Orcus Previews the 4e Core Rulebooks

[Dave Turner]

As I said elsewhere, Peterson seems very easily startled. Switch to decaf, man!

 

[Crothian]

This review is startling. Startlingly one-sided.

It's not a review. At most is a few bullet points and opinion.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It's not a review. At most is a few bullet points and opinion.

Might want to tell Orcus that... His first sentence in the post is My review of the books.

 

[Vempyre]

Trust ppl on forums to nitpick at everything

 

[DanChops]

This review is startling. Startlingly one-sided.
So apart from the bard and druid being AWOL for now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 4e.
Just as there was absolutely nothing wrong with 3.0 and later 3.5.
Sorry, I'm not buying it (literally and figuratively). There is no way that marking (for example) can be considered an improvement over the previous edition. Simpler monster creation and seriously beefing up lvl 1 characters on the other hand are a big step forward (or backward in the case of the monsters - but still in the right direction).
4 e is going to have some really good new stuff, some average stuff and some really bad stuff, and it's going to take several months before the dust settles and gamers will find out what is what.
And any review worth its salt (rather than an advertisement in disguise) will keep that in mind.

Don't forget that this isn't a review of the game. It's not a review of the mechanics. Rather, it's a review of the books as a product. He's focusing on things like layout, presentation, and content. Viewed from that angle, I think it's a remarkably balanced review. He talks about what he likes (the revamped layout of the PHB,) what he doesn't like (the lack of some tradition options for classes and monsters,) and he points out the things that are bound to be controversial, even if he likes them (emphasizing the changes, such as the Dragonborn, with the layout and art.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This review is startling. Startlingly one-sided.
So apart from the bard and druid being AWOL for now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 4e.
Just as there was absolutely nothing wrong with 3.0 and later 3.5.
Sorry, I'm not buying it (literally and figuratively). There is no way that marking (for example) can be considered an improvement over the previous edition. Simpler monster creation and seriously beefing up lvl 1 characters on the other hand are a big step forward (or backward in the case of the monsters - but still in the right direction).
4 e is going to have some really good new stuff, some average stuff and some really bad stuff, and it's going to take several months before the dust settles and gamers will find out what is what.
And any review worth its salt (rather than an advertisement in disguise) will keep that in mind.

Why does every review have to be "balanced"? Maybe 4E just is not balanced, and it has more good then it has bad? At least from Orcus' point of view?

Not that he says there isn't nothing wrong with it. He misses a few classes, and he dislikes some of the monster selection.

I wouldn't have been able to predict the problems of 3E after I got the book and read it the first time. Okay, I probably knew for certain that the Monk (3.0) and Mystic Theurge are horribly broken, but, well, we all know how this "certainity" turned out.

 

[stonegod]

I wouldn't have been able to predict the problems of 3E after I got the book and read it the first time. Okay, I probably knew for certain that the Monk (3.0) and Mystic Theurge are horribly broken, but, well, we all know how this "certainity" turned out.

Yup, they turned up broken the other way.

 

[Mort_Q]

As said, it's a review of the books as a product.

Can't really review the game without it being full of spoilers and/or violating his NDA... yet.

Sounds good to me though.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Reviews do not have to be balanced.

 

[Cirex]

I think the review was startling.