 Goto [ Index ] |
Unlike the other two books, this one doesn't have chapters, just alphabetical monster entries. The introduction goes over the monster entry format. It includes the creature's initiative modifier, Perception bonus (and any enhanced senses), "aura," HP/Bloodied HP level, AC/Defense scores, speed rating, action points, any special attacks, alignment, languages, skills, attributes and any equipment. Some monster powers also have certain d6 results displayed next to them for their "recharge" score: At the start of the monster's turn, the DM rolls 1d6 and if the roll is one of the results shown, the power recharges and can be used that turn. Aura refers to any area attacks the creature naturally uses around itself. As with characters, creatures all have a level (below which is listed the XP reward for defeating the monster), and they also have roles as defined in the DMG (Chapter 4). Monsters also have a Size (which gives larger beings a reach advantage), an Origin (like 'fey') and a Type (like 'humanoid'). When possible the authors also group monsters into categories, so that Bugbears and Hobgoblins are both listed under "Goblin" and Gelatinous Cube is listed under "Ooze." (There are however various different Undead types scattered all over.) In addition, the monsters all come with little details that a PC could pick up with a Knowledge/monster lore roll at the appropriate difficulty.
In the monster descriptions there are Encounter Groups that are composed of the monster as a base and probably with associated creatures (like, Drow parties might include spiders, driders or demons). Monsters of a given type are usually depicted with subcategories if they can fit more than one role according to the DMG role system (for Minions, Soldiers, Artillery, etc.). For instance, the Gnoll entry includes the Gnoll Huntmaster (that backs up allies with ranged attacks), the Gnoll Claw Fighter (that mixes it up in melee) and the Gnoll Demonic Scourge (that acts as a pack leader). Unfortunately there is no Gnoll Pimp.
There is a new category called Abominations, which are basically primordial, evil beings at an epic power level, somewhat like Typhon or the Titans in Greek myth. They're very interesting. Also, the Tarrasque is counted as an Abomination. However, the Good Guy Outsiders (devas, guardinals, etc.) have all been replaced by "Angels," who are about as generic as you would expect, having lower bodies that flow into nothingness (like cartoon genies) and no faces. Their counterparts from the Elemental Chaos are "Archons." According to the new D&D cosmology, the devils are former divine servants who rebelled against a god and now use mortal souls as power sources in their efforts to seize the universe (pretty classical) while demons are spawned from a primal Abyss that was inadvertently created by an exiled god (Tharizdun) and seek to destroy the universe outright. Since demons have no use at all for subtlety, succubi are now classed as devils. Orcus, Demon Prince of Undead, is deliberately (and oddly) placed in his own alphabetical section outside that of other Demons.
As for actual Dragons, by the designers' own lights, two of the metallic dragon types were redundant, and they didn't include an equivalent of the dumb-and-brutal White Dragon from the chromatic side. So in addition to the Adamantite Dragon you get the dumb-and-brutal Iron Dragon. Not to be confused with the Swack-Iron Dragon. Or maybe it is. Unfortunately while the MM mentions chromatic, metallic, "catastrophic" (elemental), planar and "scourge" (linnorm) dragons, only the chromatic (classic evil) dragons are statted here, along with Dragonborn humanoids, Drakes, and other kin.
After the alphabetical lists, the MM gives a list of racial traits for certain humanoid races in the book, and points out that they are along the lines of PC race templates but their traits are "more in line with monster powers than player character powers" and so these races should only be allowed as PCs with DM discretion. These include not only the Drow (whom you would expect to be over-powered) but the Gnomes, whose main skill bonuses and encounter power are based on sneaking away. Well, that explains why Gnomes aren't in the Players Handbook. They're just hiding. The classic Githyanki and Githzerai are back, and are interesting mainly as examples of what the Psionicist and Monk characters might look like in the future. The shadar-kai are a "humanlike" race that worships the Raven Queen, who is Goddess of Death in the new D&D setting, and thus have strange shadow powers and fight without fear of dying. They're pale and tend to wear a lot of scars and piercings. In other words, they're Goths, but they're still pretty damn nasty in a fight.
There's also a glossary that includes not only monster types but definitions for monster powers like "Conjuration." Because Wizards generally don't have such powers anymore. Finally, there's a very useful list of "Monsters by Level" that shows the various monsters listed by both level and type, ranging from "Halfling Slinger, Level 1 Artillery" to "Orcus, Level 33 Solo Brute (leader)". There is no index.
SUMMARY
In the vein of Jerry Springer or Dr. McNinja, I offer some Final Thoughts.
Is 4th Edition D&D the Next Big Thing in RPG design or a huge step backward? I honestly haven't decided yet.
Some people on RPG.net and elsewhere have gone over a lot of complaints with the New D&D, and some of these should be briefly addressed:
It's erm, bland: Uh, no. Quite the opposite. The game shakes up the premises and mechanics of D&D enough to where you really do have to learn it all over again, and the game setting, while presented only in the vaguest terms in the corebooks, conveys a world much like the Dark Ages after Rome's fall: Civilization is threatened, everything is up for grabs, and the initiative of a few bold individuals may be enough to change the course of history.
It's a World of Warcraft rip-off: Well, this charge is a lot harder to deny. You've got the Warlocks, you've got magic items with levels, and a whole bunch of other stuff. The comparison is not entirely fair or accurate, but it's accurate enough that such a comparison would seem justified. That is, just as the Warcraft universe originally started off with a lot of D&D analogies that make it easy to confuse for a D&D MMORPG at first glance, the new D&D game design has enough points in common with WoW game design that the comparison comes up.
It's a throwback to minature wargaming: This is also harder to deny. There is a deliberate emphasis on tabletop tactics and a de-emphasis on non-combat abilities and roleplaying (despite very evocative flavor text). For instance: Demons and Devils no longer have most of their miscellaneous little 'at-will' magics. PCs have no detection powers. Well, not unless you count the feature in Arcana skill. But while that stripping of Detect spells removes an element that makes things harder on the DM, it's a bit hard to believe that in a world with teleport rings dedicated to travel between cities that such "utility" effects would not exist. Unless of course the designers didn't want them to exist. But that just reinforces the idea that the setting is less a game world that happens to have dungeons and dragons and more of a meta-arena where everything is built around the trade of professional dungeon-crawling, which undermines the suspension of disbelief. In the new rules, official D&D is now more "metagame" than Order of the Stick, which is gamist as a JOKE.
Now, on the other hand, the premises of 4th Edition do address a lot of the issues with D&D Classic, namely the brittleness of low-level characters in general and arcane spellcasters in particular. If just casting Magic Missile over and over seems boring, it's a lot less boring in my opinion than only getting to cast it once and hoping the Cleric doesn't have to Raise you (again) by the time the battle is over.
At the same time, 4th Edition is just enough like the classic model to where fantasy fans will immediately find something to like. It's quick and combat-intensive enough that it should be fairly easy to teach, and it's got enough new stuff and has enough interesting background elements that I might actually want to try playtesting it with my group.
Except:
Even though certain excluded elements (Bards, Monks, etc.) are introduced or will be introduced outside the Player's Handbook, the fact that a lot of things were changed or removed (apparently) just for the sake of changing them would turn them off.
The interchangeability of characters again requires a much stronger emphasis on "roles" and stereotypes in the game mechanics, such that the Elven Ranger or Tiefling Warlock are even more predictable builds than the Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Rogue or Gnome Deathknight.
In an earlier column I'd said that another fantasy game line could appeal to an audience that was soured by the idea of paying $90 for slightly modified versions of books they already owned. But at least D&D 3.5 gave additions and clarifications to the basic rules that existed, so you were indeed getting a little more than you did with 3.0. But now players who've invested in that are being asked to pay around $100 for a D&D set that in most respects gives them less than what they had: fewer class options (or mandated paragon paths), fewer basic race options, fewer spells, and so on.
So while I give the new D&D set mostly high marks for style and substance, it ultimately has to be judged in relation to what the gamer needs, and in relation to the state of the hobby outside D&D, much of which has progressed beyond D&D tropes that this game retains.
If you have no prior experience with tabletop roleplaying, I'd recommend the new D&D without reservation, in that it's well-done, easy to grasp and is obviously geared toward the generation of gamer that grew up thinking of a "roleplaying game" as something you load from a CD and not something rolled with dice.
Chances are, however, that if you're reading this website, you're one of those tabletop grognards who doesn't need to read the "What is a Roleplaying Game" introduction of a gamebook, and have seen enough games since D&D, each emphasizing varying levels of simplicity over detail or vice versa, that this isn't going to seem like the be-all-and-end-all of RPGs, even if (or rather especially if) it's stripped-down to emphasize the pure roots of D&D-style gaming. So if dungeoneering is what you want, that's what the new edtion gives you. Otherwise, the main reason to play this over some other fantasy game is the same reason to play any other edition of D&D: The brand-name satisfaction of playing official D&D. If that isn't enough for you, New D&D doesn't offer that much over other approaches to gaming, although it's still interesting enough to at least try.
STYLE: 4 (average all 3 books)
SUBSTANCE: 3.67 (PHB 4, DMG 4, MM 3) While the Monster Manual is hardly bad, it's not that well organized- again, Undead are all over the place while other monsters are in specific category lists, and it has fewer actual dragons than any other edition, for one thing.
