![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prusik[I actually own every edition of the Player's Handbook published post mid-1980s. Yes, this means I bought the 2nd edition PH twice, even though the content of the second one was identical to the first. I decided it was better laid out. It was certainly prettier. I'm in an Eberron game right now. It's pretty unlikely I'll play 4E anytime soon. (i.e., we're stuck at 3.5E) but, hey, the 4E core rules boxset was ~50% off at Amazon. If you've never played D&D, you may want to stop reading. This assumes some knowledge of 3E, no more than I have. That's not a whole lot. However, the text may not make a whole lot of sense. OTOH, to compare 3E and 4E, I don't have to talk about THAC0. That's a plus.]
I've kept myself relatively spoiler-free about 4E. The only exceptions were the occasional rules which the Eberron DM would either incorporate into our Eberron game or mention in the context of "they fixed this for 4E." However, I haven't read anything about 4E at all. Pretty much all the changes in 4E are new to me. Keep in mind though that this is my reaction on a skim. Most notably, I have not played it. When it matters, I'll go back to read more carefully.
In large part, 4E is very much like 3E (and 3.5E), if you don't look too closely. The basic mechanic remains the same, and, of course, it wouldn't be D&D without the stat which start somewhere between 3 and 18. (Of course, they get converted to a modifiers and essentially never get used again, but it's tradition.) It has the player races you'd expect (although gnomes are gone). The iconic player classes are still there. It wouldn't be D&D if you couldn't put together a useful party of fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Likewise, the skills system and the feats system look like their counterparts in 3E, but they aren't. The former has a fewer number of better organized skills, but skill points are gone. The latter has a different set of feats. For example, the armor proficiencies are organized differently. Also, you get feats more often (yay!).
This isn't to say that 4E plays like 3E. Like I said, I haven't played it yet. However, I suspect it plays quite differently. In particular, I bet it's more video game-like. (e.g., each attack you make is the invocation of one of your powers.) Whether this is good or bad depends on what you're looking for in a roleplaying game. If your favorite RPG is Polaris, this is probably not an improvement. However, in that case, why are you even looking at D&D? I haven't played any of the electronic games based on the D&D mechanism. But based on what I've heard and read, I think 4E shows their influence.
In general, characters are consistently hardier, more capable and more powerful in 4E. Character stats advance more quickly (+1 to two stats every 4 levels, +1 to all status every 11 levels). Characters acquire feats more quickly (a new feat every two levels). The skill system is simpler, and less flexible. It's harder to acquire new skills. You have to use up one of the feats which you now get more often. However, it's easier to be highly competent in the skills you have. Being trained is an automatic +5 bonus. Since you add half your level to your skill check, all your skills modifiers automatically improve by one every two levels. (Actually, you seem to add half your level to practically every roll.) Racial modifiers to ability scores are no longer occasionally negative. Each class now has a set of powers. For spellcasters, these are spells castable within 6 seconds. (The other ones are now rituals.) For everyone else, these are like additional class features or bonus feats from 3E. This means though, for example, a 1st level wizard can cast Magic Missile as often as she wants. (However, she now needs to make an attack roll.)
Most significantly, it's just plain harder to die. All classes can now heal themselves. Each character gets a certain number of healing surges a day. Each healing surge recovers a quarter of your total hit points. The second wind combat action lets you use a healing surge once per encounter. After 6 hours of rest, you recover all your hit points. If your hit points fall below zero, the act of healing resets them to zero before you receive the hit points from the healing effect. You don't die until you fall below the negative of your maximum hit points. If you are dying, you have to fail your saving throw three times before you die.
I like these changes. Keep in mind that I play in a game where, this time, the DM started us at 2nd level. We went through a series of campaigns where each campaign lasted at most a couple of months because we kept dying. No one wants to play The Cleric because he or she always ended up playing the Hit Point Machine. This meant, despite having spells prepared, you were constantly eliminating them to spontaneously cast heal. (The last time I played The Cleric, he died because as the Hit Point Machine, he needed to cast a heal spell in combat and incurred an attack of opportunity.) i.e., we are already playing these rather epic, combat-intense games where, if this were a movie, the characters either shrug off the damage or are inexplicably unimpaired the next day. We might as well have a rule set that reflects this.
In general, 4E feels simpler than 3E. All classes have the same what they called Base Attack Bonus in 3E. (Yes, it's half your class level.) All saving throws have a target of 10. Hit point advancement is deterministic (yay!). Spell and ritual level now match player level. With very little work, someone could rig up a simple, context sensitive menu which presents all your possible actions. (For all I know, this may be true of 3E. I may just be reflecting the manner of presentation. 4E reads better organized to me.)
They've added new player races and new classes (as well as removed some of each.) However, no one feels particularly different from anyone else. Each player race and class has its own specific features, but it reads like there are fewer options in character advancement and everyone has essentially the same options. (I should point out that you now have these very prestige class like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.) Of course, your character is an individual not because of the stat on your character sheet, but how you role play him or her. It feel like there's less to fiddle with though. (Not that I enjoy keeping track of skill points...) On first glance, everything looks very cut and dried.
On the other hand, the 4E PH is much better organized and designed than the 3(.5)E PH. Pages have a solid white background. This means you can read the text. The font is slightly larger and there is a bit more space between lines. The PH makes good, and spare, use of color and font effects to draw your eye to important information. The Combat chapter is terrific in this respect. Part of me wishes we were playing 4E just so I could use this PH rather than the 3.5E PH. (It gives me a headache.)
(It wouldn't be D&D though if it didn't use terms before defining them. Like I said, I was skimming. I may have simply missed the first, defining, reference. This edition does a much better job of putting definitions where I'm likely to look for them though, and they've highlighted the terms.)
The upside of cut and dried is that the system as a whole is more organized, consistent and predictable. It may be easier to find stuff because this system spells out everything more exactly. I'm not a big fan of complicated rule systems. I'm also not a big fan of rigid rule systems. These rules are probably ok. (Like I said, I haven't played it. However, they look very much like the 3E rules, albeit spelled out more precisely. Well, they've changed critical hits again. An "attack of opportunity" is now an "opportunity attack." The five foot step, aka shift, is the only way I could find to move without provoking an opportunity attack. (3E had a "withdraw" move.)
Anyway, 4E is like 3E, but different. Everything looks like 3E until you get into the details. At that point there are subtle, or not so subtle differences all over the place. e.g. rangers no longer get spells (although like other fighting classes, they get exploits. Paladins no longer lose their abilities if they act out of alignment (although others of their faith are expected to put the smack down on him). I suspect, in play, it will be like a video game in much the way that watching the battles in LotR was like watching a video game. For D&D, this isn't a bad thing.
(Oh, almost forgot. It wouldn't be a new edition of D&D if they didn't tinker with the alignment system again. Unfortunately, the whole notion of Good vs. Evil is baked into D&D. You can't just get rid of the alignment system. It does get simpler and less important with each edition though.)
I've kept myself relatively spoiler-free about 4E. The only exceptions were the occasional rules which the Eberron DM would either incorporate into our Eberron game or mention in the context of "they fixed this for 4E." However, I haven't read anything about 4E at all. Pretty much all the changes in 4E are new to me. Keep in mind though that this is my reaction on a skim. Most notably, I have not played it. When it matters, I'll go back to read more carefully.
In large part, 4E is very much like 3E (and 3.5E), if you don't look too closely. The basic mechanic remains the same, and, of course, it wouldn't be D&D without the stat which start somewhere between 3 and 18. (Of course, they get converted to a modifiers and essentially never get used again, but it's tradition.) It has the player races you'd expect (although gnomes are gone). The iconic player classes are still there. It wouldn't be D&D if you couldn't put together a useful party of fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Likewise, the skills system and the feats system look like their counterparts in 3E, but they aren't. The former has a fewer number of better organized skills, but skill points are gone. The latter has a different set of feats. For example, the armor proficiencies are organized differently. Also, you get feats more often (yay!).
This isn't to say that 4E plays like 3E. Like I said, I haven't played it yet. However, I suspect it plays quite differently. In particular, I bet it's more video game-like. (e.g., each attack you make is the invocation of one of your powers.) Whether this is good or bad depends on what you're looking for in a roleplaying game. If your favorite RPG is Polaris, this is probably not an improvement. However, in that case, why are you even looking at D&D? I haven't played any of the electronic games based on the D&D mechanism. But based on what I've heard and read, I think 4E shows their influence.
In general, characters are consistently hardier, more capable and more powerful in 4E. Character stats advance more quickly (+1 to two stats every 4 levels, +1 to all status every 11 levels). Characters acquire feats more quickly (a new feat every two levels). The skill system is simpler, and less flexible. It's harder to acquire new skills. You have to use up one of the feats which you now get more often. However, it's easier to be highly competent in the skills you have. Being trained is an automatic +5 bonus. Since you add half your level to your skill check, all your skills modifiers automatically improve by one every two levels. (Actually, you seem to add half your level to practically every roll.) Racial modifiers to ability scores are no longer occasionally negative. Each class now has a set of powers. For spellcasters, these are spells castable within 6 seconds. (The other ones are now rituals.) For everyone else, these are like additional class features or bonus feats from 3E. This means though, for example, a 1st level wizard can cast Magic Missile as often as she wants. (However, she now needs to make an attack roll.)
Most significantly, it's just plain harder to die. All classes can now heal themselves. Each character gets a certain number of healing surges a day. Each healing surge recovers a quarter of your total hit points. The second wind combat action lets you use a healing surge once per encounter. After 6 hours of rest, you recover all your hit points. If your hit points fall below zero, the act of healing resets them to zero before you receive the hit points from the healing effect. You don't die until you fall below the negative of your maximum hit points. If you are dying, you have to fail your saving throw three times before you die.
I like these changes. Keep in mind that I play in a game where, this time, the DM started us at 2nd level. We went through a series of campaigns where each campaign lasted at most a couple of months because we kept dying. No one wants to play The Cleric because he or she always ended up playing the Hit Point Machine. This meant, despite having spells prepared, you were constantly eliminating them to spontaneously cast heal. (The last time I played The Cleric, he died because as the Hit Point Machine, he needed to cast a heal spell in combat and incurred an attack of opportunity.) i.e., we are already playing these rather epic, combat-intense games where, if this were a movie, the characters either shrug off the damage or are inexplicably unimpaired the next day. We might as well have a rule set that reflects this.
In general, 4E feels simpler than 3E. All classes have the same what they called Base Attack Bonus in 3E. (Yes, it's half your class level.) All saving throws have a target of 10. Hit point advancement is deterministic (yay!). Spell and ritual level now match player level. With very little work, someone could rig up a simple, context sensitive menu which presents all your possible actions. (For all I know, this may be true of 3E. I may just be reflecting the manner of presentation. 4E reads better organized to me.)
They've added new player races and new classes (as well as removed some of each.) However, no one feels particularly different from anyone else. Each player race and class has its own specific features, but it reads like there are fewer options in character advancement and everyone has essentially the same options. (I should point out that you now have these very prestige class like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.) Of course, your character is an individual not because of the stat on your character sheet, but how you role play him or her. It feel like there's less to fiddle with though. (Not that I enjoy keeping track of skill points...) On first glance, everything looks very cut and dried.
On the other hand, the 4E PH is much better organized and designed than the 3(.5)E PH. Pages have a solid white background. This means you can read the text. The font is slightly larger and there is a bit more space between lines. The PH makes good, and spare, use of color and font effects to draw your eye to important information. The Combat chapter is terrific in this respect. Part of me wishes we were playing 4E just so I could use this PH rather than the 3.5E PH. (It gives me a headache.)
(It wouldn't be D&D though if it didn't use terms before defining them. Like I said, I was skimming. I may have simply missed the first, defining, reference. This edition does a much better job of putting definitions where I'm likely to look for them though, and they've highlighted the terms.)
The upside of cut and dried is that the system as a whole is more organized, consistent and predictable. It may be easier to find stuff because this system spells out everything more exactly. I'm not a big fan of complicated rule systems. I'm also not a big fan of rigid rule systems. These rules are probably ok. (Like I said, I haven't played it. However, they look very much like the 3E rules, albeit spelled out more precisely. Well, they've changed critical hits again. An "attack of opportunity" is now an "opportunity attack." The five foot step, aka shift, is the only way I could find to move without provoking an opportunity attack. (3E had a "withdraw" move.)
Anyway, 4E is like 3E, but different. Everything looks like 3E until you get into the details. At that point there are subtle, or not so subtle differences all over the place. e.g. rangers no longer get spells (although like other fighting classes, they get exploits. Paladins no longer lose their abilities if they act out of alignment (although others of their faith are expected to put the smack down on him). I suspect, in play, it will be like a video game in much the way that watching the battles in LotR was like watching a video game. For D&D, this isn't a bad thing.
(Oh, almost forgot. It wouldn't be a new edition of D&D if they didn't tinker with the alignment system again. Unfortunately, the whole notion of Good vs. Evil is baked into D&D. You can't just get rid of the alignment system. It does get simpler and less important with each edition though.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-15 04:57 pm (UTC)I take it that crazy and confusing Chaotic/Lawful mess is long gone?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-15 06:31 pm (UTC)It wouldn't be D&D if it didn't have Lawful Good Paladins. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are the only remnants of the Law/Chaos axis. (I've always wondered why it never occurred to Gary Gygax that the opposite of chaos is order, not law. I suppose he has a more optimistic view of the law than I do.)
Instead of fully crossing the Law/Chaos axis with the Good/Evil axis, they now have only five alignments. The other three are Good, Evil and Unaligned. As near as I can tell, Unaligned means "screw you guys, this alignment business is a waste of time." Lawful Good now is this extra spiffy version of Good (where you work within the law so long as the law is just). Chaotic Evil is this extra scruffy version of Evil (where you have absolute disregard for any sort of structure.)
I think the goal over the past few editions of D&D is to any sort of evil undesirable to play and Chaotic Evil impossible to play at all.
Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, Chaotic Evil has always been impossible to play within the context of an adventuring party, or at least way too much work for me to get any enjoyment. However, down that path lies stupid arguments about alignment. Let it be said that even when I was 13 and everyone was doing it, I never saw the appeal of playing a Chaotic Evil character. Of course, they were all doing it wrong. Cf. stupid alignment arguments.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-16 07:53 am (UTC)Oh, wait. There was also a part of a campaign with a lawful evil anti-Paladin who traveled with a good party. But lawful and lawful can work things out.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-16 04:23 pm (UTC)http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html
I do miss roleplaying. Crazy to think how long it's been since I played...