The 4E Players Handbook: good...bad...ugly..

[JeffB]

WOTC is damnded if they do , damned if they don't.

I think the 4E PHB could have had a bit more options. I wouldn't have minded one bit if dragonpeeps and demonpeeps and Warlord got dropped for more stuff for the other classes.

Then again the 3.5 PHB was a monstrosity with IMO *too* much- Overwhelming (I've always felt the "core book/s" for any game should provide essentials, and then crank out the supplements for those who never have enough. So in that regard I prefer the 4E PHB.

I think the only *real* problem I have though with the 4E PHB is the smudging and I'm so sick of 20 page + eratta documents for ANYTHING WOTC has produced in the past 10 years.. 3.0, 3.5, 4E, SW 1E, SWRE, whatever.... Yeesh.

 

[Miyaa]

Good:

Actually, I think the layout is actually really good. Color-coding which powers are for daily, encounter, and at-will. I also think the layout for the Monster Manual's stat block is pretty solid with a few quibles.

Unlike previous editions, definitions for abilities, powers, and the like are fairly straight forward, to the point of being written for an eight-year-old. (I.e. "To be able to use the dragonbreath ability, you first must be a dragon or a dragon-like race.")

Bad:

Too utilitarian of a playing style for classes and races. Most of the info is on a need-to-know basis and you would have to have the 3.5 and below just to get an idea how you got up to this part. The Forgotten Realms book is unusually thin on information. I suppose they had to stress balance over everything else as one of the biggest complaints was how imbalanced some races and classes were over everyone.

I also agree that there is too little in the way of rituals, and the spells, like the classes and races, were too utilitarian and for the most part, the powers for each class you could exchange for a power in another similar class with just about the same effect.

Ugly:

Dinking and dunking your way towards killing an opponent. The way the game rules are now lay out with abilities, spells, rituals, and the like, it feels more much more like Fantasy in a way a Dragonball Z series would be considered fantasy: a lot of posing, attacks that may do a lot more collateral damage than it would to the actual opponent you're trying to kill. Maybe there was too many of the save or die spells, but most fantasy I've read had more of that than whittling an opponent to death.

I also don't like how, well, one-sided the core books were in terms of monsters. In the past, the Monster Manuals both had good and evil creatures, maybe slightly tilted towards the evil than the good, but you had a fair share of them. I didn't see any in the 4th edition MM. Almost all of the monsters either had an unaligned or evil alignment. And I wish at the very least your core 4th edition had a wider selection of monsters. I think, as mentioned before, they overreacted and decided to leave out more than they really should have.

At this point, four books in, 1½ stars.

 

[Imp]

It is probably a good and efficient reference book but I am honestly not exaggerating when I say I've read more engaging car manuals.

I'm not talking about the 4e system or gameplay at all here – just presentation and style.

 

[TerraDave]

First, I can't believe I didn't complain about the errata! This is a big pain...in the backside...but anyways.

Gygax, bless his soul, was awesome when it came to creativity and rules mechanics, but he just couldn't write for beans.

Here, we have a big disagreement. The 4E one may be a more efficient reference (you would hope so after 30 years) but the first is by my account a much more inspiring read.

 

[VadersEvilTwin]

I was under the impression that the at-will powers were the basic attack choices, and that what is called the base attack is just the simple no-frills version only used for opportunity attacks. Three of us now have the book and we all came to the same conclusion, I suppose we could be wrong...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was under the impression that the at-will powers were the basic attack choices, and that what is called the base attack is just the simple no-frills version only used for opportunity attacks. Three of us now have the book and we all came to the same conclusion, I suppose we could be wrong...

You understood this correctly.

I think it's more a "philosophical" thing - Darrin doesn't like it this way. Basic attacks should be used all the time, and special attacks only in certain circumstances.
That's not the way how the game is set up, and I think the way it is set up aims at enforcing the feeling of what kind of character you play. Even if a Cleric is merely striking you with his mace, he is still doing his "leader" stuff and his "divine" stuff (by giving the party divine support). The basic attacks exist to emphasize what your class does.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'll keep my comments away from the rules and on the topic of the book itself.

2) The "Wall of Spells" at the rear of the 3.x PHB has become the "Wall of Classes" in 4E.
...
3) There is a certain sterility to the book.
...
4) From a personal perspective (YMMV), I did not like magical items going into the PHB.

I don't own a PHB but I did get some quality time with one and I had some similar observations.

2) I was taking a look at the classes chapter and planning to skim through and compare the basics of each class. I took a look at the cleric, then flipped a couple of pages to check out the next class only to find cleric powers, I flip a few more pages and find more powers, more pages and more powers, until after over a dozen pages I get to the next class. It felt like I'd just stepped in quicksand. I took a look for a table that might have a quick listing of classes along with their roles, saves, hit points, healing surges, et cetera, and after not spotting one it seemed there was nothing for it but loads of page flipping to figure out the basics of the classes. I think the flow of information could have been organized a lot better in the classes chapter.

3) I also noticed the very flat tone of the book. As fond as my memories of Gygaxian prose are I would say that I didn't hold the stale language of the 4E PHB against it. I blame too much time spent reading technical manuals. In the long term I suppose the 4E PHB may be less memorable as a result of this but it may also be more practical (classes chapter aside). We'll see.

4) I wasn't pleased to see the magic item section in the PHB. I think it's less of a problem for those of us who have been playing D&D for some time; experienced players have a pretty good acquired knowledge of the standard magic item list so I've become accustomed to making up my own items. For new players I think having the magic items in the PHB may give them a very different attitude towards magic items then I first had when I started playing D&D with only the PHB of the time and no way to tell a wand from a backscratcher.

I am disappointed to hear about the "Wall of Errata" but it was hardly unexpected and is part of the reason I decided to wait for a later printing rather than buying in straight away.

As I don't actually own a copy of any 4E core books and only got to spend a couple of hours with a PHB I can't comment on the quality issues other than to say it's made me even more wary about buying the books before waiting a while.

 

[Victim]

The layout works really well, IMO. About the only problematic area is switching between class sections inside the huge class chapter. While chapters have marks on the side of the book for easy flipping, I think a mark for each class would be good too.

Red, Green, and Black for power types? Really? You didn't think at all about the most common form of color blindness (IIRC). A different color scheme would have helped.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I voted "Best Yet", but I wouldn't call it great. I would call the other PHBs pretty bad.

 

[TerraDave]

S&B, this is not bad. This is D&D.