Reviews for 4th Edition Core Rulebook Gift Set (Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks) (Dungeons & Dragons..

• Very entertaining and fun: As good as you,

  External review by: Xenolias | Jun 7, 2008

  I'm still awaiting my shipment of the core books, but from the first-hand impression that I got from playing at a recent convention, I must say that this will be a very enjoyable rendition of the game. Despite the many unfounded criticisms seen here from individuals who are just "eyeballing" the rules, 4th edition was created the way it is for several reasons.
  
  Rolls in combat were simplified to reduce the amount of time to get from one PC to another. It can be very easy for a PC to lose interest in a game when the PC before them rolls 3 attacks for himself and 3 more attacks for each, let's say, elemental that they have summoned. That is 12 attacks to wade through, dragging down the pace of the game. And let's not get into a discussion about a maxed out fighter and Great Cleave against balanced enemies....
  
  Some complaints are also against the lack of "fluff" or descriptive text. I believe that the designers made the core books with this level of general description so that the DM could use their imaginations a bit more. Nothing is more annoying than a PC complaining that my Drow NPC can't be good because, "It doesn't make sense since the book says so." Though this is not a problem with all gaming groups, a lack of too much detail in the CORE BOOKS makes alot of sense to me.
  
  The lack of X favorite class: Whenever I get a chance to play, I really like playing either monks or druids. If WotC decided to delay these classes with the others for the purpose of getting it "just right", I wholeheartedly respect that because I would rather have a good, fleshed out, and effective monk later than a rushed and lackluster one now. If WotC delayed these classes to make an extra buck with a PHB2, then I respect that as well, because, let's face it, it's a good business model and I'd rather have one of my favorite gaming companies who produces one of my favorite games to prosper and explore different gaming terrain than to cling to a system that a few hurt players are complaining over.
  
  Some say that the class roles are too restricting as well, but these are restrictions that we have placed on ourselves this whole time. WotC just made it more official. Throughout all iterations of this game, I doubt very many people rolled up a wizard for the sake of being a front line fighter. No one made a paladin to be a pure back line caster. Those roles are absolutely ridiculous for those fore mentioned classes in any edition of this game. The different tiers (especially paragon tier) allow for a great array of customization. When you gain an opportunity to select a single power when you level up, you choose between 2+ powers presented to you from your current level or below. And what's great is that it is all balanced and easy to employ as you progress.
  
  Roll a d20, add half your level and the necessary ability modifier.
  Compare to Armor Class/Skill check for your result.
  
  Congratulations! You have made an attack roll/skill roll!
  Easy, right?
  
  It seems that for some players, they cannot seem to wrap their head around that concept, even though they have gone through 2nd edition's awful THAC0 system. For these players, nostalgia is more important than improved game mechanics and ease of play for newcomers. The perceived complexity is all in their head and unfounded.
  
  I've always found it curious how much mud can be slung at something without so much as trying it. But in a way, I can understand these players, having bought a lot of 3.0 and 3.5 merchandise as they have. But the fact of the matter is that many of these criticisms are made to give reason to their reluctance to pay extra money for an upgraded game system and also to justify their nostalgia for their favorite edition. Without trying it out for yourself, one cannot know how much they have done right with this edition. Combat is fun for all participants. And as far as role play is concerned, please remember this:
  
  Your experience is only as good as you, the player and dungeon master, allow it to be.
  
  
  P.S. A recent thread speculated that it would be probable to kill Orcus (a God) in one round of combat using Blade Cascade (Unlimited hits until you miss, basically). Ridiculous, for many reasons:
  
  Initiative +22, very possible for him to get the jump on you
  
  AC 48, still hard to hit, even at Epic level
  
  1,525 hit points, a lot of damage for your d6's to get through
  
  A +36 attack as soon as you get close to him that stuns you and knocks you prone
  
  +33 attack that drops you to 0 instantly
  
  Please do not make outrageous claims like this. It shows you to be ignorant of the game. (view in context)

• A radical change of pace

  External review by: Ron Hockman | Jun 6, 2008

  I had the opportunity to do a complete read-through of the PHB, and I'm really excited about what I saw. I didn't have time to look through the DMG or MM. (Edit: I've since had time to look through both the DMG & MM. See changes at end)
  
  The meteoric rise of Massively Multiplayer RPGs has created a unprecedentedly-large case study about what works for class advancement and balance. When I was first looking through the promotional material I noticed concepts from the MMO space cropping up: defender(tank), striker(dps), controller, and leader(support). I was initially disappointed by this, but the more I thought about it the more the idea began to grow on me. Every class now has a role within the group so there's no question about what each character should be doing.
  
  The options for character advancement are fewer than previous versions. Whereas 3.x gave you the tools to create just about any type of character, that's not so much the case in 4. For the advanced players who enjoyed making odd concept characters, this is going to be their primary gripe with the system. I'm talking, frothing-at-the-mouth, storm-the-Bastille forum fanboy crazy.
  
  For the rest of the players, who just want to _play_, it's going to be great. You don't have to worry about some powergamer creating a monstrosity of character that starts an arms race with the DM. Even if you don't have a powergamer around, there's very little chance of a player accidentally creating a character that's isn't effective in the group.
  
  What excites me as a player is the fact that you get something cool at every level. It was always kind of boring as a fighter in 3.x: "Another feat. Yawn. This'll be interesting in another dozen levels when my build finally comes together". In 4e, I get something new to play with each time.
  
  What excites me as a DM is that my life got easier. There aren't any "Attack of opportunity" or "grapple" nightmare rules like before. There's less opportunity for rule-lawyering and general powergaming. The various social skills have been streamlined, giving the DM the chance to RP with interested players, while disinterested players can just roll their way through it.
  
  What doesn't excite me is the online component. From what I've seen I don't think WotC has the staff necessary to put out quality software. Anyone remember the e-tools they touted in 2000. No? There's a reason you don't. They got delayed for _years_, and when they finally came out they were terrible, unusable even. Software development at that scale is hard and it's even harder if you're not a software development house and aren't used to managing the projects.
  
  Some people will complain that the new rules are too much like an MMO. It's their choice as to whether that's something they'll enjoy. One thing to keep in mind is this: It doesn't matter if you've been DMing for 30 years, any given MMO sees their rules exercised more in a single weekend that you've done in your career. A MMO is a crucible for finding rules that require a _minimum of human intervention_.
  
  It boils down to this: if you enjoy the act of playing with your group and the rules are an accessory, then you'll love 4e. If you enjoy playing with the rules and your group is an accessory, then you'll hate 4e.
  
  Edit: Comments on MM & DMG
  The MM is what you would expect: 150 or so monsters for heroes to fight. There's not much info that would be useful to the player. To help the DM, most monster entries (maybe all?) have an "Encounter Group", which is gives a list of creatures that, together with the current one, would make an appropriate encounter for a group of PCs and that makes sense in the D&D universe. The encounter group gives the recommended level and resulting XP. (Unlike 3.x, XP rewards don't scale based on the PC's level compared to the Challenge Rating. It's like 2E, where each monster has a set XP reward)
  
  If you read the DMG2 for 3.x, the 4e DMG will be quite familiar. Most of the rules have been moved to the PHB, leaving MUCH more space available for giving advice to the DM on how to run a successful game. (If you DM 3.x and haven't read the DMG2, it's worth taking a look at, even if you don't choose to move up to 4e).
  
  The DMG takes a back seat at the table. This is a benefit for both players and DMs. Players don't need to buy it for the magic items(which are now in the PHB) and well-prepared DM could get away with leaving the book at home. (view in context)

• A new generation of a classic game

  External review by: P. Gatcomb | Jun 6, 2008

  At first I was a bit skeptical about this new edition after reading a lot of the material coming from the forums and seasoned veterans of table top RPGs, but when I picked it up and tried it out for myself, I was pleasantly surprised. A lot of the fears people had about the game being over the top action is somewhat unfounded, if anything its quite the opposite.
  
  I whipped up a quick adventure about a mind flayer controlling town politics and went at it. The first thing I noticed was that the players spent much less time looking up modifiers and rolling dice then they did interacting with the game world. With the skills being simplified a bit, it made the game so much easier to get to the bottom of things and actually, dare I say it, role-play. I threw in a complex skill challenge and was impressed out how smooth and excited the players were just interacting with the local thieves guild, which is something I havent seen in awhile.
  
  Eventually the players were forced in combat. I remember in 3.x there seemed to be a formula for combat depending on the type of enemy involved. That exists to a degree, but combat is so much smoother than it used to be. The abilities that the classes get really mesh well and the new system is so much easier. Instead of 4 steps for a grapple its one! The players acted much more tactically and really got into the nitty gritty only relying on the dice when it was completely necessary. Throw in a few action phrases and its a much more focused game play experience.
  
  The dungeon masters guide and monster manual feel like theyve been designed for ease of use as well. Some people will say the game has been dumbed down, and I know what they mean. I felt that way until I saw the game in action and realized the new strategic depth that was never there before. I can already see a strategy guide coming out for battle strategy. Overall I would recommend this product to both veterans and new people to the hobby-both for its new ease of use and re-imagining of a classic hobby. (view in context)

• A Step Backwards

  External review by: R. Carroll | Jun 6, 2008

  not exactly the next step in the evolution of the game. touted as a "steamlined" and "improved" re-imagining of the classic game that has been around in several incarnations over the past 30-some-odd-years; what it truly amounts to is an advanced tactical board game.
  
  much of what made the game great is stripped away in an effort to emulate mmo (massive multiplayer online) games like world of warcraft; intentionally dumbing down the game in an effort to market it to a wider demographic. elements of game play that focused on actual role-play and story telling are minimized in favor of combat.
  
  instead of taking what was good in both types of games and creating a higher, more elegant game that becomes greater than the sum of its parts, it instead is a souped up throwback to the chainmal days of d&d with mmo hidebound adhearance to mmo sensabilities.
  
  while i can appreciate that hasbro may have had the best of intentions in crafting this version of the game, it fails in the eyes of this and many other fans who have played for so many years. it plays more like other sword & sorcery genre board games (descent, runebound, world of warcraft), and may in fact be the best and finest board game in the genre. but, sadly, it is no true rpg and those who seek that out in this game will be sorely disatisfied. (view in context)

• Good, but loses that D&D flavor

  External review by: William Kerney | Jun 6, 2008

  Since Amazon.com ate a rather longish review I wrote, here's a much shorter one in a nutshell:
  1) Loses a lot of iconic D&D flavor. Dwarves can no longer see in the dark, Liches can no longer paralyze with a touch (and don't really cast spells), Lycanthropes no longer spread lycanthropy via bites (instead they spread a different and even less balanced disease), Magic Missiles can miss, Vampires are no longer affected by sunlight (they just lose regeneration), Angels are no longer good, Devils and Demons are totally different (and even more confusing to tell apart than ever before), Eladrins are elementals, they messed up a lot of D&D's background -- Pelor is now the God of Agriculture and no longer accepts Lawful Good clerics, there's no more Bytopia or the other cool planes to visit, and elves are now faeries.
  
  2) Simplified - but oversimplified. They thought that having 9 alignments was too complicated. So what did they do? Kept the law/chaos good/evil system, but just disallowed certain combinations. You can play a LawfulGood Paladin (or a Chaotic Evil one now, for that matter), but not a Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil character. In my opinion, the alignments they disallowed were the most interesting to roleplay. Ask yourself -- is it really simpler to keep a system and then cut holes in it that you can't play? Likewise, they simplified the skill system (by and large in a good way), but added a penalty to all physical skills if you're wearing armor. This is all well and good, except the system is so oversimplified now, it means that if you're wearing full plate and get bitten by a wererat, you now take a penalty on your "saving throw" against disease, because the "save" is a Constitution based skill.
  
  Simplification = good. Oversimplification = bad.
  
  3) WOTC makes characters now, not you. The best advance from 2ed to 3ed D&D was that people could now build their own characters. No longer were you bound to play a kit or class that WOTC made, players could make their own: you could make a Fighter 1 / Rogue 1 / Wizard 18 if you felt like it. It was a powerful system, and one which WOTC believes was too "scary" for people, so they reverted back to the pre-2ed days. Essentially, they pre-roll some classes for you, and then you get to pick from a limited menu of options at each level. Even still, if you're a "fighter" at 1st level, you're a fighter at 30th, with the "paragon paths" and "epic destinies" providing a certain amount of additional customization.
  
  4) Multiclassing is non-existent. Multiclassing was another area that WOTC felt was too "scary" for players, so they removed it. The 4ed system for multiclassing instead more closely resembles the Arcane Disciple feat from 3ed -- it allows classes to gain a certain number of spells and powers from other classes. However, you never actually can become a member of the other class. When I tried making three character concepts in 4ed D&D I was thrown up against this wall in two of them -- the system just isn't powerful enough to carry out the builds I wanted.
  
  5) 4ed has three elf races but no half-orcs. With only eight core races, did we really need three options for playing elves?
  
  5) Mistakes. 4ed needed more work before publishing. The multiclassing rules allow PCs to take class-specific feats from the class they "multiclass" into. However, if you read through the 20 or so class-specific feats in the PHB, only *two* of them can actually be taken by multiclass players, because the feats nearly all require class abilities from the class which *you can't get -- ever -- from multiclassing*.
  
  From a balance perspective, people have already broken 4ed with Cascade of Blades and Seal of Binding. (The other comment on here is wrong -- they really are that broken.) With either of these abilities, you can essentially kill anything in 4ed D&D. A 30th level 4ed character, using nothing but the PHB can perfectly solo Orcus 1) Without taking a single point of damage, and 2) Kill him dead on the first round of combat. Read WOTC's boards if you want the details, but the point is, 4ed is in many ways less balanced than even the wild-and-wooly 3ed. 3ed's version of Cascade of Blades, Avalanche of Blades, was more balanced and couldn't do that trick.
  
  4ed isn't all bad. The skills and rituals are pretty good, and the system should be fun to play overall. The reason I'm giving it 2 stars is not because it's a bad roleplaying system, but because they're calling this new roleplaying system D&D, when they've 1) Regressed a lot from 3ed, choosing simplicity over the ability for players to have fun making their characters and 2) They've taken out a huge number of the tropes that made D&D D&D. Vampire lords running around in daylight shooting magic missiles that miss at Dwarves who don't mine any more since they can't see in the dark just doesn't seem very D&Dish to me. (view in context)