D&D 4e Thoughts
Jul. 19th, 2008 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyatI'd not read any reviews of D&D 4th edition before picking up the Player's Handbook. I still haven't. So, these observations may seem rather basic to people hanging out on RPG.net and the like. This is also not a play test, and it is a commentary on the PHB alone. I don't have the DMG or Monster Manual.
I'm not terribly concerned about the changes in race and class, though my first reaction is "Why bother taking some away?" Still, any reasonable DM would let you roll up a Gnome, if you really wanted one. I also wonder why there was a need for three different flavours of elf.
The spell list has been truncated greatly, or at least changed so that almost every spell is a combat spell. On a casual flip through, I found just two mostly non-combat spell on the wizard list - "Disguise Self" and "Fly." To me, the non-combat spells were often the most memorable parts of a D&D game. The use of "Leomund's Secure Shelter" or "Illusionary Terrain" creates a more memorable game experience than simply rolling for damage. Particularly now, when nearly every spell is simply a variant on rolling for damage.
I don't have any objection to the way spells are cast and apportioned. It seems fairly elegant, though fitting the non-combat spells into that framework would be hard. The lack of non-combat spells is partially covered by the list of 28 rituals, but only partially.
The skill list is reduced, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Seriously, I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die. On the other hand... it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die!
The equipment list has also been stripped to down to weapons and combat gear, with a tiny selection of things like services. I have no rational cause to think that an essential part of the D&D experience involves figuring out how many chickens you can buy for a copper piece, but I miss that information, darn it!
And really, I can't help think that, when Hackmaster has a lot more information for adjudicating social interaction and exploration than your RPG, something may have gone awry.
It can be said that the essential D&D experience is "killing things that live in a hole and taking their stuff." And this game can certainly present that. However, a lot of the bits of flavour and background presented in previous editions has disappeared, which makes it less like D&D - at least to me. The details that have been removed were not necessarily good or bad on their own - they just were. And, as any D&D fan knows, the most memorable parts of the game were often the roleplay that occurred in the between-times, when you weren't killing things in a hole.
A clumsy automotive metaphor! The 4th edition is rather like a new Austin Mini. In many ways much better than an old Austin Mini, but really sharing only a general shape and name with the original.
I close by saying that I am still very much looking forward to playing 4E, but I doubt I'll run it any time soon. The end!
I'm not terribly concerned about the changes in race and class, though my first reaction is "Why bother taking some away?" Still, any reasonable DM would let you roll up a Gnome, if you really wanted one. I also wonder why there was a need for three different flavours of elf.
The spell list has been truncated greatly, or at least changed so that almost every spell is a combat spell. On a casual flip through, I found just two mostly non-combat spell on the wizard list - "Disguise Self" and "Fly." To me, the non-combat spells were often the most memorable parts of a D&D game. The use of "Leomund's Secure Shelter" or "Illusionary Terrain" creates a more memorable game experience than simply rolling for damage. Particularly now, when nearly every spell is simply a variant on rolling for damage.
I don't have any objection to the way spells are cast and apportioned. It seems fairly elegant, though fitting the non-combat spells into that framework would be hard. The lack of non-combat spells is partially covered by the list of 28 rituals, but only partially.
The skill list is reduced, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. Seriously, I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die. On the other hand... it means that DMs are encouraged to make situational rulings based on roleplay, etc., rather than leaving things to the roll of a die!
The equipment list has also been stripped to down to weapons and combat gear, with a tiny selection of things like services. I have no rational cause to think that an essential part of the D&D experience involves figuring out how many chickens you can buy for a copper piece, but I miss that information, darn it!
And really, I can't help think that, when Hackmaster has a lot more information for adjudicating social interaction and exploration than your RPG, something may have gone awry.
It can be said that the essential D&D experience is "killing things that live in a hole and taking their stuff." And this game can certainly present that. However, a lot of the bits of flavour and background presented in previous editions has disappeared, which makes it less like D&D - at least to me. The details that have been removed were not necessarily good or bad on their own - they just were. And, as any D&D fan knows, the most memorable parts of the game were often the roleplay that occurred in the between-times, when you weren't killing things in a hole.
A clumsy automotive metaphor! The 4th edition is rather like a new Austin Mini. In many ways much better than an old Austin Mini, but really sharing only a general shape and name with the original.
I close by saying that I am still very much looking forward to playing 4E, but I doubt I'll run it any time soon. The end!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 08:48 am (UTC)I haven't read through all of the book yet, but it sounds from what you said like they took out some stuff that I really value, though there were some non-combat spells that just weren't that useful in 3.5, IIRC. I'll gladly play 4e if someone I know is running a game, especially if the DM likes things to be relatively heavy on character development, but I'm not sure I'd choose it over 3.5 except for the novelty.