[RPG]: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Player's Handbook, reviewed by midnightq2 (3/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13861.phtml

David Banuelos's Summary:

While still a fun game, Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition does not radically improve on previous editions, and it introduces some serious problems of its own.

Go to the full review for more information.

[memorax300]

Oh god not another I like 3.5 and think that 4E is bad game because I have to invest in another set of books type of review. Why do people even bother reviewing a product if they hate it so much. This review does almost nothing at all to really inform e about 4E except to tell me that the reviewer is unhappy with the having to spend money on a new edition and he does not like it.

[Janusian]

Originally Posted by memorax300

Oh god not another I like 3.5 and think that 4E is bad game because I have to invest in another set of books type of review. Why do people even bother reviewing a product if they hate it so much. This review does almost nothing at all to really inform e about 4E except to tell me that the reviewer is unhappy with the having to spend money on a new edition and he does not like it.

I am afraid I have to agree with that. I think most people who read rpg.net reviews are fully aware that 'The following 3.5 races and classes are missing: Gnome, Half-Orc, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer.'

Originally Posted by The Review

The book is written as if no previous editions of D&D existed.

I suggest you take a look at page 7 of the 4e PHB.

[cknason]

Originally Posted by memorax300

. Why do people even bother reviewing a product if they hate it so much.

Why does every review have to be positive? And, as far as I'm concerned, the cost of buying three new rulebooks does matter. RPGs aren't cheap these days, and $35 for a Players' Handbook is on the steep side for a game that, in many people's minds, didn't need a new edition anyway.

Could the review have been more in-depth? Sure, but I think the big points, good and bad, were hit.

To be honest, after every review I've read of D&D 4.0, I wouldn't plunk down one nickel on the new edition.

[ArchibaldGant]

Oh god not another I like 3.5 and think that 4E is bad game because I have to invest in another set of books type of review.

Yeah, no kidding, though this one is slightly better than Seeger's, it goes a little crazy with the generalizations:

Was anyone crying out for a new edition? no

Um... I was. 3E was clunky and a pain in the butt to DM.

Does this edition radically improve the gaming experience? no

While players may or may not find this edition to be a considerable improvement, I can say that the experience is vastly improved for the DM. This system literally takes hours off of the adventure construction process, establishes a far more manageable balance at high level play, and eliminates the various 3E systems that often turned high level combat into a bookkeeping nightmare.

Here are some other points I disagree with:

since switching over to 4th edition requires buying over $100 worth of core rulebooks, plus campaign settings, rules expansions, etc

I got all three books for $57 on Amazon.

They will be missed. Seriously, these were some of my favorite character options. It seems likely that many of these will be included in future releases, but, even if they are, forcing players to buy multiple books just to get the all of “core” races and classes is a pretty cheap move.

Um, no one is forcing you to do anything, and the core rulebooks have more than enough content for years worth of play. The three books now are perfectly self-contained games, and the Monster Manual even provides rules for playing a vast number of races. There is nothing "cheap" about expanding the game later since: (a) these "core" options are not necessary to play the game, (b) a great number of options are already available, and (c) it is unreasonable to expect 4E to model every aspect of 3.5 in its core three books.

Half-Elves, while still present, have been reconceived in such a way that they have little similarity to elves or humans. The designers might as well have left them out or called them something different.

Huh? The 4E Half-Elves are my favorite race, but ok...

The designers seem to have split 3.5 elves into two races embodying two different aspects of the elf concept: elves as woodland beings (perfect rangers) and elves as magical beings (perfect wizards). Maybe this was for game balance purposes, but the result is two races that feel rather narrow and restricted. Why reduce this classic race’s flexibility?

Again, this is another "Huh" moment for me, as I don't see how this is supposed to be a criticism. You have two related races that are divided by distinct powers, cultures, and temperaments. Why divide them? Because they're different concepts and mashing them together would have made Elves grotesquely overpowered. With that said, various settings and systems have long separated "High Elves" from "Wood Elves." This isn't new, and it's far from problematic.

However, each paragon path is tied to a specific basic class. It seems inevitable that most members of each paragon path will be quite similar to each other.

? Okay...

- Alignment has changed for no apparent reason. The only alignments are new Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Unaligned. This provides fewer options for characters, and skews the whole concept of Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Order, with no clear benefit.

As a philosopher who works heavily in ethical cognition, I always thought the old alignment system was too restrictive and, frankly, stupid. The 'Unaligned' option is a godsend for those of us who don't want a purely Manichean world with a codified, structured 'neutral' position and felt constrained by the 9 firmly articulated alignments. Thus, I think your 'fewer options' claim is false, as it opens up the possibility of far more interesting and ambiguous personalities and ethical systems.

There are no guidelines for converting characters, transitioning existing campaigns, or understanding the differences in the new edition. The book is written as if no previous editions of D&D existed.

Amazingly, prior editions do exist, and all your old 3E books have not magically disappeared. You can keep playing your 3E campaign for as long as you want, and when you're ready to start a new campaign and interested in trying the new system, 4E will be waiting patiently. As someone who argues that 3E is "just fine," I don't understand why you feel compelled to jump to the brand new system to begin with.

For all those years, players enjoyed themselves just fine with the published rules and their own house rules.

And this is the one criticism that I will never understand. If the prior edition works "fine" for you, keep playing it. There is plenty of support for it. For those of us who grew dissatisfied with 3E's foibles, 4E is a breath of fresh air. Obviously, the introduction of a new system is directed at those interested in a new system. You are not "forced" to switch, as this review claims. You can try a new system if you want to. As someone who didn't have time to wrangle with 3E's problems (particularly the complexity involved in putting together balanced encounters), this brought me back, though if I found 3E perfect, I would just keep playing that instead. However, it is false to argue that everyone was satisfied with 3E. 4E doesn't force anything on anyone. It adds a new option.

While I certainly respect the author's opinion (and again, this is far better than Seeger's condescending review) and acknowledge that 4E isn't for everyone, there is a market for these changes. If you think 3.5 is great, cool, you don't HAVE to throw away your old books, but as I see it, 3.5 is a complete and expansive system that had exhausted its potential player base and driven away some players who had grown wary of its problems. I was one of them. Hence, from a business perspective, a new system was a necessary move for WOTC. Again, this is a self-contained game. 3E is still a self-contained game. No one is forcing you to play one or the other. The question is whether this option brings something distinctively fun. It does.

[ArchibaldGant]

And, as far as I'm concerned, the cost of buying three new rulebooks does matter. RPGs aren't cheap these days, and $35 for a Players' Handbook is on the steep side for a game that, in many people's minds, didn't need a new edition anyway.

It's about $20 from most online book stores. Considering you're here at RPG.NET, I can't imagine you don't know about Amazon.com

With that said, people who don't "need a new edition" likely don't need any new RPG. So why isn't every review of every game written on the premise that it's redundant since a prior game already exists....

4E is intended as a self-contained game. It should be treated as such, like any other...

To be honest, after every review I've read of D&D 4.0, I wouldn't plunk down one nickel on the new edition.

Wait... but you said the "big points" were hit. How would you know what the "big points" are if you haven't actually played the game? This is precisely the problem with the judge-before-play approach that people keep applying to 4E...

[trippingsatyr]

I don't think his review was that harsh at all. Overall, the tone I got from his review 'this edition is ok, but I'm fine with 3rd as it is'. He rated it fairly enough (3/3) and gave what a review is, the writer's opinion on a product. If it works for you, its fine. No one is telling you that you have to agree with his review though, much like no one is telling anyone to switch editions.

[Seroster]

It would help if the original poster could read the powers correctly.

" Lead the Attack: Str vs. AC; 3[W] + Str mod damage, and you and an ally within 5 squares gain a bonus, equal to 1 + your Int mod, to attacks against the target until the end of the encounter."

Not quite. EVERY ally within 5 receives this, assuming you hit. That does rather make it stand out from the supposedly monolithic other powers quoted.

This is the first? time I've read someone lamenting rangers losing their spells.

The number of pages taken to describe classes is odd, because I'm pretty sure they didn't include ALL the pages of spells in 3.0/3.5 in that total.

Meh.

[ArchibaldGant]

I don't think his review was that harsh at all. Overall, the tone I got from his review 'this edition is ok, but I'm fine with 3rd as it is'. He rated it fairly enough (3/3) and gave what a review is, the writer's opinion on a product. If it works for you, its fine. No one is telling you that you have to agree with his review though, much like no one is telling anyone to switch editions.

Look, I agree, and I'd be interested in a review that actually points out problems with the system. This review tries to do that and those are the most informative parts.

However, there's a lot of stuff that keeps finding its way into 4E reviews that's just trivial and irrelevant, like the critique of Half-Elves and Eladrins and the idea that 4E is being forced onto people.

[NeoSamurai]

Originally Posted by ArchibaldGant

However, there's a lot of stuff that keeps finding its way into 4E reviews that's just trivial and irrelevant, like the critique of Half-Elves and Eladrins and the idea that 4E is being forced onto people.

actually, I have to agree with the Elf vs. Eladrin critique. It raises questions as to why Elves were split into magic vs. woodsy creatures. it does seem kind of pointless except as a means to show off a fey with teleport.