[shortforbob]

Plenty has been said in this thread about the presence of factual errors in the review. A few of these errors have even been explained by users more familiar with 4e. In light of the number of people apparently undecided about 4e and making positive comments about this review, I feel it is still useful to go over the mistakes in more detail.

Alignment - like Travire, I was startled by the changes to alignment and, though I did not care for the old alignment system, I’m still not entirely happy with the asymmetry of the new one either. However, there’s a gross misunderstanding of “unaligned” here. Unaligned actually covers two philosophies: a “live and let live” attitude, probably characteristic of most people in real life and most neutral monsters in old editions; and a deliberate rejection of alignment considerations in favor of an overarching ideal. “Unaligned” is not a license to behave any way you like, and a group that thinks it is has misunderstood the rules, or else is not interested in alignment as a role-playing aid (and should probably just drop it).

Paladins are a particularly bad example to seize upon. Each paladin is dedicated to the service of a particular god, who must be chosen at the PC’s creation, and the paladin must act to uphold the commandments of that god, which are spelled out in the rules. Acting contrary to that god’s commandments is going to get the paladin in trouble, even if the paladin is unaligned or (especially) evil!

Eladrin - not a mistake but a clarification: yes, they are essentially elves. An ancestral fey race split into two branches, “elves” (wood elves) and “eladrin” (high elves). The inevitable third branch, drow, made it into a later book. I find it an elegant way of streamlining the proliferation of elven races in previous editions.

HP and healing - okay, here’s the first big problem. Some worthwhile comments on these matters have already been made. I’ll add my thoughts.

Starting HP looks pretty high to veterans of past editions. It’s true that a new PC won’t be killed by one hit from an equal-level enemy, but monsters hit harder than they used to, so HP can go down fast enough. The bigger numbers allow for increased granularity, which can be nice--a low-level wizard can get a few nicks without dying. Adding a flat number to HP each level (based on class) without Con modifiers also puzzled me at first. The secret is those healing surges. Each represents extra hit points that the PC can tap. More Con means more surges and more HP per surge. A high-Con character, like an infernal-pact warlock or a hammer fighter, has gobs of potential hit points just waiting to be accessed. Such a character may be able to keep fighting much longer than a low-Con colleague…if they can get the HP in time.

Most HP loss does not represent physical damage. It represents fatigue, minor scratches, getting shaken up, etc. This was true in AD&D, and it’s true in 4e. And because each HP represents less total vitality, healing 10 at a time is a far cry from regeneration. Actually, even after you’ve spent your healing surge and “healed,” you’re still reduced in vitality and you’re closer to dying than you were at the start of the day. You’re actually LESS healthy than you would be after receiving healing magic in an older edition.

The cleric’s Healing Word (which can be used multiple times in an encounter) boosts the target’s healing surge by 1d6 plus the cleric’s Wis modifier at first level and goes up from there. By epic, you’ll be grabbing a handful of dice to find out how much extra healing you get. So the cleric is doing far more than just giving the other PCs an action-free heal. Even a simple healing check has its place, allowing the fighter to use a second wind out of his turn if the cleric has run out of healing spells (of which there are plenty).

The real key to appreciating the surge system of 4e is placing it in its proper context: multiple encounters fought sequentially over the course of a day. A single equal-level encounter is not likely to be a real threat to the PCs’ lives on its own. But if they are careless early on, and need to spend all their surges recovering, they may not have enough to recover from later fights. If players have to sweat over each healing spell and first-aid, combat becomes far more intense and meaningful. Solitary combat simulations are a poor way to test 4e because they miss out on this dynamic.

Fighters and sword-swinging - I’ve watched a fighter with a sword and a wizard with a sword, and no, they are not the same! For the uninitiated, Travire is talking about the melee basic attack (MBA) which all characters have. For PCs limited to the PHB, a MBA is usually a no-frills Strength-based attack. A fighter automatically has proficiency with a longsword, and because he relies on Strength he can swing it hard. PHB fighters also get a bonus to hit with certain weapons (chosen at creation) called Fighter Weapon Talent. What’s more, as a class feature the fighter can add his Wis modifier to opportunity attacks, and he can make a special attack against a marked enemy if that enemy violates certain conditions (by shifting away, for instance). The wizard must spend a feat to gain proficiency with the longsword, unless he is eladrin (a racial perk). The wizard’s strength is probably low to start, and the difference between his strength and the fighter’s will increase over time. He doesn’t have any class features that allow him to hit harder with a sword, and he doesn’t even get to make those special attacks. So his MBAs are much less likely to hit, and he can’t even make them as often as the fighter does.

Paladins - see my comments above regarding the current limits on paladin behavior. I disagree that evil paladins have no possible motives to heal others. Anyway, paladins can use Lay on Hands on themselves, so even the most selfish one can get some mileage out of this ability.

Warlords - are not unnecessary (except in the sense any single class is). They provide a healer option for low-magic campaigns and players who don’t care to play priests (or bards, now that the PHB2 is out. I never got the point of strumming a lute in battle). They also act very differently in combat. Less healing, more bonuses and positioning. Someone playing solitary games, running both sides at once, would probably overlook their tactical abilities. They also, I might add, make ideal DMPCs because they can pull their weight without ever making a combat roll.

Roles - how did Travire get out of the game that Gandalf is a striker, Adon a leader, and Conan a defender? I don’t remember seeing anything about them in the book, and I’m not convinced about the assignments. Roles are present in the new edition as a way of understanding what a class is good at by default. Making a class do something other than its default role can be done, but it takes work and insight into the rules. Not all players are interested in that sort of work, so the roles are there to help them decide what’s needed for the party.

Advertising aside - the blatant plugs by WotC for us to buy their merchandise remind me of the old days, when Gygax littered the DMG with blatant plugs to buy only official TSR modules, miniatures, and other gaming supplies. I understand if people find it annoying, but why do they think it’s new?

In conclusion - I wonder how Travire was able to draw his conclusion that 4e only supports a high-magic and combat-centered campaign. If he ran a few combat simulations on his own, how does he know what sort of campaign styles the game supports or does not support? I would love to try a low-magic, sword-and-sorcery style game in 4e: eliminate clerics and other healers, as well as anything but the martial power source, force PCs to rely on their own healing abilities, and keep play at low levels. All strictly within the rules. As far as slowdown of combat goes, I am not surprised that the reviewer found the game slow, given that he hadn’t mastered the rules and was running all combatants on both sides. What’s more, if he didn’t get the DMG and MM, he was running PC-vs-PC fights. PCs are notoriously more complicated than NPCs and take time to master. They are supposed to keep a player interested and challenged for the length of a campaign. NPCs and monsters are simpler to run because a DM runs many at once and changes them often. Some groups find combat slow because of poor tactics or other reasons, but I suspect that the above factors are significant in Travire’s experience.

I apologize for the length of this metareview, but I did not have time to make it any shorter.

shortforbob