Review of 4th Edition Player's Handbook

Goto [ Index ]

Introduction

Dungeons & Dragons is, undoubtedly, one of the most influential roleplaying games in the hobby. From being the game that almost single-handedly spawned the industry to it's controversial third edition that some argue revitalised a past-time that was losing players. This is a game that paradoxically unites and divides much of the roleplaying community.

With the release of the fourth edition, Wizards of the Coast are both trying to update the game again, as well as make a more definitive mark on the franchise. But have they managed to make a successful shift or taken too big a risk?

Presentation

The cover art is considerably dynamic and attractive. While I am a fan of Paizo's Pathfinder covers - which are some of the best in the industry - Fourth Edition's cover design is one of the most attractive D&D cover sets to date.

The art within the book is, for the most part, excellent and evocative. There are, however, some overly busy pieces that are nearly abstract in the dizzying amount of action - and a couple where there is just too much wasted empty space.

Overall, though, the art is of a high calibre, with the racial and class sections being the standout pieces for me.

Layout wise, this is clearly a book designed with reference in mind. It reminds me, oddly, of my old university Psychology Textbooks. Good use of white space, well highlighted bullet points and reference text boxes. The decision to place all relevant powers in the section relating to their classes will not sit well with people so used to using the old editions, but I feel it was a good choice. In playtesting five games, we found that this allowed each player to find information quickly and easily - but it is important that you are able to remember that everything is listed under class now, and by level.

The colour marking of powers also adds to this ease - looking for your at-will or encounter or daily powers is improved by this addition.

Unfortunately there is no glossary, which initially seemed an oversight. Upon reflection, it seems to me that the designers felt that given the whole book is laid out to be an easy reference, they probably felt that the Players Handbook didn't need to waste space with a glossary. I'm not too sure if I agree with this decision if that is the case. This is in part due to the index, which is good in that it easily guides you to a section. But it lacks detail. For example, to find what the slowed condition does, you can't look up "slowed" - instead you need to look up "conditions."

This isn't a deal-breaker, and admittedly finding the information is pretty easy. But I do suspect that some players will get frustrated with this. A glossary or reference table of key conditions and basic states at the back of the book would have been a welcome addition.

What is d20?

While most readers will be familiar with d20, the OGL and/or previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons, for the benefit of those of you who don't here is a very brief rundown of the core mechanic.

d20 resolves most challenges by having players roll a twenty-sided die (a d20) while adding modifiers based on their abilities. The result is then compared to a static number. If you equal or exceed the number, you have succeeded in the challenge.

Other polyhedral dice - d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s and d12s are used to provide variation on results for damage - but rarely are used otherwise. Hence the title of the system - d20.

The game's complexity comes in regarding how characters move around a battlefield, how their abilities and powers adjust the result of the d20 roll and generally in the rules that are built around this basic mechanic.

Character Creation

The first step in any roleplaying game is character. Without them, there cannot be an adventure. D&D4e is initially interested in adventurers, it's system is designed to create heroic (or anti-heroic) characters who do not shy from danger. But the question is whether it provides enough freedom of creativity...

Stats, Defensive Values, Balance? As with previous editions of the game, characters have six primary attributes. Following from third edition, these attributes then provide a modifier which is used as the foundation of skill bonuses, attack bonuses and a number of other traits.

There are a number of methods for generating attribute scores, and it is a welcome addition to Fourth Edition to see that point buy has made it into the core rulebook. In this edition, characters are given a basic spread of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8.

While this seems to be aimed at the idea that every character should have a weakness, it is limited by the fact that players cannot lower one of their 10s as well to have two or more weak stats. This encourages players to make more balanced characters, however with the way that saves are now calculated, it is questionable as to how well this works. More on this in a moment.

Another interesting aspect of point-buy is that while there is a table of some of the viable spreads you can get with the points system, we found in actual play that the book neglects what we felt was the ideal spread for any character concept - 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8. With the point buy it is very rare that a score of 18 is a wise purchase, and 17 often disadvantages characters as well. Due to most classes having at least two key attributes, the "golden spread" can be combined with racial bonuses to create extremely competent characters who are unlikely to be glass ninja types. They will have a reasonable mix of defensive and offensive traits.

Speaking of defensive values, the system has taken the static save values from Star Wars Saga Edition as well. This is a good move, and in play we found it sped up combat considerably. However because saves are calculated using the best of two attributes, this means that players are likely to have up to three dump stats that they will just never ever use.

At the time of writing, I have come to realise that maybe the "encouraged" balance is to ensure that players can't just max out three attribute and leave everything else weak, I'm a still uncertain about how well the balancing has been considered here. Everytime I think that it isn't as well thought out as it could be, I find an example of why it seems that it has been considered. So I'm still on the fence about how well this worked.

Alignment and Roleplaying Previous editions of D&D have really left most of the roleplaying aspect up to the players to work on, focussing instead on mechanical issues that can't be resolved through simple roleplay. However, a long standing roleplaying aspect has been the idea of alignment.

Alignment in earlier editions was tied in mechanically to the system, and provided a moral barometer to measure your character's reactions to events around him or her. Third edition started the move away from alignment being mechanical by removing the systems behind changing alignment. But it still kept some of the spells that were tied to it- as well as having alignments be somewhat restrictive. While they were intended to be spring points for character personality, they weren't intended to be straitjackets - yet people often played that way.

Fourth Edition's alignments have changed. They are divorced from most mechanical considerations (although this could change in the future due to the nature of Powers, but more on that later...) They are also much broader in scope, being more of a springboard for ideas.

Which leads me to how 4e approaches roleplaying. Much like earlier editions, the attitude is primarily that roleplaying shouldn't need mechanics, but rather advice on how to get into character. I found the advice to be very well written with new players in mind. There is advice on how to think about your character in social situations, when they are at a point where a decision must be made and how they react in tense circumstances. Later on in the book, when discussing the mechanics of adventuring, there is constant advice on how this is also roleplayed out.

I think credit needs to be given for more of an effort to encourage players to actually roleplay - and it is worth noting that the system does now reward non-combat encounters equally to combat. In actual play this doesn't always lead to immersive roleplay though, but my personal opinion is that immersive roleplaying is more up to the players and DM rather than the mechanics - so in that respect, for me, I find myself agreeing with the design ethic. However, be aware of this fact as it may not suit your personal expectations for roleplaying.

Races Those already familiar with D&D will be surprised by some of the changes to race. Half-orcs and Gnomes are gone. Gnomes do have a character option write up in the Monster Manual, but they are not as detailed a race as the player races. Half-orcs are nowhere to be found, and it will be interesting to see if they show up again in later supplements.

Every race provides some form of attribute bonus, as well as a number of abilities - usually including one "power" that is unique to that race.

Dragonborn: One of the newest races in the game, these are essentially Draconians from Dragonlance with a new paintjob. It is a bit of a give away that under the section "play this race if..." we are told "if you want a character who looks like a dragon." You have to give credit to Wizards for simply being upfront as to why Dragonborn were added. For players who always wanted to just look like dragons.

Oddly, despite our playtest groups warmly mocking the addition of dragonborn - a number of players did choose to play them. They make interesting characters. One such player character in my new campaign, Azhan, was a white-dragon blooded Paladin of the Raven Queen. His cold demeanour and fervour for his mistress was fun to watch play out. While they are not statistically the strongest race choice, they are certainly a fun race to play. The fluff describes them as a race from a lost empire who seek to regain their nobility again.

Dwarves: The tried and true Dwarf is mostly unchanged in the new edition. They have been given some interesting abilities and make for strong characters in play for most of the defender and leader classes. One of our players commented that the art showed a dwarven cleric that was impossible to build using the game - until he noted a particular Dwarven feat that made her a viable concept - Dwarven Weapon Training.

Eladrin: The second of the new Fourth Edition races, the Eladrin are essentially a mix between High Elves and something more Fey. They are able to teleport as an encounter power and are well suited for Wizards. This is a race that is primarily focused on three classes, and hardly would be used outside of those except by players who are not min-maxing their character builds.

While some may find the Eladrin a bit extraneous, I found them to be a welcome addition. Both artistically and playwise, they are distinctive enough from elves to be a legitimate race in their own right. There is an issue with teleport - but I will be going into detail on that a little later on.

Elves: Didn't feel your elves were woodsy enough in previous editions? As one of the players pointed out, these guys seem to be built around the concept that elf = Legolas. While I'm not totally in agreement with this judgement, Elves are definitely set up to be primarily Rangers. They have the right kind of benefits and abilities. Other than that, they are standard wood elves.

Half-Elves: Here is an interesting change. Half-elves with attribute bonuses, rather than being disliked by their two founding races, they are the social butterflies that everybody likes. That's right - Half-elves are the racial diplomats of fourth edition. They are charismatic, provide bonuses to allies and generally are sold as being liked by most. They are also one of the strongest races to play.

Halflings: Again, they have changed. More in a way though of stereotyping. Still tricksters, Halflings are now bold and fearless little guys who seek to prove themselves. They are also a remarkably powerful race because there are very few disadvantages for being small now - but lots of advantages. Also their racial power is extremely effective - it forces an opponent to reroll a successful roll. Combined with some halfling racial feats - a part of halflings can prove to be a scary encounter...

Humans: As they have always been, humans are versatile. Some of our playtest groups have argued that they are the strongest race of all, gaining an extra feat and at-will power - but given that there are no attribute penalties, other races when built with their ideal classes, will always outshine the human equivalent. When it comes down to it - +1 to various traits will beat having an extra power. Humans are still a very solid race to go for as they can take any class without having to stress so much about attribute spread to allow that class to be a viable decision - but they are not necessarily the most powerful race.

Tieflings: A new addition as a playable core race, Tieflings have been changed considerably to fit into the new D&D cosmology. They are more demonic looking, and there is a kind of Star Trek rubber mask alien look to them. This is the one race I haven't seen in play yet, so I can't comment too much on what they play like. They do seem to be well suited to Warlock class, and have some interesting abilities. Something suggests to me that they may be one of the less appealing races to play simply because they don't initially provide an obviously "cool" ability or enough flexibility. They gain a bloodlust bonus when they bloody an opponent - but compared to powers like dragonbreath, teleporting, second chance, being able to never be knocked over, extra at-wills or encounter powers... it seems a little... well... dull.

Classes Here is the real crux of Fourth Edition's change. More than any other shift in design focus, the classes are completely rejigged to be almost indistinguishable from their previous incarnations. The central elements of these changes are Tiers, Roles, Powers and Healing Surges.

Tiers In an oddly "Unknown Armies" kind of way, D&D 4e is essentially three styles of play in one. Much like previous editions, players level up as they gain experience. However there are now 'plateaus' of experience. This is much like the old red, blue, green, white, gold box sets of old basic D&D. Players start at the Heroic Tier - where they are local heroes to a small area of the world. Upon reaching 11th level, they become paragons. Who travel the world for adventure. At this level, characters have a lot more options and players select a "Paragon Path" which provides additional benefits.

Paragons allow for additional customisation, and can mean that two players of the same class can take their characters down considerably different routes.

Finally at the 21st level, players take an Epic Destiny. At this point, gameplay moves to a cosmological level - where players can storm the heavens, take on world-threatening enemies and generally be the stuff of legends. Despite the large number of Paragon Paths, there are only four Epic Destinies provided in the core. It is interesting to note, however, that while Paragon Paths are specialised and specific, Epic Destinies are broad and mostly generalised.

Roles Borrowing the concept from MMORPGS and Computer Roleplaying games, classes are now designated a "role." This is kind of a key word that tells you at a glance what tactics work best for this class. You don't have to stick to the tactics - but all your abilities and powers are geared towards this particular approach.

Now at first this appears to be restrictive, until you realise how broad that role is. A leader can lead by leading the charge, or staying in the back row providing back-up. A Controller can wade into battle, knocking opponents away with area attacks or strike from range... What appeals to me about roles is that it presents a clear indication of what each class is good at and which style of play will suit it. It also leads to all the classes being interesting and needing to work together to take advantage of each other's strengths.

Over the last six years or so of playing third edition, I have seen players who fall into class ruts - they stick to one class and wont touch others. This role system has led to some of these players choosing to try out all the new classes and enjoying each and every one of them.

I think roles will be one of the main sticking points for some people. Some will find them restrictive, as you wont be able to make a Cleric who is a controller or a Wizard who is a defender - but to me they are a good guide to suggest to players what class might appeal to them most. Me? I like strikers and controllers, but occasionally a good defender is fun to play too.

Powers Each class gets a number of powers. Powers are divided up into At-Will, Encounter, Daily and Utility. At-Will powers are able to be cast literally at will. You can use them over and over and over again. Encounter powers work only once per encounter. They are restored after an encounter ends and the PCs take a short 5 minute rest. Dailies, work once a day and are restored once PCs have had an extended rest and Utilities are mostly non-combat powers that can be at-will, encounter or daily powers. They basically cover personal effects. Oddly they still work in combat terms, but some are clearly not combat related.

Healing Surges Finally there are healing surges. PCs get a number of these a day - you can spend one per encounter to get a number hit points back - which helps prolong your character's ability to fight and means that healing classes aren't stuck with just running around healing all the time.

Further class powers allow PCs to spend additional healing surges for various benefits to health, attacks and defence.

Cleric: While still the main healing class, the Cleric is now more focused on general support. They are deadly against undead and have a variety of support powers. Their prayers are fairly limited, and I have seen many cases of Clerics running out of healing abilities and simply having to fight because their remaining powers don't heal. I'm uncertain as to how well this balances.

While it is clear that the aim was to prevent players from limiting the cleric to healing duties, I wonder if the system has gone completely the other way. It seems that this might balance out at higher levels - but we are yet to playtest this. For now, Clerics are a powerful class, but the amount of healing they have is possibly too limited.

On the other hand, most classes do have ways to heal themselves, so it may just come down to the combinations chosen by players.

Fighter: Solid and dependable defenders, Fighters have a good mix of attacks, self-healing and defence. While they are still kind of the least interesting classes compared to the flashy other choices - they have a variety of fun tricks and even some clever non-combat exploits, that leads them to be a class that is well worth playing if you want something a little simpler to play, but with a variety of options to choose from.

Paladin: Another defender with some healing capacity, the Paladin plays as a kind of support leader. While they don't have the powers of leaders, they have enough support abilities that make them a different kind of defender from the Fighter. While the Fighter will draw enemies to him, the Paladin wades into the fight and provides a degree of support to those PCs who follow him into the thick of battle. A good combination with striker classes.

Ranger: Gone are the animal companions and overtly nature focused Ranger. Fourth Edition Rangers can either be Nature or Dungeon focused. Players choose whether to make a two weapon melee striker or a ranged combat striker. Rangers have an array of fun and interesting abilities that allow them to strike for massive amounts of damage before getting out of the way.

While it may be tempting to some to play only rangers - we have found in playtesting that it is a class that needs to have back up from a strong controller, defender or leader. Still, they are fun class especially if you want to make a swashbuckling kind of character.

Rogue: Another good swashbuckler, the Rogue class has moved closer to the concept of a rogue versus a thief. Tricky and quick, rogues seem to be one of the classes with a variety of possible builds. From stealthy hidden assassins, to quick acrobatic Tony Jaa kind of fighters who leap in and out of the battle. While working on a paragon level character, it struck me that Rogues are close to Wuxia style characters - they move around the battle field a lot and can be very effective even if they don't go for the traditional stealth role by simply being able to constantly slip into flanking positions to still take advantage of their sneak attacks.

Warlock: One of the new classes for D&D, the Warlock is an arcane user who has signed some dark pact with demons, the Fey or creatures from beyond the stars. While they can choose powers from outside their pact, there is often little reason to do so - as the pact based powers are more beneficial. This plays into one of the key critiques our playtests have raised - that while you can build a lot of options, it is unlikely that most players will move out of the obviously optimal choices.

Hopefully later supplements will provide more options - but taking the rules as written, the option is there - but is unlikely to appeal to most players.

Warlord: A refreshing alternative to the Cleric, the Warlord is the other new class presented. A leader, the Warlord does fill the role left by the departure of the Bard as a core class. However a warlord is more combat focused and acts as a useful healer, buffer and general support figure. However, they are also one of the weaker classes that can drop quickly if not well designed.

In one playtest, the Warlord would often take the most damage, being the key target as healer. The other important thing to remember is that a Warlord is a team player. One game we played had a player who wanted to play a more striker type role but chose to make a Warlord. Because most of her power required her to be adjacent to others and didn't do as much damage as the Paladin or Wizard, she got frustrated. It is important for Warlord players to realise that it is not a class that can "go it alone."

Wizard: Wizards are probably the most revamped class of all. Beginning Wizards have considerably more firepower at their disposal compared to previous editions, and they are well suited for attacking large numbers of weaker enemies. The main flaw of this class is that virtually all powers relate to Intelligence. It is very easy for a player to think that they can dump everything into that attribute - and they will create an effective wizard.

However, it will likely be a very boring one. In a kind of converse to the Warlock's problem, the Wizard shows how most suboptimal builds can end up being better because they lead to a lot more fun and options to play with. Wizards can either be high damage, powerful condition caster or useful back-up. Based on the implements and options you pick.

Skills Unlike classes and races, skills effective work the same as they have in third edition. What has changed is that they are much broader in scope, leading to a smaller list - and once again in a move borrowed from Star Wars Saga Edition players don't spend points on skills. Instead, skills are calculated based on level and whether the player selects them as trained or not. This leads to higher bonuses, but also easier book-keeping.

Feats In some ways, feats have also remained unchanged. There are primarily heroic, paragon, epic, racial and multiclass feats.

For the most part, feats aren't major changes to the system, but they allow for further customisation of your character. Again there is a tendency for some feats to be more obvious picks than others - but very few are really wasted choices. Regardless of the feat you pick, there is a tangible benefit.

Of special note are the multiclass feats. The idea behind these is that rather than create a concept by combining two classes, players should just pick a primary class and use multiclass feats to tweak it to fit the concept.

I like the idea behind this. Due to the roles, it can mess things up by trying to track more than one class. By following this method, it encourages players to think about what is the primary style of play they want, and then to alter that class to better fit your concept.

Unfortunately, the feats are not that well designed. Because most classes are built around the concept of using *all* the basic abilities of that class, you need to have access to all of them. But the multiclass feats don't allow this. What is the point of taking a Warlock basic feat if you can't use Warlock's curse?

These needed a little more thought and detail. Maybe providing weaker versions of the core abilities? Either way, it was a missed opportunity. I appreciate the goal and think it is an inspired one - but it simply wasn't handled well enough.

Having said that, some of these feats do work - Azhan, the Dragonblooded Paladin of the Raven Queen took the Rogue multiclass feat and surprised both myself and another player with his use of sneak attack and stealth. So it can work, but it needs a little more to have been done with it.

Equipment For the most part, equipment is exactly what one would expect. Unfortunately though, it has felt like this was another area that was overlooked a little. Weapons have been altered to have "proficiency" bonuses - which is a good move. Allowing proficient fighters to be more precise with their strikes.

But some weapons just seem pointless. Consider this example - why would a rogue ever choose a hand crossbow over a sling? Both do the same amount of damage, have the same bonus and properties. But the crossbow is 25 gp and weighs 2 pounds while the sling costs 1gp and weighs nothing.

There aren't a lot of these cases, but there are enough to raise an eyebrow. This is such a basic mistake, given the amount of playtesting that Wizards put this game through, it is a shame such a basic problem that should have popped up everytime a character was being created still was overlooked.

I have seen in each case of character creation this same problem pop up where at least one player will say "why would I buy X weapon when Y is the same but cheaper?"

Magic Items I could almost say the same for Magic Items. Fourth Edition is swimming with magic items. Personally, I like this. But I can see other players wanting a less "magical" fantasy game being frustrated.

There is a problem with some magic items abilities just being a bit pointless and others seeming too obvious. When building three different paragon PCs, I found that some items again became fairly obvious choices over others. But this may be more of a personal preference thing than an inherent fault.

It is also interesting to note that the new economy means that selling magic items is a losing venture. Items sell for 1/5th their value. Meaning that it is often better to keep the item than sell it - as you will then only be able to buy a magic item four to five levels below it.

Rituals The last part of the character creation aspect of the game is rituals. This is a inspired design choice - allowing all PCs to choose a feat that grants them magical ability. Most of the rituals are versions of third edition's non-combat spells.

These take longer to cast - normally in the range of hours - and cost money/components.

For the most part, this allows for more spells that everyone can use. But there are a couple of cases where it seems that thought did not go into a few of these rituals. For example, Discern Lie seems a waste of a spell. The caster takes ten minutes to cast the spell so as to tell if someone is lying. One of the benefits of the old version of this spell is that it could be cast on the spot. Some of our players did comment on this as being a bit silly.

Another odd spell is Tenser's Floating Disk. Initially it seems great, you can carry extra weight on a disk. Until you think about how anything dropped by enemies is unsaleable, instead you take gold, gems and magic items - most of which you'll be carrying on you. It may have a use, but it seems a bit unnecessary.

Combat and General Play

So now you know a bit about the various character options, how does the game actually play?

Combat First and foremost, Dungeons & Dragons is about adventuring. Like most action adventure movies, this means a lot of the time, characters will be getting into fights.

Combat in Fourth Edition is streamlined compared to previous versions. It has the conceit that players will be using miniatures and a battle grid to keep track of the action, but does claim that you can play without these.

Movement has been simplified from earlier versions, having an almost boardgame feel. It reminds me a bit of Tannhauser, in that movement is mostly a number of squares/points that you can move with few things limiting movement.

A general combat begins with players rolling initiative and then taking actions based on how well they rolled. Once again, the system borrows from Star Wars Saga Edition and describes a turn as three actions. One Standard, one Move and one Minor. Players can scale down actions, which creates a more tactical approach.

This simple use of titles also means that it becomes easier to classify what can be done in any given turn - and streamlines the game considerably. Each power has a corresponding action tag, so players know what they can and can't get their PCs to do.

Additionally, there are some interesting defined types of movement - which allow powers to do a variety of tactical set-ups.

Another interesting aspect that we've now carried over to our Pathfinder games as well, is the idea of Bloodied. When a character or creature is down to half their hit points, they are described as bloodied. Several powers take advantage of this condition - but we also found that this is a good way for players to gauge how well a fight is going.

It is a simple thing, but leads to players then being able to judge if "now is the time to unleash my daily?" Like I say, we have carried it over to our Pathfinder game because it is such a great way for the DM to be able to hint to the players that they are halfway to defeating the enemy.

All in all, while it may sound complex, we found the clear classifications meant that players focused on what to do rather than what can they do. This, in turn, leads to quicker decision making - with many powers working to lead up a succession of turns being pre-planned.

With the range of options available, it is rare to see combat become boring. However, there can be cases particularly in the early heroic stage where players spend all their nifty powers and then spend the remaining rounds whittling away at the enemy with the same combinations of attacks. This may change with future feats and powers - but for now, it is possible for fights to start off amazingly dynamic and fun but end with the final opponent dying from a death of a thousand cuts.

Tactical Maps versus Freestyle Play It is worth pointing out here that although there is the claim that the game can be played more freely without maps or minis, no effort is made to offer suggestions on how to do this. Given the tactical nature of the powers, it will either take a fair bit of creativity and imagination on the gaming group's part to be able to capture the same "feel" for the classes, or the definite lessening of the experience.

Conditions Conditions in fourth edition are a very common sight. Most classes have a few powers that inflict a condition on an enemy, and most monsters have condition effects. These range from slowed (where a PC can only move 2 squares at a time) to various damage effects that do a set amount of damage each turn.

Most conditions have a statement such as (save ends.) This requires a saving throw, where the player rolls a d20 and essentially needs to get 10 or more to negate the effect. Various powers and abilities can add to this roll - but it is interesting that rather than remove the saving throw, Wizards have altered how it works.

While it does seem a bit unnecessary, we've found it to be simple in play and it does seem an easy way to deal with the removal of conditions.

One condition worth noting is unconscious/dying. I've found this to still be a vicious death spiral rule. But given how easy it is to stop the effect if the other players are team players - it should balance out. I'll talk a little more about this in a moment, but it is clear that the system is there to encourage players to work as a team rather than out for themselves. I do wonder how well this will work for many gaming groups.

Non-combat and Adventuring While the player's handbook does detail some of the non-combat issues, it really is left to the DM to handle this side of things. Players gain "milestones" every two encounters, which grant them a bonus action point. Action points are used to give a bonus attack, and at higher levels they provide other benefits as well.

Even though we have been using action points in other d20 games, the limited uses for them in D&D has lead to players often forgetting that they had them. Over all though, they are useful... but only in combat for the moment.

The DMG covers skill challenges, which are non-combat encounters where the players and DM set a goal that needs to be achieved, and then the PCs must succeed a number of times before they rack up too many failures.

In actual play this proved to be a lot of fun and encouraged some creative roleplaying as players tried to figure out which of their strong skills could be used to help with the challenge. They do seem tough DCs, and some players found the structure lead away from immersive in character talk to the old "my character says something about how this is a good plan..." type talking.

I don't personally have a problem with this, but I can see some roleplayers getting frustrated with this kind of roleplaying. So be aware of this likelihood.

Considering the Dungeon Masters Guide and Monster Manual

This leads me to the DMG and Monster Manual. I will endeavour to review these in as much detail as I have here - but it is worth discussing some of my thoughts here as they are central to the game.

The Dungeon Master's Guide is possibly one of the best written to date. It clearly lays out what a DM does, how to go about doing it and even has advice the experienced GM/DM's such as in our group still found useful. It strongly focuses on advising DMs how to make games encourage roleplaying from the players rather than just wargaming. Yet, in an ironic twist, the sample adventure is pretty much a straight dungeoncrawl. Having said that, it is a fun dungeoncrawl that really allows the DM to showcase the new rules.

Another good point is that the DMG give advice on how to teach the game to someone who has never roleplayed before - this alone is a great piece of work.

On the flipside, it has a lengthy traps chapter that neglects to actually explain how to build them.

The Monster Manual is, again, possibly one of the best ever written. This is a bit dependent on what you expect out of such a book. I personally, want ready to go monsters that are easy to reference, have everything about them on the page and are open enough for me to fit into my setting.

If you want fluff -then you will be disappointed. In actual play, I found it as easy as just having bookmarks in the manual and having a scratch pad to keep track of hit points and condition effects. Building encounters is incredibly easy and a lot of fun.

The Bad

So as you no doubt can tell, I have mixed feelings about this game. Let's look at the negatives first.

While there are no truly big faults with the game, there are numerous little issues that regularly pop up. Equipment that is useless, extremely powerful character builds that are so obvious as to seem to deliberately force players into those shapes - and some missed opportunities.

There are some odd cases that should have been obvious problems straight out the gate. A blatant one is teleportation. The rules are not always clear on what teleporters can and can't do. Can you teleport an opponent five squares up? Is teleporting someone over a cliff acceptable?

While it might be a case of DM fiat, it would have been nice to have at least some advice on how to judge these cases. I suspect that this is deliberate - allowing groups to set the game to their tastes, but it feels like it just wasn't considered at all.

Tactical battlemaps and minis. Having been a bit of a mini's hater in the past, I can see this as a big stumbling block for some groups as they may have players who wont be willing to try out the game solely because of this feature. Some players find miniatures restrictive on their imagination, and it would have been nice to see an attempt to advise how to play the game without minis and a map.

Classes are flexibile, but need more options.

The Good

Despite these flaws, there is one big factor that makes them almost excusable. Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition is FUN.

Although it borrows from CRPGs and MMORPGs, it takes the kind of design thinking that makes these games appealing and reimagines those designs into a game system that inspires and encourages you to play.

The races are, for the most part, enaging and inspiring. The classes are now all interesting and each plays quite differently from the other - allowing a lot of flexibility in party make-up.

The powers system means that rather than swamp players with heaps of new classes, Wizards can go for builds within classes by simply introducing new powers. This goes further in that the system is now transparent enough players can even take a go at creating their own powers.

Much like earlier roleplaying games D&D4e encourages players to tinker with the system and make it their own. The DMG backs up with with considerably tips and advice.

Despite using minis, this is unlike previous minis based games. Virtually all the complexity has been moved away from the rules and instead lies in the positioning and tactical planning of the players. Fortunately the use of roles and the straight forward explanations of moves and what they do leads to players being able to think tactically and quickly

Our group has found the overall use of minis improves the gaming experience in a way that makes previous stunting games without minis now feel drab and unengaging in comparison!

Summary

It was tough call deciding the scores. While I do believe this is the best edition of D&D, it is also a big change. There are lots of little faults, and I almost listed this as 4/4. However, the sheer amount of fun, and that fact that as one player put it "there are so many things that rub me up the wrong way when I read the book, but they just work so well when we play..." I felt that ultimately the risk has paid off for Wizards.

D&D4e is a fun, engaging game that encourages players to work together and think beyond "I hit it." It leaves room for groups to tweak things without feeling like its lacking rules, but it is not without some faults that are odd for having been overlooked.

For me, this is the D&D I have been waiting for. For you? Hopefully this review has given a more detailed view of how things work out in play. I strongly recommend trying it, but be aware that while it still is D&D conceptually, gameplay wise it is unlike any D&D you have played before.

Should I Buy This Game? If you enjoy a rollicking action game full of adventure and fun. You could do a hell of a lot worse. If you don't like the use of miniatures or games that guide players with their decision making, this might be worth a miss. If you are like me and loved Book of Nine Swords - you will probably find this game to be right up your alley.