[RPG]: 4th Edition Core Rulebook Gift Set, reviewed by Roodah (5/4)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13875.phtml

Roodah's Summary:

I recommend the new version of the game, but if you have any concerns over what I have described, look for companies like Paizo Publishing and Green Ronin to continue the Third Edition line as they are also very good at what they do.

Go to the full review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13875.phtml) for more information.

[Sangrolu]

Apropos to nothing about the review, but I don't understand the Green Ronin comment. I would be surprised to see any new 3.5 material from them. Their bread & butter is True20, Mutants & Masterminds, and (now system neutral) Freeport. They fled 3.5 when they got the whiff that 4e was coming, having already been bitten by the 3.0->3.5 transition.

[Menchi]

I'm kind of mixed about this review. You state your biases upfront, but most of the review seemed to be explaining your point of view than really talking about the game itself.

Having played Paragon Level, I can attest that it works and doesn't seem to break. We had a lot of fun with it, although one of the errata got in the way - there is a monster in the MM which has the rules for its power written incorrectly. Because we didn't have the errata with us, it meant that one of the PCs was almost killed until the DM made a ruling.

Paragon Paths are not really like Prestige classes. They have some similarities - but the big difference is that a Paragon Path doesn't replace your class, it adds to it. Prestige Classes replaced the abilities you could get at higher levels in your base class.

I guess I'm a bit traditional when it comes to reviews - they should talk more about the product than about you. Sure, opinion is important - but do you really need to spend quite so long establishing your background?

Just would have been nice to hear more about the game itself, and your group's experiences with it.

Conan

[smascrns]

Great review, it told me a lot about the game. Yes, you didn't need to spend so much time with your biases, everybody has some and yours are too mild to deserve so many paragraphs. On the other hand, I like the way you put things in perspective. I didn't like DD3 for very different reasons and my first glimpse of DD4 tells me it will be much more to my liking (my copy is currently on the mail). Your review enticed me even more to look and maybe try the game.

[Janusian]

Excellent Review! While most of the time, a detailed breakdown of reviewer biases are not in order, it is for this game, considering the flamewars fought over previous reviews.

The review was subjective, yet very informative. I do wonder about the D&D timeline, though. It was very amusing, but perhaps it would have looked better at the beginning of the review.

Thank you.

[PrinceHerb]

I find it odd that the reviewer can be so positive about the promised virtual tabletop, sight unseen, especially considering WotC's previous track record with electronic offerings.

[Coglio]

Excellent review! Perhaps one of the best yet for 4e.

I especially liked how you broke it down between how the classes look when you read the book versus how they played. That helps me understand the game quite a bit more since my perusals of the material have made me question some of the class mechanics.

This was also a fair and balanced review where you just laid it all out as you saw and experienced it. Nice job!

[sturmkraehe]

This is the first review of 4th that I've read that doesn't seem to be firmly entrenched in either camp (4th Suxors!/4th greatest evah!). The historical break- down of the D&D products was a firm reminder of the problems associated with each set. It was also nice to see somone who realizes that multiple add-on products is nothing new with D&D.

It was also nice to see someone review this product on here that has actually PLAYED the game. I know that capsule reviewing is allowed on here, but given the degree of heat 4th is getting I would think that there should be some peer pressure to play the game before making any comments on how it plays.

The critiques made by this reviewer are appropriate. I've played my group up to third level so far and I echo the reviewers praise/concerns.

I do think it bears mentioning, though, that 4th does rely significantly more on a grid for movement/battle. While you could conduct battle without a mapboard it would be tough to represent some of the powers. Personally, I love the grid, but there are some RPG'ers who want their RPG's to work a very specific way (they don't like battle, they don't like miniatures, etc.). These RPG'ers will not enjoy this version of the game (though I am surprised that D&D in any form ever appealed to this variety of RPG'er given the number of other RPG's who handle their preferred method of play so much better).

Finally, the software for the features advertised to work with the insider webpage is not complete at this time. While I hope it delivers on all of its promises we won't know whether it's buggy or not until we get a chance to use it. I would not invest in 4th until these features were running *IF* this was my primary reason for buying. Otherwise, I think the reviewer hit the nail on the head better than anyone else on this site with a balanced and fair evaluation of the merits of 4th ed. D&D.

[Skull Leader]

This is one of the better reviews I've read regarding 4E, especially since the reviewer has actually played the game. I also liked his disclaimer on his personal biases, which to me, is great because I've been playing since the Basic Edition (black box set) from the early 90s.

I'm forwarding this review to my group and I'm looking forward to starting my new campaign with them later this summer. Thanks again for writing something that was fun to read and still informative for a potential buyer.

[Roodah]

First,

Thanks for all the feedback. Considering how the other reviews were received I was expecting another flame-war and was battening down the hatches. I apologize if the review was too long and I think some of the constructive criticism made some good points. (For example, if I were to rewrite the review I would tidy up a few spelling errors and probably move the timeline to the beginning of the piece.)

I also want to address a cut & paste error very quickly.

The corrected text should read:

"The 15th level cleric with 18 ranks in diplomacy coupled with a 20 charisma and a feat that drops him an additional +3 to diplomacy skill checks will successfully negotiate a favorable treaty with Asmodeus while the rest of the party cooks in the hells. If you have ever seen the rest of the party groan when a skill-based encounter came up, you know what I’m talking about."

In this case, I'm trying to point out the difference between a character who adds 26 to his diplomacy rolls at 15th level when compared to another character who may still have a penalty because Charisma is his dump stat. It's a tough encounter to balance.

3.5E
15th Cleric w/ 20 CHA and feat = 18 + 5 + 3 = +26 to diplomacy checks
15th Fighter w/ 8 CHA = 0 - 1 = -1 to diplomacy checks

4E
15th Cleric w/ 20 CHA and feat = 7 + 5 + 5 + 3 = +21 to diplomacy checks
15th Fighter w/ 8 CHA = 7 - 1 = +6 to diplomacy checks

In the 3E case, if the fighter tries to use the diplomacy skill, the entire party tackles him. In the 4E case, he can assist the cleric by trying to roll higher than a 10 and he might even succeed on some checks of his own.

This automatic skill improvement is easier for me to be comfortable with than the insta-healing every night.

The other item I want to address is D&D Insider. One of the posters pointed out that I sounded "positive" about it which I think is a mis-characterization of my position. The only pieces of D&D Insider I have worked with are Dragon, Dungeon, and the D&D Compendium. I think what could be mistaken for positive opinion in this case is more a fact of desperation for a tool that actually works. OpenRPG works on a good day and is very frustrating on a bad day. I'm ok with that because it is free software. If I had the choice to pay for software that worked better, I definitely would do it. It remains to be seen if WotC can deliver that software as was correctly stated.

Once again, thanks for all the feedback and constructive criticism.

Roodah