Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition Reviews

• 4th Edition: Pulling back from the complexity of 3.5

  
  By A3P4HLUL8F81JY on 2008-06-07
  4th edition D&D = Different.
  
  That fact alone would have spawned endless teeth gnashing from loyalists of prior versions - but what differences are we talking about? How different is it?
  
  In a word: very.
  
  4th edition is a sea change in the core rules that is easily on par with the change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.
  
  Start with the thematic changes:
  The core races have changed. Humans, Halflings, Elves, Half-Elves and Dwarves are back - they've just been supplemented with three new races. Dragonborn (dragonmen), Eladrin (magical fey of the wood) and Tiefling (humanoids with an otherworldly taint).
  
  Classes from 3.0 and 3.5 have been dropped from this volume (There is no druid, monk, bard, or barbarian). These classes are promised in future Player's Handbooks. Not the most auspicious beginning.
  
  Thematic changes like this are easy to spot - but are perhaps the least important changes in the game. I dislike the concept of Dragonborn ("Dragon-anything" is a label I feel makes its subject seem cartoonish and clichéd), but as a GM - I can easily fix this. In my world Dragonborn will be lizardmen, with a backstory that I choose. I take the rules and make them my own.
  
  The WotC game designers have clearly tried to shift the game mechanics towards customized character development: (a rules buffet, so to speak) - so anyone who wants to have a druid could achieve a reasonable facsimile of powers and rituals and achieve the rest thematically.
  
  Many will have a problem with this - but I frankly don't. Being able to mix and match classes in 3.5 was a radical shift (and a brilliant one) and the re-thinking of that model that occurs in 4th Edition provides more options, not less.
  
  The artwork (particularly the book's cover) will come in for a large amount of abuse - but again, this is such a minor issue. Quality artwork is important for RPG (imagery is the lifeblood of storytelling), but any one picture will have those who love it/hate it. So long as the majority of the art isn't bad (like the schlock in 2nd edition) any gamer is free to switch to pictures they *do* enjoy.
  
  Again, thematic changes will get a lot of attention, but any GM is free to re-imagine any theme that they have a problem with.
  
  On to Rules:
  
  This is where the true sea change is. Any discussion of what is happening in 4th edition can be boiled down to this:
  
  4th edition wants to simplify things and speed up your gaming sessions.
  
  3rd edition and 3.5 attempted to create flexibility and lots of independent rulesets (feats, prestige classes). This was good - but the complexity inherent in this model caused a lot of problems. When scalable feats collided with spells and class abilities - often the only guidance the GM would have is the precise language in the rulebook. Is a charge an attack action? No, it is a full round action that allows you to attack - and so on.
  
  I sincerely believe that 3rd edition was superior to 2nd edition, but I never had as many rules disputes when I played 2nd edition.
  
  4th Edition was clearly intended to address this issue.
  
  Base attack bonus tables? Gone. You get a bonus of half your level, rounded down, to pretty much anything you do (as well as to many stats, like your AC). The advantage of this is twofold - it's easy to remember and it always scales.
  
  All attacks are now attacks: be they claw, sword or spell - the character will roll a die, add their modifiers up and try to hit a defense number. This streamlines combat spells, since instead of a saving throw, you will have a passive defense number that your opponents will try to beat. One roll, from the attacker - always.
  
  This kind of symmetry will allow players to better remember what to do. I'm a target, I do nothing. I'm attacking, I roll.
  
  The combat round has gotten an overhaul, as well. Characters are now allowed to perform the following in a round: A standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions. These labels exist in a hierarchy, so the character can forgo a standard action to take an additional use of a lesser action.
  Standard actions are the big actions (attack, use a power, etc). Move actions are exactly what you'd think. Minor actions include readying a weapon or maintaining a spell effect. Free actions are virtually unlimited (drop something, speak, etc).
  The groupings are intuitive- and the initial adjustment aside - this structure will add some real clarity to the always problematic question of "what can I do in a round?"
  
  Now the biggest shift of all: Powers
  All 3rd edition/3.5 casters get weaker and less useful every time they cast a spell, resulting in the entire party needing to stop and camp just to get their magic back.
  If the party had an early morning encounter that was intense enough - the caster would spend the rest of the day "empty" and pretty much useless.
  
  4th edition tackles this issue head on. Character have powers that can be used once per encounter. Meaning: no matter how many encounters your spell caster has in a day, they will have something to contribute.
  
  This is brilliant. A real slap-the-forehead moment, even for gamers who (like me) have been playing for decades. Once per encounter powers are scaled to not be show stoppers - but they scale as you get more powerful.
  
  Powers that refresh for encounters are supplemented with powers that are refreshed after an extended rest (much like old times). The difference is that the rest need only be 6 hours long, which fits better with the model of dungeon crawls and treks in the wilderness.
  
  Spells weren't the only resource PCs needed to hole up and replenish. The other one was Hit Points. The old healing model was: everyone gets a pittance for resting, and then the healers burn magic to *really* fix people. This system exacerbated the previous problem of spellcaster depletion. Caster rests, uses all their spell slots to heal other PCs - and is useless for the rest of the day.
  
  Now - everyone can heal by themselves. Every PC has a healing reserve - a set number of times they can heal 1/4th their total hit points. In combat, most PCs are allowed to do this only once - magic and special abilities can increase this.
  
  This seems weird for lots of reasons, but it will free players to pursue action instead of good places to rest. Clerics can still be healers, without being straitjacketed to the role. This is good, really good news for gamers. Parties will still have to hole up and rest, but healing reserves and encounter based powers will ensure that they will never be completely out of options.
  
  And powers aren't just for spellcasters! This, too seems weird - but warrior types are given abilities called "Exploits." These are essentially special moves that enhance the warriors martial abilities. Call them magic or call them tricks their guild master taught them - they are expended in the same way as powers - and the advancement model ensures they will scale better than 3.5's feats.
  
  The last big change to magic is the creation of Ritual Magic. Rituals are spells that take too long to cast in combat (10 minutes or more) but have long lasting, or purely utilitarian effects: summon mounts, scrying, etc. Moving these abilities out of the realm of combat with casting times decreases the likelihood that their effects will collide with combat rules in unforeseen ways. As a GM - I like this a lot. Players will still get creative, but when combat is ongoing - I hate to stop and figure out if a utility spell like Prestigitation can have an effect on combat.
  
  There are many other changes:
  
  -Three tiers of level advancement, each containing 10 levels - entering any new tier affords you new powers and development paths. Each tier contains powers scaled to that tier - no more feat free-for alls.
  -Skills have been (mercifully) simplified so that there is better parity among PCs of the same level (The bonus follows the same format of 1/2 level + bonuses). You either are trained in a skill, or you are not. Training nets you a flat +5 bonus. (Gone is the insanity of 3.5 where a level loss had you searching prior versions of your character to reset your skill levels. Remember what INT drain did to skills? the horror!)
  
  There is a lot to like here. The long suffering DMs of 3.5 will finally get some speed back into their game. It will be an adjustment, but the goals of this system are admirable.
  
  That said, I have three gripes.
  One is just a personal bias. 3rd edition required miniatures for combat in all but name. 4th edition codifies miniatures. The idea of a purely "in your head" encounter is a rapidly fading memory for gamers like me. Sometimes, you just want to do a combat on the fly, without figures and without maps. WotC has clearly come down on the side of precise tactics - and I truly wish they'd made more accommodations for DMs who don't like to map every improvised encounter site.
  
  Second - while the 4th edition PH's index is merely lacking; its glossary is non-existent. In books of this size - a one page index is just inadequate. To be fair, the books explain any terminology as it is introduced *very* well, but any player who needs to know what a term means would have an easier time scanning a glossary than the entire rulebook.
  (DnD Insider claims to have many features to simplify things - but online access has not been the hallmark of my gaming sessions. This may change - but a good, frequently-updated glossary should be available for download on their website.)
  
  Lastly, the unpardonable yet unavoidable aspect of 4th Edition: It is so near the release of 3.5 - and has so many changes that it cannot help but spawn a 4.5 edition in the near future. I was a playtester for 4th edition, so I know they've gotten a number of kinks out of it. But there is no way playtesters and designers got it all. Like every other edition, players will find the weak spots of the new system and eventually rules will get revised.
  
  There is such a thing as buyer's fatigue. I've bought every ruleset since the Expert Set, and having invested deeply in 3.5, I am being asked (along with every other 3.5 player) to start over - again.
  
  I like the rules - and I obviously love the game - but there is a limit to the number of times a game can switch rulesets. If 4.5 comes out in the near future and we are yet again asked to pitch our (still like new) rulebooks in favor of the latest products - I suspect I will not be the only DM to slam on the brakes.
  
  There, rant over.
  
  Game on!
  
  

• Retrogressive from 3.5

  
  By A12BL8PMLAG5HX on 2008-06-07
  As a preface, I don't hate 4ed D&D. I just think that it is a step backwards from 3rd Edition D&D in a lot of ways:
  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.
  
  

• Many Mixed Feelings

  
  By A3GGHEP5RMOC04 on 2008-06-08
  From the get go, it must be understood that the 4th edition of D&D is a completely different game. Those of you familiar with previous editions of the game may find the new edition more complex and more combat oriented, while those of you completely new to the D&D experience may find the new edition exciting and interesting.
  
  Let's start with the line-by-line.
  
  "Chapter One: How To Play" is pretty standard. It's divided into 4 (or 6) subheadings that answer the fundamental questions like, "What is a roleplaying game?" This is further refined to, "What is a fantasy roleplaying game?" and finally, "What is a D&D game?" After that, there's your usual example of gameplay, along with a description of the Core Mechanic (d20 + modifiers vs. target number) and the "Three Basic Rules". From that description, old-school gamers (I'm including the 3.5 hold-outs in this category) might think very little has changed, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, 4E is radically different.
  
  "Chapter Two: Making a Character" seems to be intended as a basic overview of the character creation process rather than an actual, in depth, step-by-step guide. The reason I say this is because certain concepts are glossed over (like class and race) only to be examined in more detail by later chapters, but the selection of ability scores, alignment and other basic character traits are still explained in this chapter. Like chapter one, chapter two is divided into several subheadings; some of them with subheadings of their own.
  
  "Chapter Three: Character Races" explores the D&D races in more depth. Old fans of D&D will recognize some old favorites here, like dwarves, elves and halflings, but might be disappointed by the disappearance of gnomes and half-orcs. Likewise, the appearance of dragonborn, eladrin and fan-favorite tiefling will be new. Something else that might tweak the proverbial noses of fans of older editions is the absence of negative modifiers. That's right. Elves no longer have negatives to their constitution, and dwarves no longer suffer a negative modifier to charisma. Players completely new to D&D will find this section fairly easy to navigate assuming they've kept up with the previous chapters.
  
  "Chapter Four: Character Classes" is by far the longest chapter, taking up over 120 pages of text. Once again, fans of previous editions will recognize the "Core Four" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric) as well as the Paladin and Ranger, but may lament the loss of Bards, Monks, Barbarians, Sorcerers and Druids. Two "new" classes, the Warlock and the Warlord, round out the section. The vast majority of text is spent describing various cool options and powers that each of the classes possess.
  
  "Chapter Five: Skills" gives the description of various skills a character might possess based on choices made in the previous chapters and how they might be used. The core mechanic is explained in a little more detail as it specifically applies to skills.
  
  "Chapter Six: Feats" gives a selection of interesting options that characters can choose at various levels. "Feats" (as in "Feat of strength") represent some sort of specialized training that the character has received. Some feats give interesting combat modifiers, while others open up access to specific abilities. Others even allow you to train up abilities of other classes. This last one is the "multiclassing" mechanic of 4E.
  
  "Chapter Seven: Equipment" should be fairly obvious. In this chapter are the various lists and prices of any gear the character might want to buy. Prices are drastically reduced (Plate Armor is a mere 50 gold pieces!), and magic items are included in the PHB (unlike in previous editions where magic items were first introduced in the DMG). A standard "Adventuring Kit" is offered, which provides a bundle of supplies that most adventurers would like to have.
  
  "Chapter Eight: Adventuring" briefly describes the basics of being an adventurer. Quests, encounters, rewards, rest and recovery are all covered in some detail, though much of the actual story is left to the Dungeon Master's Guide.
  
  "Chapter Nine: Combat" is a mere 30 pages but covers a lot of ground. For a game so clearly focused on combat (they even separate encounters into "combat encounters" and "non-combat encounters"), there's certainly very little belaboring the point in this chapter. The combat sequence is explained in an almost "flow chart" style. Actions, turns, attacks, et cetera are all pretty standard, though the changes made in previous chapters will become very clear to fans of older editions. All in all, little has changed in the actual process of combat, though the inclusion of healing surges and action points do make some difference.
  
  "Chapter Ten: Rituals". Now, don't let the name fool you. There are no actual rituals in this book. Chapter 10 contains the descriptions of various rituals your character might want to perform, such as a resurrection in case one of the characters actually dies somehow.
  
  After that there's playtester credits, and index and the all too necessary "Character Sheet".
  
  Fourth Editions seems like a fun game. It's designed to be fast-paced, intense and fun. With so much detail focused on combat, you might think that roleplaying and other non-combat aspects are left behind, but the truth is, because combat encounters go by so much quicker, there's more time left for interaction. The basic mechanic does seem to support power-gaming, though.
  
  Some changes just rub me the wrong way. Elves being just as hardy as humans and dwarves being just as pretty as elves seems to fly in the face of decades of tradition. The introduction of the tiefling and the dragonborn as player races seems like catering to the "it's cool to be evil" crowd. All in all, 4E has a lot of good ideas, but like every edition change before it is bound to leave behind some of it's previous fanbase.
  
  

• New roleplaying game, roleplaying not included...

  
  By A1TNOEONWE1SCE on 2008-06-25
  I am sure by now that this review will be a rehash of what others have said, but I have never felt so moved to write a review, so I am just going to go with it. For starters, I have been either a player or a DM for over 15 years. I started in 1st edition and easily made the transition to the 2nd edition. I was really excited about the changes to the game mechanics that came with the 3rd edition. I never bought 3.5 because it seemed like a money-making scheme, but the point I am making is that I have loved this game throughout all of its various incarnations.
  
  Therefore, I was looking forward to 4th Edition. I had heard that there would be more character customization from the ground up (sort of like Skills and Powers) and that it would be structured something like the new Star Wars Saga Edition. I was intrigued at the notion and very excited to see the outcome.
  
  I cannot express to you how disappointed I was at the result. I agree with previous reviewers that this is not DND, and it is not a good system for roleplaying. I'll just give an itemized rundown:
  
  How do I hate thee, 4th Ed? Let me count the ways
  1. The book is cheaply made, so cheaply made that the ink comes off the pages if you rub it too hard.
  2. Of the limited races available, three are related to elves. That's overdoing it a little bit, no? Also, not only is the "dragonborn" simply a silly idea that panders to power gamers, they look laughable. And the idea that they would have a breath weapon as opposed to a bite or a claw attack is absurd. Since they were adding the tiefling anyway, how about the aasimar? And as for a monster class, they could have done something better than the dragonborn. They already have with the half-orc.
  3. The classes lost are not worth the classes gained. Who ever heard of DND without druids and bards? Instead, what did we get, the Warlord? Please! What place does a tactical leader have in a roaming band of adventurers? Frankly, with the people I play with, if somebody "ordered" one of their PC's to attack, I don't think it would be the NPC that would be getting the smackdown. Warlords are for military and tactical units, not loosely confederated treasure hunters.
  4. It doesn't matter what you play, the characters end up the same. Your warrior class characters end up having the same armor class and damage potential as your arcane class characters. It's like they are all fighters who just do different types of damage. The classes are sort of like 1% and 2% milk--sure, the composition is slightly different, but they pretty much taste the same. BOOOOORRRRING!
  5. The skills have been simplified to an alarming degree, again making characters homogeneous. I've personally never talked to a player who wants LESS options for making their character, so I'm not sure what the purpose was of that.
  6. The alignment system desperately needs a revamp and always has (either that or needs to be eliminated entirely), but the revamp they did made the system even more nonsensical. They have removed most of the choices, so once again, the characters are the same.
  7. I never really liked prestige classes because you have to spend time at lower levels making choices for skills, feats, etc. that you may not really want to get the prestige class you want, but this game makes a player's choices even more limited because you get shoehorned into a very small number of character paths.
  8. Multiclassing is destroyed in this edition. What's the fun in THAT? And again, because of this, characters end up all looking the same.
  9. I have no issue with the use of miniatures and maps in games, I use them when I run, but the requirement that they must be used smacks of a marketing ploy to me. I can't wait to see how many "must have" dungeon tile, game mat, and miniature sets come out after this.
  10. Finally, my problem with this edition is that it doesn't seem to show any regard for DND players, those of us that have supported and loved this game for over 30 years. It seems to be attempting to attract an audience of video game enthusiasts with a faster pace and a dumbed-down presentation, as if to imply that people who play games like WOW are too stupid to understand anything more detailed(which is incredibly insulting). I think it is a huge mistake. I think that video gamers who don't already play RPG's will continue to play video games, and I think DND lovers will continue to play DND--3rd and 3.5 edition, that is.
  
  I think as a tactical miniatures game this edition is fine. But they already made one of those, so I see this edition having limited appeal. What a shame. But not all that unexpected from a company that is owned by Hasbro.
  
  

• One Huge Leap Backwards in RPGs

  
  By A1KO9O5M3AUNBQ on 2008-06-06
  I have been playing DND since good ole first edition and every one since up to nad including 3.5...so there was some excitement about the new system. In terms of pure roleplaying this new edition was going to either rock or blow chunks as it was quite different. I am reviewing the system in the terms of the roleplaying aspect(What DND is supposed to be) and not as any other game type. The end result....yup you guessed it...a huge step backwards.
  
  Gone is the incredible detail of characters that is the trademark of DND and in place is now AT WILL POWERS...or more simply...DND for Dummies. The true flavor of being a character is gone and now there are powers that remind you of playing a video game or an even better comparison...a Miniatures game! The Monster Manual shows the creature(The artwork is the one huge plus in this edition, but I dont buy games just for art) and the stats...which have symbols....very much like the minis game. The feel is hack and slash and the idea that you add half your level to attack...crazy no matter the class. I do like that there are 30 levels now, but to breadk them up into 3 tiers...no need.
  
  All in all our gaming group is staying with 3.5 and we will be fine with that...sad really....this is the first DND system we will not switch to. Different can be good, not just this edition. Too bad WOC listened to the online gamers instead of the true source of money (The Pure PRGers).
  
  As a side note, If I were going to rate this system as part of a minis game with the touch of roleplaying thrown on top of it....I think it is quite good. Similar to Battletech minis and adding the Mechwarrior RPG on top of it. It is simple and has clear and limited choices for advancement...all good for minis games....not RPGs.
  
  Any hope of a real RPG...say 4.5?
  
  
• Great Ideas, But They Really Missed The Mark
  By A1BPCX5TX2HNRQ on 2008-06-15
  I've been playing D&D since I was 13, so about 7 years now, and it's a unique game. Why? Because it takes place in your head. The rules have always been there to help your keep your imagination on track. When I explain D&D to my friends I tell them that it's amazing because absolutely anything can happen. Any strategy you think of, you can implement. And I think that's the main draw of D&D. It's absolutely open-ended.
  
  But 4th edition does a great deal to destroy that.
  
  
  Here's what's good about 4th edition:
  
  --Having Daily, Encounter, and At-Will powers is a spectacular idea. It makes tons of sense to recharge some powers at different time increments. It's a great idea.
  
  
  --Gaining Something at every level definitely serves to make the game more exciting, and in 4th edition, any level you don't gain a power, you at least get a feat.
  
  
  --Making races matter more is good. Races now have no downsides, and you can take racial feats as you advance, so your race continues to affect you.
  
  
  --Combining a lot of the skills seems like a good idea. No need to have so many.
  
  
  --Making everything an attack may or may not be good, but it's definitely simpler. Spells are now an attack that goes something like Intelligence vs. Reflex. You make an attack based on intelligence vs. their reflex defense.
  
  
  So those things might all be good, but there are so many bad things that I'm definitely going to keep playing 3.5. I'm not trying to dissuade you from fourth, I just think they've made a completely different game that I'm not personally as interested in.
  
  Here's what's bad:
  
  
  --Spells are gone. There, I said it. Vestiges and memories of spells remain, but for all intents and purposes they're gone. WOTC has pretty much made all classes identical in an attempt to make the game easier to play, and in order to do that, they had to make spellcasters like fighters. Basically all classes get powers (you pick from three or four at each level that you gain them), and those powers are usually some sort of battle ability, though some are for puzzle solving. Spellcasters get powers just like any other character. Fireball is an attack that affects a certain amount of space and does 3d6+Int mod damage. That's right, 3d6. Not 1d6/level. Spells are just a basic attack that don't improve an don't do anything interesting. Basically, warriors now make attacks that do X[Weapon] damage, and spellcasters attack too.
  
  
  --Before, D&D was about imagination. We would cast stone to mud spells to weaken bridges to defeat enemies. We would polymorph mice to attack enemies. We'd teleport people off cliffs. It was all about coming up with the coolest strategies possible. Now you can't do that because there's only a couple abilities, and what they do is set in stone.
  
  
  --Feats are pretty worthless. Whereas before you could create a cool character build with feats, using them to give your character an interesting combination of abilities, now they are just basic boosts. Almost every feat just gives you some bonus to something instead of cool abilities that allow you to do something special.
  
  
  --There aren't even that many character builds available. In fact, each class comes with 2 suggested ways to build your character. Two! Just think how many different types of sorcerers and fighters you used to be able to make. Now, with the limited number of powers, there are very few options.
  
  
  --The way saves work is ridiculous. There are a bunch of abilities that do something interesting, like a rogue can grab someone and immobilize them until that person saves. Here's the thing: saving is a 50/50 chance. It's not based on the rogue's strengths or skills or even your strength's or skills. You roll a d20, and a 10-20 makes you save. That's it.
  
  
  --The game is pretty much an advanced strategy board game. About half of the abilities now allow you to shift position or slide opponents. The biggest part of the game is tactically positioning yourself and your enemies. You hit them, get to shift one square and slide them 4 squares. It's just about planning our where people end up. Where's the imagination in that?
  
  
  Here's what should have happened:
  
  
  --Keep spells, but make them at-will, encounter, or daily. Change their power to reflect how often you can cast them.
  
  
  --Keep charts of what you gain when you level, but have racial charts as well, so you gain racial abilities as you go.
  
  
  --Improve the fighting classes (rogue and ranger included) just like version 4 did, by giving them cool abilities as they level up.
  
  
  
  In Conclusion, 4th edition came up with a lot of good fixes, but rather than applying them to 3.5 to create a spectacular game with lots of strategy and imagination, they created a new game, one that is purely tactical. This is a game for those who simply want to roll the dice and move the pieces, not spend all your time thinking about how it works or how cool a certain strategy would be.
  
  
• Makes less sense, bad for role playing.
  By A10VPAE9YXBDBE on 2008-06-08
  This book gets rid of all the things that role-play oriented folks like me enjoy.
  
  For example: while role-playing a combat, I found my character yelling over to a commoner: "Use your healing serge while I hold them off!"
  
  That instantly struck me as the stupidest thing any of my PCs ever said, because no one in real life or even a fantasy movie would say that. This game is cheese and stupidly rolled up in a videogame style burrito and served with an extra portion of combat, hold the role-playing.
  
  I miss a lot from 3.5. For example, crits merely do max damage. With a d4, that's nothing! My 3.5 barbarian does 1d12+48 (power attacking) and thus when it critted, that would be exciting and the whole table took notice! Now, no one cares and the fear of the dark cloaked scythe wielder is gone.
  
  I do like the fact that level 1 PCs have some staying power, but they took it too far. Our 5 level 1 PCs laid waste to a large dragon, doing over 200hp to take it down! That's absurd and destroys the spirit of the game as I know it: where dragons are feared and respected because they eat level one PCs for breakfast.
  
  It also seems the lines between the classes are very blurred and backwards in MANY ways.
  
  For example: we could tell that the dragon was just holding on by a thread, so I cast a magic missile (which used to guarantee SOME damage), but like the last 4 magic missiles I cast, I couldn't hit the reflex-armor class of the dragon (no damage). But the fighter guy went right after me and MISSED with his sword, BUT because of his ability, even a miss lets him do 3 points of damage and HE kills the dragon WITHOUT hitting it!!!!!!
  
  Other examples include the fact that wizards attack as well as warriors and they seem to take-out magical traps better than rogues. My wizard actually was the primary healer in the dragon battle as it seems when a PC goes negative, I could restore them to 25% of total health with a skill check of only 10 (which triggers a healing serge). I did this for all the PCs during the battle at some point as my ability to magic missile AT WILL had no effect in the combat.
  
  Roles are so blurred now I truly felt like it was not D&D, but some other off-shoot, look-a-like boardgame.
  
  I never really liked the mass-multi-player games so I played D&D and other RPGs (like Shadowrun). This game feels so much like that sort of computer cheese that I'd rather not play it.
  
  Bottom line: As a gamer of over 20yrs, I'm really disappointed as to where Hasbro has taken this game.
  
  
  
• could have been a lot better
  By A1KISYZSUGHL5P on 2008-06-07
  OK, look, this product has been in development for about two years now. So while we're all spending oodles of cash on 3.5 rulebooks, Wizards is working on 4.0. That was insulting. To make it worse, this new set of rules is just a MMORPG waiting to happen.
  
  First of all, where did the character classes go?!? No barbarian, no bard, no druid, no monk, no sorcerer. Huh?!? I can forgive the omission of the bard, but the monk and barbarian and druid and sorcerer?!? There went almost all of my favourite character classes. Gnomes? Gone. Half-orcs, they're gone as well. Worse? NONE of the races have any penalties. What happened to playing an elf knowing you'd take a constitution hit? Nope, not any more! Add +2 to Dex and Intelligence, but no penalties. Pure power-gaming.
  
  The rules are totally off the wall. I spend way too much time trying to decipher how to level a character up, figuring out BAB, saves, etc. 3/3.5 had it perfect. Each class had great strengths and weaknesses, this ruleset is just ungainly. This is above figuring out AC and HP, all of which is practically done for you.
  
  Alignment? GONE. I have been gaming for 25 years, and always had alignment. I'm on the fence about it being gone as it gives players a bit more room to maneuver, but I think they needed to flesh the section out a bit more to make the game more newb-friendly.
  
  Spells? GONE. All those neat little books you got to get your spells together? Toss 'em. Worse, half the spells have become rituals, and a slew of good spells just disappeared! Half the challenge of playing a spellcaster was finding the right spells and sometimes giving up a great spell for a necessary spell. Now, not a problem! Who needs detect magic; it's a skill now! Divination? Moved right into rituals. What a disaster.
  
  The whole system is basically "Diablo" by Blizzard meets "The Book of the Nine Swords" by Wizards of the Coast. A lot of people have said that the new changes in regards to abilities, rituals, etc. will make the game less dull. I disagree. It's too frustrating to be of any fun. And of course, the rules include retraining and allowances to swap abilities, because we all know the set this game is geared to hates feeling constrained by practical rules and tough decision-making.
  
  I will give the developers credit for improving the skills and feats in terms of combining various ones; for example, no one takes Listen but not Spot, and they've been combined. These little things do not make up for the problems, however.
  
  Basically, Wizards has now embraced munchkinism and hack and slash. If you want to role play, this is probably NOT the ruleset for you. If you just wanna throw some dice around and move your miniatures across a map full of squares, this is your rule set.
  
  I remember the original DnD box set; I played it! I played 1.0. I played (and hated) 2.0. Fell in love with 3.0 and 3.5. This one? Not loving it.
  
  I suspect Wizards will be back to the drawing board within three years preparing version 5.0. Hopefully it will be better than this.
  
  
• More Balanced, More Mainstream, More Fun
  By A3J4GUTUJE64Y4 on 2008-06-06
  As has always been the case in the past 30 years, you'd do best to consider what you and your gaming group like to play before you commit fully to any particular game system. Some games reward detailed simulationist/tactical play and some favor looser, quicker play with an emphasis on story. And some, like D&D 4th Edition, fall right in the middle.
  
  From my perspective, as a 20-year veteran of RPGs and D&D through every major edition, the new 4th Edition rules strike a careful and excellent balance between battlemap-and-minis tactical play, and storytelling RP. Due to this careful, middle-of-the-road balance, it's no surprise that there's been resistance by players on the far ends of the RPG "style" spectrum.
  
  4th Edition is, to be certain, a more mainstream game; it's easier to get new players interested in it, it has compelling character choices all the way through 30th level, and it gives DMs (and Wizards of the Coast) more latitude in developing interesting monsters, powers, NPCs, and stories.
  
  This last bit is, I think, the new edition's greatest strength. The new philosophy of design, while it may not satisfy some groups, can provide the freedom necessary to build truly heroic tales with characters that feel more personal for each player at the table.
  
  Preview games I've already run have got my normal gaming group super-psyched about the new system. I've got players building backstories and poring over their brand-new PHBs, who never were as interested in their characters' stories in our 3e campaigns. I consider that a clear mark of 4e success.
  
  Many of the things complained about by other reviewers could very well be valid, depending on what you liked about previous editions. But if you found that in your 3e games, you and/or other players often made the same choices, memorized the same spells, and played your characters the same way every time, you may find that 4th edition has removed a lot of that tedium and left you with the core fun that matters and emphasized the kinds of choices and options that make every character unique and interesting.
  
  My final take:
  It's up to you and the others around your kitchen table to make the game session fun... no amount of books or rules will do that for you. If you have a good DM and like a balance of story, RP, and combat, 4th Edition does a better job than any previous edition of enabling that.
  
  
• seems like a real step backwards and more complex
  By A884U1PGI81SX on 2008-06-06
  I was quite excited for 4th edition but am now hoping my group will stay with 3.5. This isn't an update, its a whole new game which changes everything and makes it seemingly much more complex. Now I really don't want to be a negative force here, but it just seems like an abandonment of so much we have come to know. In all honest, I have not yet played this game only read the new PHB. I've played D&D since the 80s and had stopped for 10 years before 3.5 I had no trouble switching into 3.5 and learning the new rules. Everything was familiar, the spells were the same. Just had to learn about skills and feats. This seems like it was created by people who play too many video games and abandons the old spells and basic things which we know how to play with. The entire "powers" system with daily, at will, and utility powers seems directly from videogames and makes your D&D character into something seemingly very complex and yet overpowered. One of the beautiful things about the previous editions is that 1st level characters are vulnerable and have very few abilities and could die pretty easily. You played them with care and savored their development. These really seem like complex videogame characters which change the whole game for the worse. I am very disappointed.
  
  Healing also seems radically changed with all characters seemingly able to heal themselves once during an encounter and quite a bit afterwards. Clerics no longer seem necessary in a party. Some may see this as an improvement, but I used to play a cleric and its nice to have that needed, defined role.
  
  
  Also, Wizards just came out with the Spell Compendium, which many of us bought as an excellent conglomeration of all previous spells. Thats all thrown out here too. Just seems like a money making venture that ruins the game.
  
  I hope that there are many who will enjoy this new seemingly more video-game oriented version, but I hope my group will stick to the more familiar and Tolkienesque 3.5
  
  
• a rpg engine built for people who dont play role playing games
  By A1NDICFAOA9KN4 on 2008-06-10
  There isnt much i can say that the other 1 star reviews havent said. As geeky as it sounds this latest edition in an other wise stellar series disregarded everything that made Dungeon and Dragons the definition of roleplaying fantasy.
  
  THEY DID NOT MAKE THE GAME SIMPLER, THEY AIMED IT AT 10 TO 12 YEAR OLDS.
  
  There is nothing wrong with constructing a game system to entice and introduce the endless hours of enjoyment rpgs bring to a new generation. Yet in 15 years dming ive never heard a pc say, "this game is too hard, it would be more fun if it was easier to understand".
  
  The art is great, the meat is grizzle. They have made every class virtually the same, everyone deals damage, some classes heal. Everything on the periphery was cut in exchange for a quicker grid-combat. Alignments were destroyed and replaced with five definitions that are nonsense.
  
  In the end 4th edition really saddened me, this book is a very, VERY poor product by a company i had come to rely on for excellence.
  
  
• AWESOME miniature/board game... NOT so awesome DND game..
  By A3QFB618LIEFF8 on 2008-06-14
  OK....... I really REALLY REALLY wanted to love this game. To be honest I've been a sucker for every incarnation of DnD that's come out. I liked all of em in their own way. I prebought this one and every 'pre-book' they've put out... We were all so eager for this new incarnation. It read so well. I can't believe this, but this game has actually managed to depress me!! I HAVE played it. Just spent three hours playing, in fact.
  
  When we finished the party reported that they had the distinct feeling that we had just played a board game version of WOW. Now we all LOVE WOW in our gaming group.. but that's NOT what we sat down to play around a table. We saw nothing 'quick' or 'streamlined' about the gaming experience. We moved pieces around a board adhereing to movement rules and 'squares' for this and that in a fashion that reminded me way too much of the old 'Heroes Quest', albeit a complicated version! Were the game mechanics good? Yes. Why did I give it a 'one star'? Because whilst the game is a good miniature warfare game it seemed to rob the flavor of DnD. The character creation was extrememly confined and the selections were limited. Gone was the ability to customize your character to the point that you actually felt like you had something unique. You will feel as if WOC is controlling the direction your character takes. The game DEMANDED a board and game pieces.. I've always felt that DnD's flavor relied on the 'minds eye', which is so much more colorful in my head than staring at plastic pieces on a piece of cardboard. I do realize that the 'original' DnD was just that, a wargame with a fantasy element. But I feel it evolved into so much more... I guess we've 'returned to our roots'... so why do I feel like we climbed back into the primordial ooze?!
  
  A great deal of the time the magic users felt like they were 'hitting the hot button key'. They had one or two actions that they relied on every round to cause the maximum amount of damage. No inovation or imagination. Everything was geared towards 'how does this directly effect combat'.
  
  The DM's guide isn't that bad. Reminds me a LOT of the first edition book. Information on how to be an effective dm, traps, dungeons, and artifacts. Not what 'thirders' would expect, but not bad.
  
  The Monster Manual is awful. A third of the pictures are just rehashed from all the previous Monster Manuals. The book is concerned with stats so you can play your miniature game effectively. Again.... great if your into miniature gaming. The ecology and culture information is virtually non-existant. Make all the arguments you want about this now being in the pervue of the DM.. the honest answer is that WOC is being lazy. You have a vast variety of stats to place against your carefully created stats, but very little flavor to guide you in roleplaying the encounters.
  
  I have read that the streamlined combat will enhance the rolplaying as you'll have more time available.... that was really exciting.. too bad this wasn't the case. Going to miniatures and a combat board, whilst carefully figuring out where your party and the encounter is, everytime combat arose was time consuming. You'll also notice that you'll have to change the map everytime, of course, which is also time consuming.
  
  If you LOVE miniature wargaming. If Warhammer is something you daydream about.... this is the game for you! As a miniature game experience is ranks a three or four...
  
  If you love games that take place in your head fired by limitless imagination then your probably going to be disappointed.
  
  I really feel like power gamers are going to LOVE this game and probably flame me for my remarks. The game is geared towards being 'godlike'. I'm not knocking this. If you love powergaming and twinking then this is DEFFINITLEY the game for you. To each his or her own. You should buy it immediately... and keep DnD fiscally sound enough to perhaps manage an inevitable rewrite that might restore my faith.
  
  Ironically I'll be keeping my set... I think it'll make a great board game for those rare nights when I just wanna run through dungeons killings things and working off frustrations. According to the DMG I don't even need a DM to do this..... Sound like any RPG you ever heard of????
  
  
• World of Warcraft Refit
  By A1EZ3CNJBY443E on 2008-06-23
  D&D has been around in one form or another for 31+ years, which is about as long as I've been playing. The advantage of D&D and the D20 game system in general is that everybody knows it. There's no huge learning curve needed to just start playing the game. Every previous edition of D&D has understood this basic strength.
  
  Fourth Edition, plain and simple, is not D&D, and is not the D20 system. It's an entirely new game. Wizards of the Coast has made a huge mistake with this. They're trying to attract video game players by turning D&D into a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. That tactic is simply not going to work. Current World of Warcraft players are not going to stop playing World of Warcraft to play this. Current D&D enthusiasts simply are not going to bother learning this new system, not when third party vendors are still supporting edition 3.5, and not while better RPG systems already exist (Note: This based on my discussions with customers from game stores in the fifth largest city in the US).
  
  Bottom line, fourth edition is going to go over for Wizards of the Coast the same way that "New Coke" went over for Coca Cola. My advice would be to save your money, and stick with an older edition of D&D. At its best, fourth edition is simply not an improvement over what has come before it. It's just something different.
  
  
• Way to dumb it down WOTC
  By AFLYDL25ZR1Y on 2008-06-15
  I have to admit, I was a hold out as far as upgrading to 3.0 when it came out. For nearly a year I clung to my old 2nd ed books (of which I'd invested a lot of time and money in) basically because I'd spent years getting the old system down and I wasn't going to start all over again. When I finally did try out the new system I had a strong grasp on it in a weekend and hardly had to refer to the books after about 4 months.
  When I heard 4th ed was coming I became leary all over again, but, because of my last "upgrade" experience I was willing to hold my judgment until I could see it for myself.
  Now that it is here and I have had a chance to peruse the books for myself I have one feeling about them. Utter disgust.
  This takes the legacy of D&D and spits on it's grave. 3.0 and 3.5 kept the heroic spirit of high adventure that AD&D had provided for years but gave us a formula that was streamlined and diverse yet simple and accessible. 4th ed seems to be less about playing heroes and more about playing super-heroes. It has become a video game with power-ups and remedial simplicity. I keep hearing that the design was to get the game back to its "roots" and bring "role play back". I'm sorry, but if you need a new set of rules to bring role play to your game then you should quit DMing because you're lousy at it. If a system like 3.5 is to complex for you then take up trading card games because they are about at the same level as this drivel.
  
  
• D&D for Dummies
  By ACYM0C7KL2MO3 on 2008-06-17
  This edition of Dungeons and Dragons has been "simplified" to where it's basically nothing more than a slightly expanded version of the D&D Miniatures game.
  
  The new rules are focused ONLY on running boardgame-style combat with miniature figures. After running three of four test sessions my players became VERY bored and insisted on going back and playing "real D&D."
  
  If you want to play this kind of tabletop miniatures combat, you'd be better of just getting the D&D miniatures game. Or the game "Heroscape."
  
  But if you REALLY want to play 4E, I suggest that you wait a month or two. The books will cost a lot less when they're on clearance.
  
  
• A Step Backwards
  By A1SK0PEHRA2D2W on 2008-06-06
  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.
  
  
• Not D&D
  By ACLJ052ISSF72 on 2008-06-11
  I have to agree with the other low score reviews here that this new edition of the game is not D&D. Having read through the rules, it appears that this edition might be an interesting tactical wargame, and it is certain to be very easy to adapt to future computer based game content, but it is definitely not the D&D that I grew up playing. I have played D&D since discovering Advanced D&D in 1980, and this edition bears almost no resemblance to what I have come to expect from the continued evolution and re-design of the game system. Many of the classes, races and monsters that have existed in the game since it's earliest days (gnomes, half-orcs, monks, druids, bards, illusionists, assassins, etc.) have not been included in the initial release of this edition and we are told that we will need to buy additional Player's Handbooks on average of one a year in order to gain access to them. This is completely ridiculous. I can certainly accept that all of the weird variants and prestige classes introduced in 3e will be in future products, but cutting out roughly a third of what should be core character classes is insane. Add to this the fact that they have completely neutered multiclassing (in a new installment of the old controversy: 1e and 2e multiclass = way too powerful, 3e multiclass = spellcasters screwed, 4e multiclass = we'll charge you all of your feats not to really be multiclassed) and narrowed the scope of choices for the character classes to the point of tunnel vision and I really can't understand the wealth of positive reviews for this edition. I suppose I understand that people enjoy playing a tactical fantasy wargame with miniatures, but that is what warhammer fantasy battle and clan war are for, not what D&D should be. I, for one, see myself sticking with the faction that is eagerly awaiting the release of Paizo's Pathfinder to expand on the versatility and customization that was introduced in 3e. RPG's should always be about giving the players more options for creating their stories, not less.
  
  
• What a disappointment
  By A16PTXK2GE5K08 on 2008-06-18
  After playing the game for decades now (e.g. AD&D circa 1980s), I can't adequately express my disappointment with the new edition rules. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!?! In many ways, it is unrecognizable from previous editions, and rather than a logical evolution (can you say ver 3.75?), it has devolved into something I can no longer associate with the game Gygax invented. I don't know if the game designers sought customer input as to whether this was something we wanted. I get the feeling this is another attempt to get D&D gamers to buy another set of rule books. I'm sorry guys, but you should have done your homework. I am returning my purchase, which should be eloquent enough.
  
  
• Dungeons & Dragons should NOT be World of Warcraft!
  By A1IVJTCKB2RZVO on 2008-06-11
  I was wary, though excited to see the new 4th edition of D&D. Having played since 2nd edition, I knew there would be changes, but I was hoping I would like them as I did when 3rd came out. Sure, when 3rd edition came out, I pissed and moaned, but within hours, I realized the system was much, much better.
  
  That is not the case with 4th edition.
  
  To begin with, the mere sight of the books is a real turn off. The art work is as simplistic as the rules themselves. The covers look like old, traced covers from Dragon magazine than something you will look at for long periods of time while playing. And the art within the book is worse. It's as if they graphically designed the books for children, ages 8-11.
  
  The art is a minor complaint to be sure. The real complaint is that the entire game system is nothing more than a third derivative of the World of Warcraft. And for those calculus people out there, Wow = 2x(squared), so D&D 4th = 0. The 'powers' each character class uses are the exact same thing as dragging the graphical representation of a power in WoW down into your tab menu. Rangers now have to mouse click "Nimble attack", or mouse click a healing potion, er, I mean use your new healing surge to heal yourself when the going gets tough.
  
  To continue the WoW references, 4th edition made me want to /wrists.
  
  The skill system is beyond simplistic. +5, or take a feat. /vomit.
  
  And the layout of the book is counterintuitive. Why start explaining a character's powers by using formulas like "1[W] + strength modifier" when it takes about 200+ pages to find out what the hell [W] stands for? Furthermore, how in god's name am I suppose to find specifics about a spell, say "Wall of Fire", without having to leaf through the entire book hoping and praying my eye catches the words Wall, and fire in conjunction? At least 3rd edition had the spells alphabetically listed so you could reference them without leafing through your book like a coked up baccarat player at 5am in Vegas.
  
  All in all, WOTC is trying to horn in on WoW's 10 million subscribers and inject new blood into the realm of Dungeons & Dragons. Injecting new blood is good. very good. But not at the cost of changing th egame to function just like the video game.
  
  If I want to play World of Warcraft, I will play WoW (as I have since it started). But when I want to play D&D, dammit, i want pencils and paper--maybe some miniatures, though 4th acts as if they are a necessity--not a bunch of simplified characters that have powers to right click, er, use.
  
  The one good thing about 4e? The rituals. Nice addition.
  
  Last gripe... why is it that the 3rd edition core books have about 20%-30% more material to them? I mean the Dungeonmaster's Guide alone had magic items coming out its ears. All this one has are a handful of items that take up slots (WoW sigh) with names that explain their simple uses.
  
  My plans for the 4th edition books I've bought are as follows:
  Step 1---tear out all pages
  Step 2--rub each individual page together to get it soft--very important
  Step 3--Use soft torn page to clean bits and pieces of yesterday's lunch from my backside and flush down the toilet.
  
  
• This is not Dungeons and Dragons
  By A1W8OY1CH31XDP on 2008-06-10
  I'm used to some people complaining when a new edition of the rules comes out. Some people just resist change.
  
  I assure you, my bad review is not a result of it being different. It's a result of it being bad. This game does not remotely resemble D&D, which I have been playing for 28 years. It doesn't even look like it was created by people who have ever played the game.
  
  The entire focus of the new system appears to be utter hack and slash. It's as if WoW were made into a tabletop game - except that you have more interesting character options in WoW.
  
  The major character customization options appear to be based on whether you use fire, cold, thunder, or some other element to massacre your nameless foes, or merely hack them to death.
  
  If I wanted this, I would play a mindless video game. This new system is all about roll-playing, rather than role-playing. It's mindless, difficult to read, and a huge creativity stifler.
  
  Have I mentioned that it's nearly impossible to play without miniatures/tokens and a map grid? Now I have.
  
  How many companies manage to lose a loyal customer of nearly 30 years? Dunno. But then, I've been a customer of the product, not the company.
  
  If you like D&D, play Pathfinder, by paizo. If you like mindless hack and stab, maybe you'd like this.
  
  
• Interesting, but surely not D&D
  By A2A1789FX1TN0W on 2008-06-17
  4th Edition is truly a revolution. Many bad and moth-eaten concepts are thrown away, game balance is corrected (at last!), and all characters have interesting choices in each round of battle.
  
  Superb? Yes and no. First of all, the classes are VERY MUCH ALIKE. You could confuse a ranger with a rogue... and possibly even with a cleric. Huge difference between classes is gone: ALL of them deal almost equal damage, all shift enemies on the combat grid and heal themselves... The Fireball spell deals 3d6 hp damage - oops! Just like fighter's exploits of the same level...
  
  Then, almost all adventuring options (skills, spells, abilities) are gone. No one now can tame wild fauna: druids are gone too (with bards, barbarians, sorcerers and monks - they "will come in next volumes"), and rangers are now only damage dealers, with no wilderness powers. Almost all noncombat features was dropped. This is really disappointing...
  
  Yes, 4th Edition has 2 new classes (and not bad ones!), new cosmology (better than old one, in my opinion) and good bestiary. But it is not D&D and it is TOO combat-centered. If it will not be change soon, I'll never abandon 3.5 for this ruleset.
  
  
• Review from a casual gamer
  By AUYEH81FJOY26 on 2008-06-11
  I am not a hardcore DnD gamer. In fact, I might as well be seen as a newbie since I've only dabbled in 3.5. Still, new players are who WotC are marketing to, so I figured I might as well give my input.
  
  I was introduced to 3.5 by a friend in high school. I read through the player's handbook and was impressed by the game concept. I particularly liked the class descriptions, Paladin and Sorcerer being my favorite to roleplay. When I caught wind that a 4th edition was being made, I decided to see what had changed. I cannot say I'm impressed.
  
  The problem is that it focuses too much on combat. I know you roleplayers have heard this argument before, but put youself in my shoes and the shoes of those who WotC are trying to appeal to: if we want to combat monsters with friends, we'd just play WoW. Why bother with complicated character sheets when a computer can streamline it all?
  
  Of course, the appeal of DnD is not the combat but the roleplaying; that's the way I've always seen it, but there's very little material in the PHB that doesn't relate to combat. Instead of "spells" for example (in 3.5 there were many spells which could be used outside of combat) there are "powers" and "rituals". I rather enjoyed the large list of spells from which your wizard could choose from in 3.5, but in this edition it's like "Once you reach level X you get this power" which really doesn't allow you to build your own character.
  
  I suppose my biggest beef is the classes. In 3.5 there were 11 classes you can play; they took out 5 of those and put in two new ones. The ones they took out were the Bard, Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer and Druid, all of which were very interesting to roleplay. Although there are technically 8 classes now, from a roleplaying perspective there are only 4. Let me explain: the Warlock is someone who uses magic, like a Wizard. The Warlord is a battle-hardy warrior, like the fighter. The Paladin, rather than a crusader for good, can now be either good or evil and has to serve a diety, just like a Cleric. The last group would be Rogue and Ranger the two "Strikers." It seems to me they just took the core four and doubled them; what happened to originality in classes?
  
  I'm sure that the Warlord and Fighter are statistically different and function different in combat, but let me again emphasize that if I cared so much about combat then I'd play WoW. I'm also sure that there will be a second PHB that lets you play the lost classes, but I am a casual gamer. I don't expect to spend hundreds of dollars buying tons of books in order to have fun.
  
  Furthermore, this book is not user-friendly. There is no glossary and only a one page index.
  
  Though this review is mostly negative, they have simplified some things. Instead of 9 there are now 5 alignments, and they got rid of confusing combat rules like grapple. Instead of rolling for your stats, you now can use a point system. Critical hits simply score maximum damage instead of giving you and extra roll. Combat rules still take some effort to learn, however. I sort of wish I could borrow some elements from 4e and put them into 3.5, but I don't think this game works very well on its own.
  
  
• falls short of expectations
  By A3OVJVVEKHBOSV on 2008-06-07
  First let me say that i'm not as experienced as some of the others here; i started playing D&D with the third edition and my group moved to 3.5 shortly after. After a year-long forgotten realms campaign using the 3.5 edition, the main complaint with a lot of my group was that the character creation rules were cumbersome and high level play was incredibly unbalanced. We switched over to the Star Wars Saga Edition as soon as it was released, which was touted as carrying many of the changes we would see in 4th edition. A streamlined skill system, balanced play at all levels, and character options that made your character feel truly unique. The game was simplified a lot from the old Revised Core Rulebook version, but the simple mechanics allowed GMs and players to put a stronger emphasis on role playing and storyline development.
  
  So needless to say, my entire group was excited for 4th edition. The introduction of talent trees in SWSE seemed like it would work incredibly in D&D (just think: a diviner class with both cleric and druid talent options). However i tend to agree with many of the complaints here. Bear in mind i've only had the book in my possession for around eight hours, but from what i've read characters seem terribly limited. They've eliminated the druid, monk, and bard classes entirely in favor of the questionable warlock and warlord classes. They've removed prestige classes for "Paragon Paths" which feel limiting and cheap.
  
  And worst of all, it seems as they've greatly complicated the games rules in an effort to move D&D away from tabletop gaming and to entice players to the new, pay-to-play D&D Insider. Honestly, there are so many character abilities that function "at-will" "per encounter" and "per day" that i don't see how it's even possibly to keep track of it unless you're playing on a program.
  
  In conclusion, the game seems like an effort to take tabletop gaming closer to MMO gameplay. Two steps back from what we saw in Saga Edition.
  
  
• All Flash, No substance
  By A2CFH7ZEE1AMRO on 2008-06-06
  I was open to this new edition. But after reading it, I can say that it is not for me! All flash and no substance. I love the design of the book and the artworks, but beyond that, it is not D&D. It's a wargame! But I'm sure that it will sell well and grab some youngers crowd that like POWERS!4th edition is all about POWER. PCs are bassically gods!!!
  
  
• Horrible, Horrible, Horrible.
  By A3F9ML45MMNV3O on 2008-06-14
  A majority of what I love about D&D has been removed from this version. The flavour, the depth & the adaptability has been jettisoned in favour or more 'streamlined' gameplay.
  It plays more like 'Descent' than any rpg I've played. I mean, a dozen or so pages of cleric spells up to 30th! Character options are extremely limited and everything about it screams 'extra material required'.
  
  I loved the freedom of multiclassing in 3.5. I know there's discussions about how this was abused to build power-houses but I've never experienced that in any of my groups because it's been about the roleplaying oppotunities first. Multiclassing has now been changed to 'dipping' using feats to buy certian abilities from other classes which i find extremely limiting.
  
  But I think the two things that i find most hurrendous about this system is the healing surges and that PCs heal back to full health in the morning. I know that it's a fantasy world but grounding it in some sort of reality makes it more belivable. I simply can't see how everyone can now heal themselves at a whim and how near mortal wounds can suddenly dissapear overnight.
  
  People who don't like the complexity of 3rd ed i'm sure will love this game. This is a good introduction to new players who've never roleplayed before but for the depth and the adaptability, I'll be sticking with 3.5.
  
  
  
• Just wanted to put my two cents in...
  By A25PUJT222V0YK on 2008-06-16
  4.0 is a game that does have dragons in it and does involve dungeons. After that all similarities to Dungeons & Dragons ends. Having been a player since 1979 I refuse to accept this as the game I fell in love with so long ago. It is like waking up in bed next to a stranger. If I wanted to purchase a video game with a huge manual I would have. And yes I understand that is part of where WOTC is planning on going with the this system, but it is not what I as a traditional player want. I enjoy being at a table with my friends across from me, using some creativity and intelligence in developing my characters. Cookie cutter characters and communicating with friends via a head set is not for me. My only wish is that WOTC and other game companies continue the support the old formats. Profit not love of the game is what drives these companies and hopefully they realize that there is a large enough market for social players to continue making new products for us. Putting another label on this 4.0 system other than D&D would make it more tolerable to players who know what mud dice are. How about Castles and Computer chips?
  
  
• Good game, but it's not D&D.
  By AC6LV5D2RKTIR on 2008-06-27
  People call 4th Edition many things- a World of Warcraft ripoff, a simplification of 3rd edition, a moneygrab by Wizards of the Coast considering D&D 3.5 was released not so long ago... but the one thing that most people are calling this is "different".
  
  For long-time fans, here's a list of some basic things you'll need to come to terms with to start playing basic 4th edition: You have to roll to hit with Magic Missile (yes it can miss now); There is no Bard, Monk, or Druid (though these are promised in PHBII- see the moneygrab comment); No classes get any ability minuses anymore, only pluses (Elves have average Constitution, Halflings have average Strength); Wizards and all classes for that matter in fact now have at-will powers they can use without depleting their spells or powers per day.
  
  Long-time D&D fans instantly scoff at a few of the above points (rolling for Magic Missile just seems intuitively wrong), but hey- it's a new edition. Every new edition means new mechanics, so let's go along with it- until you lean just how changed the mechanics are.
  
  All of the rules, all of the combat, and all of the encounter information is all provided in terms of a square combat grid. Essentially, Wizards is shortchanging free-form players and pushing combat requiring miniatures. It's entirely possible to play a game without using a grid and miniatures, but you'll probably wind up doing more on-the-fly conversions than ever to make it happen. Many players are already using miniatures anyway, so this might seem great for them, but even then the flavor makes it seem more like you're playing a generic strategy game instead of D&D. Change the flavor text a bit and the rules could easily read "This power lets you move your tank two spaces to the left regardless of physical barriers" or "The Knight piece can only travel in the four cardinal directions". There's just no more real-world feel like "Fireball can travel up to 100 feet before exploding and damaging a 25-foot radius".
  
  All of the characters have tons of at-will, per-encounter, and expendable refreshers that add up to players having more varied options than ever before in combat, especially at first level. This seems exciting, but anyone who's ever seen an MMO (like World of Warcraft) will quickly see exactly what this adds up to- combat is rarely going to be about just rolling a d20 and waiting for an attack to come out, and it's going to be more than ever about choosing from a list of fairly pre-fab powers to attack the enemy with. Even if you're just a "simple" Fighter, you still have access to a list of powers at first level that make a plain attack pretty useless. In the end, this does make for more involving combat, but the combat that comes out is tremendously different from previous editions (and again, tremendously more like a lot of MMOs out there).
  
  The final shift I'll mention here is the shift away from "utility" powers and entirely toward combat powers, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but that's again very MMO-like. Every class has a ton of new powers, but read between the lines and you'll see virtually all the powers involve damaging enemies. Wizards can't, for example, use a spell to create a rope when the party needs one. Nor can they use a spell to help their Rogue woo over a crowd when he gives a speech at a banquet (technically you can write powers called Rituals for this, but the basic spell list doesn't have this flexibility). Most of what they can do is apply Force damage, Elemental damage, or more Force damage. If you were to divide Wizard powers into direct attack spells and everything else, you'd find nearly all their powers are the exact same thing: "Deal X (choose type) damage to target". This same trend applies to every class in different ways.
  
  So in the end, I'm left with a conundrum. I want to play D&D because I love the game that D&D has always been, even though the game has had some glaring flaws in every release. This edition has done a lot to address the flaws of previous releases, but in the process it creates something that just doesn't feel very much like D&D. Maybe the game that's in here is a really good one, but I'd feel a lot better if the cover said "d20 Fantasy Game" instead of masquerading around as a new edition of D&D. My suggestion is to look up some of the free sites out there that have produced try-before-you-buy quickstart intros to 4th edition, or find a friend who's bought it and see it firsthand. I can't recommend outright jumping into this edition to anyone.
  
  
• How many editions of a game do you need?
  By A29UPQ6DZ4FQJK on 2008-06-09
  I will let the reader of this simply look to all other reviews here and make up their own mind. I have bought the Players Handbook (used already) and did not bother with the other books.
  
  Simply said, this is a fine way to introduce new players to the game but its not the D&D that most older folks grew up playing.
  
  There are some interesting rules added in and removed when compared to 3.5 but in my opinion there was never really anything wrong with playing the original game or the more complex 3.0.
  
  Each decade will bring a new edition. Unlike some things, older versions of a game don't bother me as its all supposed to be roleplaying. Who cares how you determine chance?
  
  
• Worst Edition of the Game To Date
  By ALESTXKG8P576 on 2008-06-12
  If you're a longtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons, this isn't the game for you.
  
  Much of the game's rich history and iconic elements have been sacrificed in an effort to simplify the game to attract new gamers. The game is far less flexible than 3rd Edition. Character classes are loaded with gonzo powers and forced into tighter niches than ever before. Multiclassing is nearly non-existant. Classic races that have been with the game from the beginning have been jettisoned to make room for bland, flavorless new ones like the dragonborn.
  
  If you're a fan of the past editions of the game, save your money and wait until next year for Paizo's Pathfinder RPG, which looks more like the heir apparent to the D&D throne.
  
  
• Straight up a Warcraft rip-off - DO NOT Buy
  By AODBC9L7XC0D on 2008-06-26
  I know a lot of other reviews have mentioned that the ink on this product is second rate so I decided to test the theory on mine that I just bought. So I willingly take a glass of water and spilled a little bit on a page in the PHB with colored art. I waited about 30 sec or so(the time it would take to grab a paper towel if we were all gaming) and cleaned up. Guess what? It looked like a paint by numbers water painting by a 1 yr old. SHODDY CRAFTMANSHIP. The ink looked like a big smudge of runny colored water. I tried the SAME thing with my 3.0 book - and it cleaned up with no problems, smudges whatsoever. Wizards is selling a sub-par item - don't let them rip you off too. Or at least tell your players not to have any drinks at all around the book (yeah, right)
  Now on to the actual gaming aspect:
  I enjoy WOW. I play WOW a lot. I will NOT stop playing it to play this garbage. Wizards is desperate to get new players to buy their products. The role-playing industry (like it or not) has been changed for good and bad by the MMORPG's. Hard covers are being replaced by hard drive space. However, the days of getting the gang togther are harder and harder to imagine and schedules are more hectic than ever - but if I log in to play WOW - all of my friends are there. Make sense?
  Not to Wizards.
  You cannot play this game and say it really is a great version of D&d - it's not. In fact as others have said it feels like a whole new game - something totally different. The classes all feel very similar - it's like creativity has been stifled and combat is now all that matters. The races seem like an attempt by Wizards to appeal to goths (tiefling), chic gamers (eladrin) young power gamers and fanboys (dragonborn) and all the old school gamers (everything else).
  The game is similar to Savage Worlds in that you HAVE to have a battle map. We used dice because we didn't want to buy miniatures. It was kind of funny, I played my human mage as a d12. Combat is all about squares on the mat and how you can position your minis and manipulate the enemy. It reminded me of warhammer. Does this sound like D&D to you? No? Me neither.
  It just felt like I was being forced to play a sad, pathetic version of Warcraft on a table top. NOTE TO WIZARDS OF THE COAST: YOU CANNOT COPY THE MAGIC OF WARCRAFT THIS WAY.
  WOW is what it is. Funny that Blizzard Entertainment (makers of WOW)said they were inspired by D&D when they made the game - now things are the opposite.
  
  

• Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition
• Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition
• Keep on the Shadowfell (Dungeons & Dragons, Adventure H1)
• Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set, 4th Edition
• Adventurer's Vault: A 4th Edition D&D Supplement