Review of 4E on Aint It Cool News

Stalker0 said:
Yep. But hey, in a perfect world we would get phb I-IV packed into one massive super volume all at the beginning!! You can only pack so much info into a book people will use, so certain things have to get shelved to the next one.

Yes, but you should have the content for a complete campaign game in the core books (and by core, i mean the initial release). You can play a complete campaign without more monsters treasure, feats, or classes ... but it's really helpful to give the DM the tools to build the things needed to customize the campaign up front. Frex, not being stuck with the traps and hazards presented because they didn't give you the tools to adapt your own.

Unless your goal is to hold off things people want to sell more books later ...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Article said:
Stating out original monsters is so damned easy now that it’s criminal. The passage is a two page spread that includes a chart that lets you eyeball all the numbers with a Level + X depending on the monsters role.

Aha! I guessed it (but didn't call it)! Seems the "boring" numbers on a monster (HP, AC, defenses, to hit) are derived by monster level and type. Just add powers, and shake lightly.
 


It is nice to see an enthusiastic review. It makes me feel like my optimism about the game is not completely baseless.

That said, it is looking more and more like the Monster Manual is going to be the big source of complaints in this edition. No Clay or Iron Golems now? Between that, the lack of frost giants (one of the two kinds of giant that really should be in the first MM), and the disagreements over Archons and Angels, it looks like arguments are going to stay heated for a while even after the books are released.
 

Mort_Q said:
Much of the negative was about sacred cows.

And recycled art? Say what? Hopefully he means recycled from the R&C and W&M books. Otherwise, I'm kinda pissed. All the awesome new art we've seen so far...these are core books, you can't put old art in them!
 


Zulithe said:
wait... recycled art? the vampire art in the 4e MM is the same as 3e?
My personal guess is it's recycled from later 3.5 books. For example it's possible that the art in the Devils preview is the art that will be in the 4e Monster Manual, despite the fact that the art isn't original, but cam from the Demonweb Pits book and Fiendish Codex 2.
 

TwinBahamut said:
It is nice to see an enthusiastic review. It makes me feel like my optimism about the game is not completely baseless.

That said, it is looking more and more like the Monster Manual is going to be the big source of complaints in this edition. No Clay or Iron Golems now? Between that, the lack of frost giants (one of the two kinds of giant that really should be in the first MM), and the disagreements over Archons and Angels, it looks like arguments are going to stay heated for a while even after the books are released.
Well thank god there will be things to argue over on the internet! I was concerned that all useless squabbling was over.

:)
 

kitoy said:
The brief glimpse of ritual magic we got here really intrigues me. It looks like, those who want a low-magic game can totally cut divine and arcane power sources and use ritual magic as the "only" magic in their game.

That is exactly what the new system allows you to do. The Warlord also fills the same role as the cleric without all the in game hoojy-woojy. Limit them to only Fighter, Rogue, Ranger or Warlord and make Ritual caster NPC only - and whammo slammo, you've got yourself a low magic campaign that is still balanced with any monster in the book without the worry of TPKs.
 

weirdly, I really dont want any recycled art from 3e... but I would be stoked to see a handfull of retro pics from 1st, 2nd, basic, chainmail etc buried in the dmg somewhere.

They haven't had any "hilarious" / comic pics since 1st edition... I'd like to see more of those.
 

Remove ads

Top