Orcus Previews the 4e Core Rulebooks

[Treebore]

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

Then there are a lot of reviews on ENWorld that need to be taken down. He at least PLAYED the module.

Anyways, for me 4E may be a great game, but it isn't the D&D I want anymore. This is a different game now. So you all have fun with 4E, I'll just keep doing what I am doing. IF I ever feel a need for a new fantasy game I'll check it out then. I'll likely try out Runequest, HARP, GURPS 4E Fantasy, etc... first, since I already own them. So it will be a few years. At least.

 

[Crothian]

Any more comments, Orcus?

 

[Treebore]

Claiming other reviews fail does not in any way make his more of one. What does playing the module have to do with his talking about the core books?

Because unlike so many reviews, he read the rules and has actually used them in real play. So its more than opinion, its opinion based on actual experience using the rules. So its just as good as any review, in my OPINION.

I am interested in seeing comments on these boards after the "shiny new game" has aged enough to lose its luster of being "new". Thats when I will really start paying attention. Because that is when I will be getting solid, experienced, opinions based on long term play. That is when a game really shows its true colors and strength/weakness of game design.

Like at least one other has mentioned, there have been many posts on the internet raving about how awesome 3E was, then how awesome 3.5E was, and now we will see posts on how awesome 4E is. I'll wait and see how long it takes for complaints to emerge, or not emerge. Then I might start becoming impressed with 4E.

 

[the Jester]

There is no way that marking (for example) can be considered an improvement over the previous edition.

Others have already said this, but I disagree. Marking is cool, making combat more tactically interesting (which is something that my group finds fun). It's definitely an improvement over 3e combat, in my opinion. Which is based on 2 sessions of KotS, several preview games at a con and several "4e lite" games that I have run myself here.

I'm not saying there won't be any problems with 4e; personally I find the lack of lingering injuries problematic, for example, but I'll work through it and, if I decide it's warranted after playing RAW for a while, I'll put them back in.

 

[Lackhand]

Like at least one other has mentioned, there have been many posts on the internet raving about how awesome 3E was, then how awesome 3.5E was, and now we will see posts on how awesome 4E is. I'll wait and see how long it takes for complaints to emerge, or not emerge. Then I might start becoming impressed with 4E.

Sometimes things actually are an incremental improvement over that which came before.
3e was great as a rulesystem, especially when contrasted with the story-heavy illusion of customizability that was 2e, or the hackfest that was 2e player's option.
3.5e was also great, and in many ways an improvement over 3e. I didn't see any raves over how great it was going to be, but certainly taken as a whole, 3.x was lauded far and wide on its arrival.

It was spiffy. 4e will be spiffier. 5e will be spiffier, when it arrives in twenty years

 

[Treebore]

Sometimes things actually are an incremental improvement over that which came before.
3e was great as a rulesystem, especially when contrasted with the story-heavy illusion of customizability that was 2e, or the hackfest that was 2e player's option.
3.5e was also great, and in many ways an improvement over 3e. I didn't see any raves over how great it was going to be, but certainly taken as a whole, 3.x was lauded far and wide on its arrival.

It was spiffy. 4e will be spiffier. 5e will be spiffier, when it arrives in twenty years

Oh, I am not trying to say that there weren't improvements. I am just saying that I am not going to believe the improvements are big enough to justify switching to and buying a new system.

This is especially important to me since I am using a system which makes it easy for me to adapt rules from other systems to what I already have. Well, I find it easy. I have lots of practice doing it.

So I will wait and see if 4E just has some ideas worth taking, or if the whole system is just such an awesome improvement that I have to buy it.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Oh, I am not trying to say that there weren't improvements. I am just saying that I am not going to believe the improvements are big enough to justify switching to and buying a new system.

This is especially important to me since I am using a system which makes it easy for me to adapt rules from other systems to what I already have. Well, I find it easy. I have lots of practice doing it.

So I will wait and see if 4E just has some ideas worth taking, or if the whole system is just such an awesome improvement that I have to buy it.

I can see some stuff to steal from 4e. The first thing I would steal (for any iteration of D&D) are the monster 'concepts'. Minions, Standard, Elite, and Solo. This is one of the few 'innovations' that I have never really thought about.

 

[Agamon]

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.

...the books, at first glance, will bother people who are predisposed to not liking 4E...

...a bold move, but, like many of the above, it will contribute to people who are predisposed to not like 4E to say "this doesnt feel right with me...

I think he made it quite clear there are things that will bother those already bothered about 4e.

He also prefaced it with:

I'm still digesting alot of it. But I can make these statements.

So really it's just some opening thoughts, not really a solid review. Which, because of NDAs, isn't possible yet, anyway.

 

[Fifth Element]

There is no way that marking (for example) can be considered an improvement over the previous edition.

This is a startlingly one-sided comment. There is "no way" that marking can be improvement? No way at all? You can say that even though you haven't actually played the game?

 

[the Jester]

I can see some stuff to steal from 4e. The first thing I would steal (for any iteration of D&D) are the monster 'concepts'. Minions, Standard, Elite, and Solo. This is one of the few 'innovations' that I have never really thought about.

If you're still gonna be playing 3e, you should pick up Dungeonscape while you can. You will find a significant 4e encounter philosophy preview, including many more monster roles than actually ultimately made the cut. You'll also find the encounter trap rules, which are some of the coolest rules in 3.5, imho.