Nice review. I've read a few reviews and playtests now, and they all seem to agree on a few items.
One, 4e is much more combat oriented and much streamlined (i.e. simplified.) The classes offer much fewer options, which can be construed as good (they are simpler to get into) and bad (less customization, more cookie-cut).
Two, everyone who plays it seems to have fun. This is the acid test, of course. The game is clearly much unlike 3e, in that it downplays social role playing. However, battles seem to be more enjoyable, and combat has always been the meat and potatoes of D&D since the old Chainmail booklet days.
It seems to me that 4e is not necessarily an improved D&D, but a different D&D, which can be a good thing depending on what you are looking to get out of it.
Sorry about the rouge thing. I used a spell checker but I have a bit of blind spot for that spelling... Rogues deserve better.
I agree, this game is less a refinement as it is a re-imagining. It feels more modern and seems to play faster than our 3.x games ran, I favor it more than its predicessors. Most of the complaints I have been hearing about non-combat related powers or skills being seemingly uneven (a level 20 character gets a +10 to stealth without training, a starting character might get a +10 if he trains, has a great bonus and takes a skill focus feat. The consensus is bafflement that a paladin in full plate and no training can sneak as well as a begining trained assasin) but this is where I am more content to allow role play to give more insight into the character. I might now allow a noisy paladin who has never cared about sneaking no matter what he might be able to blunder into. On the other hand if the target is 25 I might still let him roll...
the game is young yet and has some growing to do. Its going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
Nice review! It's good to see a review from someone who has both read the rules and at least played once. So far, most of the objections I've seen online are from people complaining that it's not 3.x. I for one couldn't be happier that it's a new game rather than a simple minor evolution of the last version. Second biggest complaint seems to be reliance on tactical combat resolution. WotC can't be faulted for trying to sell minis, but counters, poker chips, coins, etc. can also be used, so the only real complaint is if you just are adamant about not using tactical maps for combat. I've never had a problem using them and D&D is one of the games where every time I've played (any version) they were used, so no big deal to me. I've never used minis in WoD games, but some games seem more slanted towards tactical combat resolution and for me, D&D has always been one of them.
I've honestly never been a big fan of D&D although I own and have played BD&D, AD&D 1e & 2e, and D&D 3 (although I took a pass on 3.5). There are certain elements of D&D that just never worked for me and Wizards spell memorization and reliance on magical items instead of innate abilities/skills were always two biggies. D&D 4 is the first version that I'm actually excited about playing since it seems to have finally addressed the things I never liked about the older versions. If that makes it a different game or a new game and is D&D in name only, I say "congratulations WotC for finally making a game called D&D that I might actually enjoy playing!"
I just got the PH today and am slowly working my way through it, but I like what I see so far. As with Savage Worlds, it seems D&D 4 may be a game where you really have to play it to appreciate it. I look forward to having my group create some characters and giving it a test drive soon.
__________________
Move along now. Nothing witty to see down here.
To the former poster, I'll be playing D&D 4th for the first time this Sunday night. At this point, I'm not as pumped as I used to be about a new edition of D&D. That said, I second what you have to say about SAVAGE WORLDS! By and large, it's my system of choice!
Linear Mode
