[RPG]: Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set, 4th Edition, reviewed by arete66 (5/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13867.phtml

arete66's Summary:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition does a valiant job of meeting the designer's stated goals

Go to the full review for more information.

[capnzapp]

Is there any other point to this "review" than to increase the average score of 4E...?

[ArchibaldGant]

Um, maybe to give readers a good sense of the mechanical improvements and a chance to decide whether they want to play it based on more than:

"No gnomes? NO GNOMES?!?!?! WIZARDZ HAVE SPAT ON GARY GYGAX'S CORPSE!!!1!"

[Andrew Montgomery]

Originally Posted by capnzapp

Is there any other point to this "review" than to increase the average score of 4E...?

You know, I think a general read of my comments will back up the following; I dislike being trollish.

But for F%$k's sake, when I read something like this, I think trollishness is called for.

A first level battle between starting characters and a group of kobolds I experienced was vastly more intricate than the equivalent "swing until somebody hits" encounter in 3.5. The number of character options and powers and monster options and powers made the encounter epic and exciting right out of the box.

Gee, looks like the reviewer has some play experience. And he feel's like sharing it. Yep. No point in that, huh.

All of us old-timers have experienced it. Your characters wake up, run into a group of orcs, and a few bad rolls later, your whole wad is shot. You're down to your last hit points and your only option is to rest for 8 hours to have a prayer of surviving the next encounter.

Encounter powers that refresh each time a new battle occurs and healing surges have greatly mitigated this problem. Basically, you can heal up out of combat, and even in combat to improve your party's resiliency.

Wizards are no longer relegated to firing a magic missle and hiding for the rest of the day. Clerics aren't stuck burning all of their spells just to heal up the party for the next encounter.

Design goal achieved.

Goodness. He is expressing what he thinks works better in this system. Can't have that, can we.

GMs now have many more quick options to diversify encounters, from adding Elite templates to monsters, to including "minion" versions of monsters that go down in one hit, to creating Solo monsters that can take on a group of five equivalent-level PCs. The guidelines for creating monsters and modifying them are fairly straight forward and are clearly described in the DM's Guide.

The first level encounter I spoke of earlier with a group of kobolds was vastly more interesting than an equivalent first level encounter in 3.5 with the kobolds employing unique powers to give the players stuff to worry about. Gone are the "swing until someone hits" experience of low level encounters. I don't know how that plays at higher levels, but the low level experience has definitely succeeded in fulfulling this goal.

I did notice that the Monster Manual, overall, seemed to have less base entries than the 3.5 Monster Manual, but that might have just been my perception. Perhaps something for further investigation.

Gee. You're right. Not at all objective. Let's reject the review out of hand, shall we.

In summary, given my ratings, obviously the changes sit very well with me even though I have several shelves worth of 3.5 materials. I could see continuing to play 3.5, however, and by no means do I think it necessary to shout down those who still prefer 3.5. As I've stated throughout this review, there definitely are clear reasons why someone might prefer 3.5. But as for the goals of 4th ed, I think the designers are spot on.

Clearly, because you don't agree with it, this final evaluation is worthless. I get that.

[Tom B]

Originally Posted by capnzapp

Is there any other point to this "review" than to increase the average score of 4E...?

I have to agree with the other posters. This was actually one of the more informative reviews that I've read. Especially useful since I haven't played D&D in years and was curious about the new edition. It told me what the designers were aiming for, which I hadn't heard before.

[Lev Lafayette]

But is it a roleplaying game?

OK, winky aside I've just read a lot about how the designer's goals were met. Well kudos for them. But y'know their design goals might not be the bone of contention. In the interests of having some sort of consistent evaluation to their wisdom rpg.net has picked things like layout, art, 'coolness', and readibility for style and content (or scope), text (density thereof), fun and workmanship for substance.

It may be, from the modest amount I've read of it so far, that D&D4e seems to have narrowed its focus to the point where it virtually is merely a game of tactical combat, albeit perhaps a good one at that.

I acknowledge that I'm going to have to give the edition a much closer look, but I am wondering whether it has gone so far back to its roots that it is a now a set of "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures".

[Janusian]

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette

It may be, from the modest amount I've read of it so far, that D&D4e seems to have narrowed its focus to the point where it virtually is merely a game of tactical combat, albeit perhaps a good one at that.

I acknowledge that I'm going to have to give the edition a much closer look, but I am wondering whether it has gone so far back to its roots that it is a now a set of "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures".

That is a fair concern, and one that is shared by some players in my group. If any issue for the wider RPG community should be highlighted, it is this. All iterations of D&D had the strong potential of becoming little more than a set of tactical battles with an added bit of fluff for continuity. If you are to only read the PHB for 4e, you would be justified in assuming that this is explicitly the case for the 4th edition. The DMG on the other hand, offers a comprehensive guide to running all aspects of the game. The Skill Challenges are a very interesting approach to codify a variety of game situations.

Still, it is D&D, and it is a game about killing Dragons in Dungeons...

...for better and worse.

[ZenDog]

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette

But is it a roleplaying game?

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is, first and foremost,
a roleplaying game, which means that it’s all
about taking on the role of a character in the game.

- page 18 4th ed PHB

This is not aimed at you Lev, by the way, but I do wonder at the all the claims that 4e is just a minis skirmish game. A lot of people must have skim read a lot of the text and only absorbed the crunch.

Although the PHB is mostly rules/crunch and the new combat is unmistakably gamey, tactical, and fun. But throughout, there are constant mentions of the roleplaying possibilities of the implied setting too. The first chapter is all about what a roleplaying game is and what type of roleplaying game D&D is.

But it's not just that first chapter. The roleplaying side of the game is there all through the text. For example, every race has a paragraph or two on three possible adventurers. Most of these contain things that can only be described as roleplaying elements. Like the Dragonborn Paladin of Erathis, who keeps a piece of his shell to remind him he is dedicated to the rebirth of the Dragonborn nation, that someday he will be part of that. Carving a new civilization out of the wilderness. That is a roleplaying goal, not something that can be accomplished in a miniatures skirmish game. The whole book is full of touches like that.

People are either conveniently ignoring these elements or just aren't reading all the text closely and instead are just skimming what they need to now to play and are extrapolating what the game is about based on the crunch. As has also been mentioned the DMG is just packed full of Roleplaying goodness.

4th ed reminds me of older versions of D&D; it leaves the setting vague but full of flavour and assumes you don't need rules to roleplay just lots of good advice.

[Maxwell Luther]

I thought this was a very good review. It approached the game from a new angle that the other's hadn't and it's a very interesting angle from my POV.

(Just be glad that it was a positive review. If it had been negative or less than a 5/5, it's having opinion, lack of intense examination of every rule and lack of intensive year long playtesting would get you eaten alive by the fonbois who would accuse you of 'Sour Grapes,' 'being a grognard' and a 'terrible reviewer.' Fortunately for you one of them has posted already and given you their seal of approval, so you're safe...)

I think it is very interesting that while WotC have met their goals, this review points out exactly where they went wrong in my view and the view of a lot of others:

1. They concentrated on the 'tactical game' aspect of D&D to an absurd degree and almost to the exclusion of all else...

2. They've homogenized and balanced the game to the nth degree, where (and I'm paraphrasing another poster here) 'everyone is special, so no one is special,' losing the flavour of what it means to be a wizard, rogue, etc. in a fantasy world for what it means to be a striker, controller, etc. in a board game...

3. While meeting their own goals to streamline certain areas of the game, they've actually complicated others (needing a battlemat and minis to play for instance) leaving the game is just as 'crunchy' and open for rules bloat as 3e. Meet the new game, same as the old game...

I think your review makes a good capstone to the other reviews and pretty much sums up why you will/won't want to buy this game. So kudos...

[Weltenbummler]

But I've yet to see a review that assesses D&D 4th Edition on the basis of the designers' stated goals in the various interviews and articles leading up to 4th Edition's release.

I find that a very questionable yardstick for measuring the quality of a game in a review.

Arguably most games out there achieve this objective perfectly, including infamous ones like Synnibar or Wraethu and downright offensive ones like F.A.T.A.L. or RaHoWa.

By the measure applied here, they'd all deserve stellar reviews and many of their designers went to great lenghts to point out the congruence of these games with the designers original intend. Are the better games because of it? I doubt it.


A review should provide insight for potential gamers and buyers. The benchmark than, can not be the values of designers, but that of the players.