[RPG]: Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: 4th Edition, reviewed by Chris Davies (4/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13813.phtml

Chris Davies's Summary:

If you're an absolute fan of this product, you should really just not read any further.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Wood]

I'm not likely to buy it, because it's not my kind of game, but can I just say that the content of the review and the rating don't seem to agree much?

[devlin1]

Originally Posted by Chris Davies

Skills are more binary now. If you're trained in a skill, you get 5 to rolls involving it. While you can take feats to increase that bonus (Skill Focus, and so forth) it's impossible to be less proficient in a given area without being less proficient in all the areas affected by that attribute.

Huh? If I'm trained in History but not Arcana, I'm more proficient in History than Arcana, even though they both key off of Int.

Also, if I'm reading through the snark correctly, most of your criticisms have to do with the layout and organization, yet you gave it a higher mark for Style than for Substance. Your biggest complaint seems to be that it isn't a previous edition, which hardly seems fair or even relevant. I was all ready to read a scathing attack on 4E's new mechanics and concepts, yet there was almost nothing in that regard.

Also, what's D&DOnline.com?

[Tori Bergquist]

Hah! I'm on to you. You're just using reverse psychology to secretly get everyone to buy it because you love it so much!

Naw, seriously, good bitch session. Can't wait for the rest! Kudos for being the first.

As far as taking your points seriously:

1. The Player's Handbook really does need some compiled charts and tables at the end to help. The first thing I did today was create a quick PC generation cheat sheet for my players that lays it all out in 6 easy pages with everything they need. Thenext thing I'm going to do is write up my own alphabetical powers index, because I agree, not having one in the book is an egregious oversight.

2. I found that having the powers tied in to the class details (mini class chapters, essentially) did work pretty well. But it still, as you say, makes for organizational chaos when you're looking for a specific power without a clue as to where it might be. This will happen a lot, initially, since pretty much the entire way in which the older editions of D&D numerated, level-listed and identified pretty much everything is now different in 4th edition.

3. I didn't actually pick up on any creepy "This is not really 4E" pretention. In fact I rather enjoyed the short but honest assesment of D&D's publishing history and where the new edition fit in, and am just fine with not seeing 4.0 tacked on.

4. I think it's weird that the magic items are in the PHB, as a grognard I instinctively feel they should be in the DMG. That said, I can also understand the logic of offering easy look-up for the player here, I suppose. But it's still wrong!

5. On the one-seater magic carpet: it's a bad argument to postulate that D&D follows the logic of the Arabian Knights or anything else anymore. By that logic, tieflings should all be demons burned at the stake, not funky dudes who are forgiven for their sneaky ways. That said, I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that the upcoming equipment book will have bigger magic carpets...call it a hunch Plus, I've already statted a honkin' huge magic carpet out for my own campaign, so it's pretty easy to add that in.

6. The issue with the magic carpet does raise an issue I am surprised you missed: the absence of many things normal for core rulebooks. No druids, barbarians, monks....some missing magic items and spells....only 17 skills (albeit truncated and more efficient skills, which I like). Sure, it's all going to show up in future books eventually, but I am having a very hard time thinking of this as a true PHB without at least a druid and bard somewhere within! I have at least one gamer cohort who will not even try to play 4E until the druids are released in a future book, too.

7. I didn't follow your argument on skills. If you want to suck at a skill, just don't pick it up. The skills are now a tight enough group that the odds are, if you are of Class N then you would simply by definition be trained in Skills X, Y, and Z, otherwise how in hell's name did you become a member of class N? The skill system is actually a very cool way, imo, of integrating an actual skill system with a bit of a retro approach to the game, one which at least in spirit harkens back to the 1st edition days when being a member of your class automatically entitled you to the idea that you should know certain things. And having a tighter skill system like this means 4th edition characters are technically much more proficient and skilled than their poor 3E counterparts. The only downside is, I suppose, you can't mix/match points....it's a straight +5 across the board for trained skills. But that seems easily house ruled to me, by taking your skill picks, multiplying by 5, and saying that's how many skill points you have, then using the class vs. cross-class rules from 3E. But I like the system here, better than 3E, so I won't be doing that. But you can, if you want to.

8. No argument on the art. These books are gorgeous. It's really nice to see a batch of artists who understand anatomy, perspective, and ....gasp!.....shadowing.


Okay, my contributions. Aside from all I just said, I am far happier with what I have seen of 4E than 3.0-3.5, and am seriously enjoying it.

[Magus-K]

I think that the idea of the skills being more binary is that if I want a +1 in lockpicking because I picked up a copy of lock-picking for dummies at the local Kwik-e carpet, I can't.

I can't have a passing familiarity with the creation myths of the faery races with out a +5 from the skill. A learned sage who studies dilligently gets a +5 from his base skill. Unless you add in Feats, you either are a +5 or nothing.

Also, I can't get any benefit from my ball room dancing until I've mastered it. Then it's done. There is no more to study. Again, without feats.

A level 1 fighter has the same skill mastery as a level 30, again without feats.

[buzz]

Originally Posted by Magus-K

A level 1 fighter has the same skill mastery as a level 30, again without feats.

A level 1 PC has StatMod+0 in an untrained skill. A level 30 PC has StatMod+15 in an untrained skill. How is that the same?

(You add half the PCs level to all skill checks, remember.)

[redwulf25_ci]

Originally Posted by The Review

But this means that if you're looking up a given power, you have to already pretty much know what you're looking for. Say that I want to find out the information for confusion. I'm pretty sure that it's a wizard spell, but I have no idea what its new level is. So I've got to flip through the book, hoping that my eye lights on the word "confusion" in the text. This increases wear and tear on the book, and it is frustrating.

Of course, it would help if there were a computer program out there that contained all this information, probably organized in a much more user friendly manner. Like the one that is being made available through D&DOnline.com. That is pretty ****ing pathetic, WotC guys. I can't think of another role-playing game company that has made subscribing to a website absolutely essential to playing the game. (And before you say it's not essential, can you find the information for the "confusion" spell from the information that I've posted? How long did it take you?)

I timed myself. 1 minute 28 seconds. Finding an ability that quickly seems to be a SELLING POINT to me, but maybe I'm just weird. Now, if I'd been confused as to if it were a Wizard, Warlock, or maybe even Cleric power it may have taken me quite a bit longer as I read carefully through the other two enteries but . . .

[samkisko]

The pdf has been floating around for the core books a while and I've read and played the game some. I was rather luke-warm upon reading the books as well, but after playing it, it has warmed up to me.

I think my main issues is that it is no longer the same game, D&D. It feels different, its plays different and has more different with previous editions than similarities. Another publisher could have put this out in a different name and it would have little confusion with previous editions of D&D. Its more like a supers game.

As for the online component, it will probably die a slow horrible death not because there no need, but rather because it is very poorly done. They clearly want to tap the WoW market (for good reason, its a ~billion~ a year market, 10x the entire role-play industry), but this will likely fail.

With that in mind, I had fun playing the game but I doubt it will become my mainstay.

[Juicinator]

Samkisko, is the pdf you're talking about the "preview" version on enworld, put together from the various previews, blogs, and forum posts from the WotC staff? I've read through that too, but I don't put any stock in it because it also contains a fair amount of fan speculation.

As for Chris' review, I do appreciate having such an early review (I don't even have the books yet--hopefully they will arrive in the mail tomorrow!). It seems to have a bit of a knee-jerk quality to it, though. Clearly the author is really perturbed by a handful of issues (from what I've read on these forums, some of them are justified, others are not).

As I said, I do appreciate the review--especially the thoroughness of some of the author's criticisms. However, I was hoping for a review that was not rife with the emotion that has pervaded the online discussions about 4e.

Don't get me wrong--I share the author's emotional attachment to red box D&D. I love that game, and sometimes when my wife isn't looking, I snuggle up with my Rules Cyclopedia at night. But seriously, I do understand the emotion that people feel for their preferred previous edition of D&D. I just hope to see an impartial review one of these days ... but given said emotion, that may not be likely.

[buzz]

Originally Posted by Juicinator

It seems to have a bit of a knee-jerk quality to it, though.

Welcome to the internet.