Latest Posts
It is now an official rule that a character may retrain feats, abilities, and skills. This may be done when a new level is acquired. This means that a character can replace skill points or replace feats or abilities.
While I assume that in most games, including my own, that some rule for retraining existed as a house rule, this is the first time it has been official. While I would put more restriction on it, such as game time or experience loss, I am nonetheless a fan of the added rule.
One feature new to 4th edition is the concept of all characters of every class using the same progression chart. What I mean by this is that regardless of your class, you get feats and abilities at the same time. The difference is that dependent upon your class you get to select from different abilities. The effort appears to be making the game streamlined.
To give an example of this for better clarity, envision the Sneak Attack ability and wizard spells. At first level in 3rd edition, a wizard got spell charges and the rogue got sneak attack (among other things). Now, each class gets at will, encounter, and daily powers. Of those, some are spells and one is sneak attack.
My instinct tells me that this change was once again unnecessary. It is again a move away from the traditional methods used in D&D where each class had its own chart.
The speed of characters for 4th edition is given is a simple number, such as 6. This represents the number of squares on a battle grid a character can move in a round.
The description of movement given in the new handbook is very well done. There is a break down for overland speed as well as combat speed.
The only issue I have is in the presentation of the speed. To give the speed in squares on a battle mat instead of a real life equivalent, such as feet, takes something away from how the game is envisioned. As role-playing or as a wargame.
In 4th edition, a successful critical hit means that the attack automatically does maximum damage.
This is a change from the multiplier to damage in previous editions.
This change has little effect on the game. It didn't need to be made, but making it does not hurt the game.
Since the paladin was first introduced, I have asked: Why are there no paladins of other alignments? Even if they were not called paladins, there needed to be something. In my home game, and I imagine in most home games that create their own setting, holy warriors of different alignments exist.
In 4th edition, D&D finally makes the jump and adds paladins of different alignments. I am happy to see this change.
The concept of hit points has not changed in the new edition. Nor has the fact that a character gets new hit points at every level beyond 10th. That was a great change that was made from 2nd to 3rd edition.
The way in which a character gains hit points has changed. Since the beginning, a character has rolled a die to determine the number of hit points gained. This die was determined by character class and modified by Constitution.
Now, a character's hit points are not determined by a die. The character gets hit points based on a set number (12 for example) and adds a modifier based on Constitution. This means less variety in the amount of hit points characters can have. It also means less variety in characters since whenever you make something set instead of random you cut down on the variation.
This is yet another break for decades of tradition. Also, in this case, I think it is not a change for the best or one that is irrelevant. It is a change for the worse.
An area of major improvement from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was the experience table. Before 3rd edition, the table varied from class to class and while it had a pattern, it was not easily describable. Players had to guess and assume that the differences between the charts and each level were designed correctly and fairly.
In 3rd edition, the chart was simple and unified. Every class used the same chart. The amount of experience needed from one level to the next was equal to 1,000 times your current level. Beautiful and simple.
In 4th edition, they have retained the concept of one chart for all classes. However, the nice progression table that once govern the experience is gone. The table now has some patterns, but no one pattern that continues through the entire table. This change is simply annoying. A problem that had been solved has returned. They could have done everything else the same in 4th but found a way to keep a simple table for experience.
Like many of the changes, this one will not alone prohibit anyone from changing. But it is another knock against the system. Another change that wasn't needed.
The monster manual does not include any good dragons.
Now that you have let that sink in, I will discuss. They have always been part of the game. The trend of destroying a connection to the themes of the past editions continues. As I see more of this disregard, or intentional destruction, I am less likely to give the game rules a chance. I will still review them and do a fair analysis, but as more basic thematic concepts change, I can't see using them useless they are spectacular and leaps ahead of 3rd edition rules.
The new addition uses the same general system for skills. The difference is that there are fewer skills. Each skill tends to have a wider variety of actions for which it can be used.
I have no problem with the new system. But I had no problem with the old system either. Did it need to be changed? Once again, the same theme arises. At least in this case I give the designers the benefit of the doubt because the skill system was one feature I had often read complaints about.
In the new DMG, there is a section on the different types of players a DM might have in his game. The section goes on to describe what each type of player is looking for in a game and what the DM has to do to make that type of player happy. It also describes what the DM has to avoid with each type of player.
It is a small section, but well written and tremendously useful, especially to a new DM. It is a great improvement on any similar sections the previous editions had in the DMG.
Changing pace for a moment, I turned my attention to the Monster Manual. I immediately noticed an entry that irritated me to no end. The theme is once again: Why was this change needed?
For a long time, the six base types of giants have been: Cloud, Fire, Frost, Hill, Stone, and Storm. For some reason, the starter giants are now: Death, Earth, Hill, Fire and Storm. In addition, the Storm giants are now Evil, in the past they were good. In fact, all of the five types of giants presented in the book are Evil or Chaotic Evil. This is again a departure from the past, and one that is unnecessary.
To the two new types of giants; I don't mind the Death giant since it plays into the Shadowfell storyline. Although I would not have used it to replace one of the classic giants types. The Earth giant appears more of an elemental, and is in no way the Stone giants of old. I find these giants less interesting than the Death giants and not at all useful.
I promise next time a positive review of some part of the first three manuals.
I would like to mention that I do have some good things to say about the new edition, I just have gotten to writing about them yet.
The value of the platinum coin relative to the gold coin has changed from 10 to 100 times the value. Once again, the appears to be change for the sake of change. It does not bring the values closer to the real world (which is somewhat irrelevant since on a fantasy world, the values can be anything). Once again why change it? This appears to be a theme for me as I read through the rules. Why fix what wasn't broken.
Without dissecting the ins and outs of each class, I want to describe the classes that are and are not included in the edition.
They have removed five of the starting classes from 3rd edition: Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. Those have been replaced by the Warlord and Warlock.
Why remove those classes. I can understand the Warlock replacing the Sorcerer. That is not to say I like one or the other better, only that they could have many reasons to replace one type of arcane spellcaster with another. Removing the monk and barbarian is odd, but understandable. They are martial classes where the fighter, paladin, and ranger still exist. The new Warlord, which is an odd choice for a starter class, is a martial class to act as a sort of replacement.
That leaves the removal of the bard and druid. These have been staples of D&D for a long time. I see no point to their removal. It does not add anything to the game; and how could it since they didn't replace them with anything. Even if they had, it would have been a negative since these classes are iconic in D&D. This decision is the worst I have come across in the new edition to date and is worse than any chance that was made going from 2nd to 3rd edition.
Looking at the new choices for the first races, I will not speculate as to why they would get rid of the iconic gnome and the half-orc (which is not as iconic). They are replaced by the Dragonborn, Tieflings, and Eladrin. These are interesting races, but to put them on a tier above the gnome is odd. Anyone could create a setting where on of these races is prominent. To make them basic races in the first book for the new edition steps far away from traditional D&D.
Here I feel the designers have in fact made the game worse by using these races. The races themselves are not to blame. They are well designed. They have some history with the game. They have unique features. Personally, I do very much like the Eladrin and have used them in the past. The problem is that to make them the norm, to include them as 'starter' races devalues the human and other more normal races. If one starts out playing a Dragonborn, the interest in then playing a more mundane race will be, generally speaking, diminished.
The first section of the new handbook that I reviewed is the section on alingment. What first drew my attention is that the new alignments are a departure from all of the other editions of D&D. Nine has become five. My question is: Does the change make the game work better? As far as I can see, no it doesn't. Nor does it make the game worse. It is a change for the sake of change. That being said, i don't believe that a change from the original structure of the game for only the sake of change is good.
The new alignments are Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, Good, Evil, and Unaligned. Two are the same as before. Good encompasses the old Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Evil encompasses Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil. Unaligned takes the place of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral. From my experience, the problem I see with this new system is for a new player. For them, an alignment is a way to better understand their character's actions and views. If they need to turn to alignment for guidance, how does 'unaligned' help them decide? For an experienced role-player, it is not as big a deal.
One area where I do not like the use of the new alignments is when it comes to the deities. What does it mean when a deity is 'unaligned'? Is the deity not sure of what he/she thinks? With the rare exception of a deity that does not interfere (such as The Oldest Orc in my campaign setting), it does not make sense.
With the arrival today of the newest players' handbook for my favorite game, I though this would be the perfect time to add the well known blog feature to my D&D website. In the coming weeks, I will discuss my thoughts of the changes made to D&D in 4th edition. I hope you readers find my thoughts interesting and maybe a little bit insightful.
DM Derek