Others say...

"Much Function, Little Form"
So, after telling myself that I wasn't going to do it, that I was happy with 3E and that I didn't need to go through the "D&D arms race" again, I finally broke down and picked up the three new 4E corebooks. Although I did not purchase the slipcase edition, I figured that this would be the best place for this review, as I did purchase the three books at once, and I'm trying to review the system as a whole, as opposed to any single book.

I'd like to be able to give this game an exact 2.5-star rating, as I feel that it falls neatly along that line, but as Amazon seems to want to restrict me to whole stars, I'm going to use the D&D method and round down.

"Ease of use" seemed to be the watchword for the designers of this new edition, and pretty much everything in the system, from the nuts-and-bolts math of "add half your level to everything," to the choices present in character creation, to the revision in combat options, seems to be pointed in that direction. It's hard to create an useless character in this game, and that eternal hobgoblin of game balance -- combat -- has been addressed by focusing a large amount of energy into making sure that everyone comports themselves equally well on the battlemat.

Gone is BAB; instead, every character adds half their level to the appropriate stat bonus for their roll. Yes, this means that your wizard is as combat-trained as your friend's fighter, with only your Strength bonus as a difference. Gone are saving throws; the old saves from 3E have been translated into defenses similar to AC that the "attacker" (be that a monster, trap or other) rolls against. Anything that offers a save merely asks that you roll a 10 or better on a d20, again guaranteeing that every character has an equal chance to save against a prolonged effect. Even armor class has been altered quite a bit; armor itself provides less protection, but again you get to add half your level, in a move reminiscent of the Defensive Bonus from such games as Iron Heroes (in fact, Mearls contributed to this edition, and both the AC revision and healing surges are his brainchildren from that previous game).

Gone is multiclassing; a broad range of feats and the ability to take Paragon Paths at 10th level and Epic Destinies at 20th step into the gap, but allow nowhere near the breadth of options found in 3E. Gone are the grappling rules, replaced by the simpler "Grab" option; gone, too, are sundering and disarming attacks. Gone are the long and often bewildering lists of spells available to spellcasters; what they're left with are the cream of the crop in combat ability, but offer little outside of that arena (those "utility" powers that are still available are generally unusable more than once a day).

It's a game that knows what it wants, and it's pretty sure it knows what you want, too. And that's not exactly a bad thing. Given the options present in games like Exalted or Deadlands (or, God forbid, GURPS), I've seen players go into Decision Paralysis that completely shut down their ability to create a character or go through a simple combat, due to one overriding thought -- "What if I choose poorly?" You can't choose poorly in 4E. You copy your stats from the Players' Handbook to your character sheet, fill in a few blanks (with a wink and a nod as to what you should be filling them with), and proceed to move your character through his routine, confident that he'll never underperform (or overperform) when things go south and the swords come out.

Ultimately, it's a very safe game decision-wise, but it's true that it also lacks the ability to accomodate a very wide variety of character types. So, for example, if you were hoping to focus most of your character's abilities on skills and languages, making her the party's "knowledge battery" at the expense of her combat prowess, you'll need a new character concept. Skills are either trained or untrained (there is no accumulation of skill points from level to level), and again, half your level comes into play, so no one character can really be more or less skilled than another; they're only proficient in different areas. And while it's true that WotC will no doubt offer us a buffet of additional powers in upcoming supplements and through "D&D Insider," those powers will still be laid over the safety-net foundation of the core rules, and doubtless balanced to be completely even with other powers from other classes.

In the end, it's a hard game to screw up, but it's a hard game to excel at, too, simply because all decision trees present in the game have been perfectly balanced for exceeding, almost painful, equality. True, this eliminates a lot of the nightmares of the previous edition, but it also eliminates a bit of the beauty, leaving us with a game that contains a lot of function, but very little form.

"Simpler to Create Characters, Fun, but Fewer Options"
This is the first edition of D&D that I've been able to get a sizable group together to play with for more than a couple of sessions. A few factors contributed to this; for instance, the books have larger print and friendlier layouts. The largest factor, though, is that the game is just easier to play.

It was easy for most people to get overwhelmed by the complex mess of rules of 2nd and 3rd edition, so I was never able to get many of my other friends to join in. 4th edition has class build suggestions and combat that goes more quickly.

Much of the more "streamlined" rules has to do with with the designers deciding that they were designing the rules for a game to be played instead of rules to simulate a reality in which a game *could* be played. Powers are tied pretty closely with a class, so instead of imagining a pool of martial abilities, arcane abilities, or divine abilities that were shared among different class types, the designers could just say "a fighter gets this ability at level X" and not worry as much about how that could potentially be unbalancing if another similar class got it. Players and enemies don't need to share the same types of progression.

This is a net plus, but some of the mechanics don't make as much sense as previous editions if you tried to translate it to the "physics" of the game world. As mentioned before, the designers were less interested in creating rules to simulate a fantasy world as much as they were interested in creating a fantasy game. It does make some of the "powers" harder to imagine how they would work if you are the sort to do that.

It also felt that the types of characters you could create were more limited, but that's perhaps the price of having a game that is more playable.

It has been thoroughly fun thus far.

"great for new players, but a few dislikes."
the rules have been greatly simplified. this is great for teaching new players, which i plan to do soon, but there are a few things i do not like. every class feels like a spellcaster now with their new abilities. also, with the new rules i feel the true spellcasters have too many hit points. i believe they are targeting new and casual gamers too much. the rules should be more detailed, and those who do not want the detail and improvise. however, the rules do seem pretty solid and the multiclassing is MUCH better in this version. if you play D&D, i recomend switching to this version.

"Spoonfeeding and Cookie Cutters"
I am a serious gamer, and I hate this new system. Part of the fun my group has is creating complicated, multi-faceted characters using various alignment, race, and class templates. We have decided to keep all of our 3.5 books and to eschew the Fourth edition because we hate the new version of the game which spoon-feeds us cookie-cutter characters and plots.

A side note, two of us in the group play MMORPGs in addition to doing pen and paper gaming--if we WANTED to play a P&P version of our online games, we would...we prefer to play both, however, and agree that changing the essence of D&D to appeal to the masses of MMORPG players is pointless.

Finally, D&D is the quintessential game of smart, imaginative people who use it as an outlet of expression. Making it easier to play and taking away elements that encourage and inspire creativity and imagination is a terrible betrayal of the player-base.



"Still D&D, but different like Rules Cyclopedia was from AD&D 2nd Ed"
Now, 4E. The big one. The game of games. Or at least that's what Hasbro would have you believe. While it would be nice if WoTC could go back to just being a game company, now that Hasbro has them, they have to do what the real Big Daddy wants.

First up, a little thing noticed by one of my players, it's NOT 4E, 4.0, or 4th Edition, it is just Dungeons & Dragons. Only on the credits page, the back cover, and the slipcase does it mention '4th Edition rules', it is not officially attached to the title. In fact, I think of this game as less the next version of D&D v3.5, as much as the next version of the older, Red Box D&D. It has much the same feel. Many of the same, "good luck exploring the vague world" feel. Even the layout and artwork reminds me more of my long lost yet beloved D&D Rules Cyclopedia (one of the last things TSR put out before they went bankrupt and WoTC bought out the property rights, which Arneson hated, which led to legal messes that gets him largely ignored in the official WoTC history now, thanks more to Hasbro Law-Ninja).

Now, a lot pf people keep reviewing just the PHB, or the MM, etc, and thus miss out on the whole package. I am thus going to review them as a set, as that is what they are. Each book makes 1/3 of a game, or actually, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/4. I'll explain.

That ratio is actually better than 3.5. While 3.5 is a decent system, my biggest fault with it was how little I needed the DMG. I can tell you the pages I used most from memory. Pages 38, 70-74, and 211-288. Those would be the XP chart, traps, and Magic Items. That was it. I did not use the treasure charts because they didn't work. PCs were either under equipped or over equipped, and bags of holding became almost required (outside of Eberron, which had a banking system). Players frequently got more use from the DMG than I did due to it having the treasure and the prestige classes. Thus, for 3.5, it seemed like the game was 1/2 in the PHB, 2/6 in the MM, and 1/6 in the DMG.

At least with 4E, I feel like I will use all of the DMG, even if I do not carry it to every game. Pg 42 alone makes it worth the price of admission. Really. It's cool, sound neat and cinematic, but not covered in the combat chapter of the PHB? 42. Also, Traps are clearer, Treasure Parcels make a logical, balanced (if a bit 4th wall breaking at first) way of distributing treasure. A sample of a default setting, which while 3.5 kept touching on with the Greyhawk references, never actually gave a starting DM anything to work with. Even experienced DMs (like myself with limited time) can get use out of the Nentir Vale.

So, using the DMG for the actual DM, WoTC moved the magic items and 'prestige classes', now Paragon Paths, to the PHB. GOOD! Really, you know what sucked in 3.5? Making a high level NPC, and having to flip between 2 books to do it, 3 if it had an animal companion (more on that later). While I am not 100% sold on the Multi classing, it makes sense the way they did it as they front loaded the classes even more to make 1st level fun to play.

Powers I am torn on. Now, everyone does have options on their turn, and can achieve more than 'HPs of damage", but they do all start to sound alike. With many of them emphasizing movement as well, it makes minis (or at least a grid and counters, thank god I have both minis and fold up counters saved from the TSR D&D relaunch days) almost vital. Saga I can (and did last summer) run sans minis. 4E I don't think so as much. I also feel that the powers idea was almost stolen hook, line, and sinker from Exalted 2.0, but I guess that's fair as Exalted 2.0 stole their look and layout almost whole and cloth from 3.5/4E.

The Monster Manual is just that, the big book of bad. That is good. A few of my old favorites are missing (really, could we have skipped the Carrion Crawler for the good 'ol classic Giant Centipede), and the book really does read like a catalog of 'things what kill or are killed by you.' However, that is also a good thing. Challenges for every level are good, balanced, and easy to plan with it. Minions are also a good thing to fill out encounters without making the odds too far in the monsters favor. I do miss the larger 'lore' for each monster however.

What the MM lacks most is normal animals. This is in large part because animal companions are also missing from the 4E PHB. While I will miss them for feel, I can understand from a mechanic standpoint why. Balance between classes. It's the same reason the Wizard was toned down (and almost beaten to red headed gnome status). Classes with animal companions essentially gave some players a 2-for-one deal on characters and attacks. If they could not figure out a good way to balance this yet, I'd rather they left it out too.

So, that's my thoughts. While I overall like 4E, and it reminds me a lot more of the D&D I used to play before 3.5, I'm in no hurry to divest myself of all my 3.5 material. Pathfinder by Paizo looks interesting, and while 4E does the old fashioned 'Dirty Heroes vs the Dungeon' kind of D&D game good, it doesn't have the mechanics, I think, for the feel of more involved settings like Eberron. I am kinda intrigued by the new direction they are taking Forgotten Realms (the 3.5 version held no interest for me... 'what NPC of the week will Deus Ex my plot now?') but the 4E version (with half of them dead) seems a lot more interesting.

Honestly, this is the D&D that I'm more interested in 3rd party support for now.

So, ironically enough, Dungeons & Dragons* gets 3.5 &'s out of 5.