game mechanics that came with the 3rd edition. I never bought 3.5 because it seemed like a money-making scheme, but the point I am making is that I have loved this game throughout all of its various incarnations.
Therefore, I was looking forward to 4th Edition. I had heard that there would be more character customization from the ground up (sort of like Skills and Powers) and that it would be structured something like the new Star Wars Saga Edition. I was intrigued at the notion and very excited to see the outcome.
I cannot express to you how disappointed I was at the result. I agree with previous reviewers that this is not DND, and it is not a good system for roleplaying. I'll just give an itemized rundown:
How do I hate thee, 4th Ed? Let me count the ways
1. The book is cheaply made, so cheaply made that the ink comes off the pages if you rub it too hard.
2. Of the limited races available, three are related to elves. That's overdoing it a little bit, no? Also, not only is the "dragonborn" simply a silly idea that panders to power gamers, they look laughable. And the idea that they would have a breath weapon as opposed to a bite or a claw attack is absurd. Since they were adding the tiefling anyway, how about the aasimar? And as for a monster class, they could have done something better than the dragonborn. They already have with the half-orc.
3. The classes lost are not worth the classes gained. Who ever heard of DND without druids and bards? Instead, what did we get, the Warlord? Please! What place does a tactical leader have in a roaming band of adventurers? Frankly, with the people I play with, if somebody "ordered" one of their PC's to attack, I don't think it would be the NPC that would be getting the smackdown. Warlords are for military and tactical units, not loosely confederated treasure hunters.
4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!
5. The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous. I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of that.
6. The alignment system desperately needs a revamp and always has (either that or needs to be eliminated entirely), but the revamp they did made the system even more nonsensical. They have removed most of the choices, so once again, the characters are the same.
7. I never really liked prestige classes because you have to spend time at lower levels making choices for skills, feats, etc. that you may not really want to get the prestige class you want, but this game makes a player's choices even more limited because you get shoehorned into a very small number of character paths.
8. Multiclassing is destroyed in this edition. What's the fun in THAT? And again, because of this, characters end up all looking the same.
9. I have no issue with the use of miniatures and maps in games, I use them when I run, but the requirement that they must be used smacks of a marketing ploy to me. I can't wait to see how many "must have" dungeon tile, game mat, and miniature sets come out after this.
10. Finally, my problem with this edition is that it doesn't seem to show any regard for DND players, those of us that have supported and loved this game for over 30 years. It seems to be attempting to attract an audience of video game enthusiasts with a faster pace and a dumbed-down presentation, as if to imply that people who play games like WOW are too stupid to understand anything more detailed(which is incredibly insulting). I think it is a huge mistake. I think that video gamers who don't already play RPG's will continue to play video games, and I think DND lovers will continue to play DND--3rd and 3.5 edition, that is.
I think as a tactical miniatures game this edition is fine. But they already made one of those, so I see this edition having limited appeal. What a shame. But not all that unexpected from a company that is owned by Hasbro.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Bruce Cordell
by Wizards RPG Team
by Logan Bonner
