This is a "naysayer's" honest and open-minded "review" of 4E, based on my first impressions after reading the books at a friend's place (he's one of those "fortunate ones" to get the books ahead of the release date).
First of all, in my opinion the best thing about 4E, in my opinion, is the art -- it is more evocative and beautiful and thematically "appropriate" than most of the 3E art. However, I am definitely way more disapponted about 4E than I thought I would be, since some of the stuff I've seen lately has actually felt positive and somewhat affected to my negative opinions about 4E.
Alright, I'll try to break it down into a (hopefully) coherent and consistent review:
The skill system is better and more consistent than in 3E, although I missed those "background" skills (i.e. Craft, Profession, hobbies) and I don't think I saw any reference to them in PHB? I may be wrong, though. I know they are dealt with in DMG, but I thought it would have been appropriate to have them in PHB, too, since the system might be relevant to most PCs -- at least in my group. The skill challenge system rocks, but it seems a lot more work to design a Skill Challenge properly. This will probably become easier as you "get" the system better and better with time, but I wouldn't include any Skill Challenges in my first adventures.
Most of the PHB consisted of powers and feats. What was very disappointing was the lack of options at each level -- I mean, if you're going to design a game that focuses on "combat crunch", I think you should give much more options at every level. Why not have less "power levels" but more powers at each level? Especially when it is pretty evident that they've used an elaborate system (e.g. those "keywords" they've tagged each power with) to analyze and build the powers. Having said that, it would have probably pretty easy to design a bunch of them. On the other hand, I suspect that the *Real* goal is to give a "preview" of things to come, and make everyone yearn for more powers which are released in the upcoming "Power Books" and PHBs. I can now understand why they "simplified" the crit system -- since most of the powers inflict as much (or even more) damage than 3E crits, the "math" would be brain-wracking to do on the spot. Which makes me wonder about the designers' promise to "streamline the damage system from 3E". How? You still roll, say, 3D10+12 or even 7D10+24 most of the time you hit, so I just can't see any streamlining. If anything, you now have to do 3E "Crit Math" with every power -- not to mention those marks, triggered effects (both to allies and enemies) and sliding/pushing. I liked, however, that you can only pick certain powers for certain weapons and different abilities have an effect on them, which makes a greatsword-wielder different from a hammer-wielder or a spear-wielder.
What was really weird was that you get less and less options as you progress through the Tier, until finally you practically have to choose between two Epic Destinies and a handful of Epic Feats. I would strongly disagree that the designers managed to make the game "equally fun" at all the levels -- to me it seems that just like in 3E, most "fun" and options are available only during the first 10 levels.
Even the Feats were divided by Tier, and my impression was that every race had a miserable number to pick their Racial Feats from. Where is the huge number of Feats the designers promised? Granted, there are more than in the 3E Core Books, but access to them is more restricted than in 3E. Anyway, that was my first impression. Again, I think this is due to giving everyone a "thirst for more" (i.e. to buy the supplements released later).
I have to mention Rituals separately here... they are *great* and work better than in any other edition. I just thought: "Why couldn't they think of all this years ago?". However, I strongly disliked that *everyone* can try them -- I would have preferred to keep for "spellcasting" classes only, but this is actually easy to house-rule, if it bothers you.
Monsters... I was very frustrated with the MM, as I think running monsters have become more complicated for "less-tactically inclined" DMs like me. With most of the monsters, you have to track/remember a dozen powers/effects/marks -- add the "hazards" and obstacles/terrain rules to that, and you'll be in dire straits, unless your mind works like a computer. Anyway, that's how I feel. In addition to all the added mechanical complexity, some of the monster "types" (and their powers) seemed just... odd? Weird? Too "exception-based" and unique? Maybe I'm perceiving the whole game from a different perspective, but like I've posted on a number of threads, I just can't wrap my mind around the system. I liked that DMG offers "quick" templates for statting NPCs as "PC-ish" and also some monster templates, but I would have wanted a *CONCRETE*, step-by-step example of how you start from a unique concept and progress to design your own monsters. Or how you modify an existing stat block to fit your concept. Maybe I just didn't notice that part? I *think* there was something about "look up a creature of an appropriate level and model the abilities from there", but that's not what I mean. I'm a veteran DM, and I shudder at the thought of novice DMs trying to digest this system. The trap system is far more complicated than in 3E, and there was no actual rules for designing them yourself -- unless I missed it, too?
Then the DMG... I've heard very positive comments about it -- someone even claimed that it's the "best RPG book for DMs out there", but frankly, I can't understand why it is so "stellar" in quality. Pretty much useless and more than obvious remarks about how to run a campaign. I've seen better adventure/campaign design instructions on the Internet than in this book. In any case I didn't see anything better written than the stuff in 3.5 DMG 2. Fallcrest is a nice little town, but I think it is vastly inferior in writing, content and ideas to Saltmarsh in DMG 2. In fact, most DMs I know would come up with the same amount of ideas and 'fluff' (probably with better and more evocative *names*, at least) than in the whole 'Nentir' chapter in about an hour or two. The way it's written and those ideas and names are just too... basic and unevocative. It feels like someone truly wrote in a couple of hours, and it was deemed "good enough for DMG". Not to mention that there are no building maps at all, which, at least, DMG 2 had. Along the same lines, the 'Kobold Hall' module was probably the worst module I've seen in a while, and the maps were just horrendous. Is this the new "rule of nature" in 4E -- every room *must* consist of square forms and lines? No "natural" forms or "oddly" shaped or even circular chambers anywhere? I hope not. But the thing is... why not include a better module with decent maps, if you're going to include one if the core books? To me this was a waste of pages. IMO the Fallcrest town map was the only good thing in this chapter.
As I already mentioned, my overall impression was that I'm definitely disappointed at 4E. Although it handles some game mechanics better and/or in more "streamlined" fashion than 3E, combats and hazards/objects/traps seem to be much, much more complex than in 3E. Not to mention running and creating monsters or NPCs. I wouldn't want to DM 4E (it just feels too damn intimidating, and this is my honest opinion), but I might try it as a player *when* all the "Power Books" and PHB 2 are available. Then the game may have enough options for powers and feats for my taste.
Magic items function, probably, a bit better with daily/encounter powers imbued in them, and make them more "dynamic" than in 3E. Yet I *hated* those armor names... I mean, 'Godplate'? 'Elderhide'? Smack too much of Diablo or WoW to my taste.
Summa summarum: I think more "action-minded" gamers feel right at home with this system -- especially if you overlook some of the slight inconsistencies in the game. I wouldn't recommend it to 'simulationists' or gamers who look for "realism" (yes, even in a fantasy world) in the setting or the mechanics. I think story-oriented and imaginative DMs who really "get" the new monster/NPC/hazard level-based design system *and* are good organizers and/or have a good memory for details, might get the most of out of 4E. Definitely I wouldn't recommend the system for novice DMs, because there's so much to digest here -- even for a veteran of all the editions.
First of all, in my opinion the best thing about 4E, in my opinion, is the art -- it is more evocative and beautiful and thematically "appropriate" than most of the 3E art. However, I am definitely way more disapponted about 4E than I thought I would be, since some of the stuff I've seen lately has actually felt positive and somewhat affected to my negative opinions about 4E.
Alright, I'll try to break it down into a (hopefully) coherent and consistent review:
The skill system is better and more consistent than in 3E, although I missed those "background" skills (i.e. Craft, Profession, hobbies) and I don't think I saw any reference to them in PHB? I may be wrong, though. I know they are dealt with in DMG, but I thought it would have been appropriate to have them in PHB, too, since the system might be relevant to most PCs -- at least in my group. The skill challenge system rocks, but it seems a lot more work to design a Skill Challenge properly. This will probably become easier as you "get" the system better and better with time, but I wouldn't include any Skill Challenges in my first adventures.
Most of the PHB consisted of powers and feats. What was very disappointing was the lack of options at each level -- I mean, if you're going to design a game that focuses on "combat crunch", I think you should give much more options at every level. Why not have less "power levels" but more powers at each level? Especially when it is pretty evident that they've used an elaborate system (e.g. those "keywords" they've tagged each power with) to analyze and build the powers. Having said that, it would have probably pretty easy to design a bunch of them. On the other hand, I suspect that the *Real* goal is to give a "preview" of things to come, and make everyone yearn for more powers which are released in the upcoming "Power Books" and PHBs. I can now understand why they "simplified" the crit system -- since most of the powers inflict as much (or even more) damage than 3E crits, the "math" would be brain-wracking to do on the spot. Which makes me wonder about the designers' promise to "streamline the damage system from 3E". How? You still roll, say, 3D10+12 or even 7D10+24 most of the time you hit, so I just can't see any streamlining. If anything, you now have to do 3E "Crit Math" with every power -- not to mention those marks, triggered effects (both to allies and enemies) and sliding/pushing. I liked, however, that you can only pick certain powers for certain weapons and different abilities have an effect on them, which makes a greatsword-wielder different from a hammer-wielder or a spear-wielder.
What was really weird was that you get less and less options as you progress through the Tier, until finally you practically have to choose between two Epic Destinies and a handful of Epic Feats. I would strongly disagree that the designers managed to make the game "equally fun" at all the levels -- to me it seems that just like in 3E, most "fun" and options are available only during the first 10 levels.
Even the Feats were divided by Tier, and my impression was that every race had a miserable number to pick their Racial Feats from. Where is the huge number of Feats the designers promised? Granted, there are more than in the 3E Core Books, but access to them is more restricted than in 3E. Anyway, that was my first impression. Again, I think this is due to giving everyone a "thirst for more" (i.e. to buy the supplements released later).
I have to mention Rituals separately here... they are *great* and work better than in any other edition. I just thought: "Why couldn't they think of all this years ago?". However, I strongly disliked that *everyone* can try them -- I would have preferred to keep for "spellcasting" classes only, but this is actually easy to house-rule, if it bothers you.
Monsters... I was very frustrated with the MM, as I think running monsters have become more complicated for "less-tactically inclined" DMs like me. With most of the monsters, you have to track/remember a dozen powers/effects/marks -- add the "hazards" and obstacles/terrain rules to that, and you'll be in dire straits, unless your mind works like a computer. Anyway, that's how I feel. In addition to all the added mechanical complexity, some of the monster "types" (and their powers) seemed just... odd? Weird? Too "exception-based" and unique? Maybe I'm perceiving the whole game from a different perspective, but like I've posted on a number of threads, I just can't wrap my mind around the system. I liked that DMG offers "quick" templates for statting NPCs as "PC-ish" and also some monster templates, but I would have wanted a *CONCRETE*, step-by-step example of how you start from a unique concept and progress to design your own monsters. Or how you modify an existing stat block to fit your concept. Maybe I just didn't notice that part? I *think* there was something about "look up a creature of an appropriate level and model the abilities from there", but that's not what I mean. I'm a veteran DM, and I shudder at the thought of novice DMs trying to digest this system. The trap system is far more complicated than in 3E, and there was no actual rules for designing them yourself -- unless I missed it, too?
Then the DMG... I've heard very positive comments about it -- someone even claimed that it's the "best RPG book for DMs out there", but frankly, I can't understand why it is so "stellar" in quality. Pretty much useless and more than obvious remarks about how to run a campaign. I've seen better adventure/campaign design instructions on the Internet than in this book. In any case I didn't see anything better written than the stuff in 3.5 DMG 2. Fallcrest is a nice little town, but I think it is vastly inferior in writing, content and ideas to Saltmarsh in DMG 2. In fact, most DMs I know would come up with the same amount of ideas and 'fluff' (probably with better and more evocative *names*, at least) than in the whole 'Nentir' chapter in about an hour or two. The way it's written and those ideas and names are just too... basic and unevocative. It feels like someone truly wrote in a couple of hours, and it was deemed "good enough for DMG". Not to mention that there are no building maps at all, which, at least, DMG 2 had. Along the same lines, the 'Kobold Hall' module was probably the worst module I've seen in a while, and the maps were just horrendous. Is this the new "rule of nature" in 4E -- every room *must* consist of square forms and lines? No "natural" forms or "oddly" shaped or even circular chambers anywhere? I hope not. But the thing is... why not include a better module with decent maps, if you're going to include one if the core books? To me this was a waste of pages. IMO the Fallcrest town map was the only good thing in this chapter.
As I already mentioned, my overall impression was that I'm definitely disappointed at 4E. Although it handles some game mechanics better and/or in more "streamlined" fashion than 3E, combats and hazards/objects/traps seem to be much, much more complex than in 3E. Not to mention running and creating monsters or NPCs. I wouldn't want to DM 4E (it just feels too damn intimidating, and this is my honest opinion), but I might try it as a player *when* all the "Power Books" and PHB 2 are available. Then the game may have enough options for powers and feats for my taste.
Magic items function, probably, a bit better with daily/encounter powers imbued in them, and make them more "dynamic" than in 3E. Yet I *hated* those armor names... I mean, 'Godplate'? 'Elderhide'? Smack too much of Diablo or WoW to my taste.
Summa summarum: I think more "action-minded" gamers feel right at home with this system -- especially if you overlook some of the slight inconsistencies in the game. I wouldn't recommend it to 'simulationists' or gamers who look for "realism" (yes, even in a fantasy world) in the setting or the mechanics. I think story-oriented and imaginative DMs who really "get" the new monster/NPC/hazard level-based design system *and* are good organizers and/or have a good memory for details, might get the most of out of 4E. Definitely I wouldn't recommend the system for novice DMs, because there's so much to digest here -- even for a veteran of all the editions.
