I can't read 4e books like I could 3e books. You?

I think these are the best rule books for use in game, by far. And, I've owned most every rulebook back to the very first books printed.

The PHB is the most useful PHB yet, in terms of finding things and understanding the rules. Very easy (mostly).

The MM is the most boring MM yet. If you had never played D&D before, I have no idea how you'd make one humanoid different from another using this book. For in game use and reference, it is great. But, terrible, terrible at inspiring and fluff.

The DMG is the most useful DMG yet. I've already read and used it more than I ever read and used the 3.x versions. This is a very, very well written book.

All in all, these books will see a lot more actual use from me than previous editions. However, they do not read all that well, and I'm not a fan of the lack of fluff in the MM. How can a monster ever become a classic if all we have is a picture and the crunch? The various monsters that became classics over the years did so largely due to the fluff that was built up around them. Most (not all) of that fluff started in the MMs (though some certainly started in various adventures also).

Selling the fluff in additional books - not a fan. For new DMs that might be a good idea, but for anyone like me that owns hundreds of RP books (anyone want to buy some old books), I'm not likely to buy those.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They may as well have printed the 4e DMG, PH, and MM on collectible trading cards, because that's how the rules read to me. I bought the books the day of their release, perused their contents, then stuck them under my desk while I got back to gaming.
 

I've noticed that 4e books read worse than 3e, but play better. Since it is a game, at heart, I'm willing to accept this. (Besides, both of them both read and play better than most of the 2e stuff I have, MM excluded.)
 

Remove ads

Top