PHB 4e

[bigscary]

• Tabular layout is very, very nice. Clear descriptions of all conditions? Better than the 3.5 version thereof, and in the relevant part of the PHB rather than the back of the DMG.
• Book is both very pretty and very sturdy-seeming. We'll see if the latter is more than just appearance
• I really can't get over how much the layout and organization are improved.

Very pleased.

Comments

[slackwench.livejournal.com]

Do you suppose the subtitle "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes" implies that there will be other sorts later on?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

From what I've heard, almost certainly yes.

[slackwench.livejournal.com]

I'm trying (and failing) to think of anything that falls outside those categories. Do you know what they might be?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Nature, for druids & barbarians. Psionics if they release a 4e Psionic Handbook.

[slackwench.livejournal.com]

I suppose that makes sense, though I've always thought of druids as priests, essentially.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

From the 4E PHB, pg 54:

Other Power Sources: Additional power sources and techniques provide characters of different classes with powers and abilities. These will appear in future Player's Handbook volumes. For example, barbarians and druids draw on the primal forces of nature, monks harness the power of their soul energy (or ki), and psions call upon the mind to generate psionic powers. Future power sources include elemental, ki, primal, psionic, and shadow

[jlc.livejournal.com]

Looking over shell524's PHB on the train home tonight, I was really impressed with the early material in this version. Wizards actually bothered to, you know, talk about what a roleplaying game is, what to do and why in chargen, and even have some example play in the PHB! Quite a sea change from 3 where that shit was all buried in the DMG or not even addressed.

The tabular layout bothers the fuck out of me, though. I know this is D&D, but tables really aren't always the best method for displaying information. I am overjoyed that they put the relevant systems information for all the races on a seperate, facing page from the description this time around. No more mucking through those horrible run-together double columns!

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Book sturdiness... no more than the 3.5 PHB. I'm already seeing weak points forming on the binding.

Also, they ripped the fantasy right out of the magic items. It's horrific. Most things only give you a turn's worth of effect (flight, invisibility, etc). I would have preferred they kept the magic items as per past editions (or went with the evolving magic items they experimented with in late 3.5) and taking there creation out of the players hands then the BS they're passing off as magic items in the PHB. I miss the decanter of endless water already!

So I'm guessing engineering will return with the gnomes? Didn't see anything in the feats or skills section even hinting at anything as simple as bridge building let alone steam-power.

Overall assessment so far: I got to go with what my friend said months ago, 3.5 > 4 without a doubt.

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

There is no reason not to give people wacky magic items, as long as one makes sure that they're not game unbalancing.

I suspect bridge-building, like ritual research, is deliberately Not For Rolling.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

I kind of like the condition (and other) summaries in the back of the DMG (or in the back of something, though PHB would've been better). Appendices are good for locating info quickly.

It is pretty, though it doesn't seem terribly sturdy. Mine was no longer closing all the way if not squeezed on the very first night.

I think the layout and organization are about as good. Some things I like better, and some I think are worse.

I'm less concerned about the book itself, and more about its contents. But I admit it's so different I can't really tell yet whether I think I'll enjoy it more or less than previous editions. I don't think I'll be able to tell that until I play.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

I'm less concerned about the book itself, and more about its contents. But I admit it's so different I can't really tell yet whether I think I'll enjoy it more or less than previous editions. I don't think I'll be able to tell that until I play.
Agreed. If the game manages to move faster and still play as epic fantasy, I'll be quite pleased. Just from PHB scanning, it's hard to tell if that's actually going to happen.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

My first impressions from the PHB are that combats are expected to be long. Characters have a lot of HP and a lot of healing relative to the amount of damage they deal, and they got rid of most of the quick battle ending spells (save-or-suck, instant death, etc). But it also seems like everyone attacks every round, even when they're also buffing, so maybe it moves fast? We'll see.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Granted I've mostly been looking at Rogues, but so far it looks as if played right you could down a creature of like level in a single strike given a crit or 2 hits without a crit. For example, rogues start combat with advantage so they can always pull a sneak attack (+2D6 at level 1) in round one. More than likely they will use a short short (1D6), dagger (1D4), or shuriken (1D6 for rogues) for their attack. Rogue attacks all add Dex to damage (and assuming you are going to work a 18 in the main stat that is a +4). Given that a rogue with con 10 only has 22hp it's possible for another rogue to one shot him. I'm sure the other classes all have ways to pile it on as well. Even if the target has a high AC, there is a good chance that one of its other defenses are left lacking (and hence will be piled onto by the member of the party that can attack that defense).

So in general I don't see things as any better or worse in terms of combat duration in RT vs. any other version of DnD.

[peacewood.livejournal.com]

I like it, from first impressions. A couple of nips and tucks that are needed, of course, but overall seems quite organized, as mentioned before.

A couple of nitpicks:

First of all, the word "comperable" on the Halfling page. Urgh, I can't believe that made it past the editors -- much less a decent spell-checker.

Second, I'm a little on the fence about the "feel" of the classes so far. On the one hand, there seems to be a far more even distribution of powers and roles (no "end-game is dominated by spellcasters" syndrome), and the power levels of each class seem just about equal. On the other hand, I have a distinctly "cookie-cutter" flavor in my mouth when reading through the classes -- just about everyone seems like a swordsage, really -- but perhaps this is just my personal view and we'll see how it shucks out in the end.

Third, the multiclassing system, which is essentially using feats to replicate the properties of a second class, seems kind of slipshod and tacked on. To wit: it says that each multiclass feat grants you the power to take class-related feats in your secondary class. But the Initiate of the Faith feat (priest multi) gives you Healing Word -- when every single cleric feat requires Channel Divinity. Oops.

On a similar note, the multiclassing "paragon" path is almost laughably less powerful than any other standard paragon path, especially considering that you're sacrificing four feats for it. I only pay attention to these things, of course, because I'm considering dabbling into a second class as Blink.

Overall, I'm very impressed and looking forward to playing with the new system, though.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

You're not the only one seeing issues with the multiclassing. I've looked into it a bit myself and some of the multiclassed paragon abilities are unusable since there is no way for you to get at some of the core abilities they are augmenting. About the only plus I see with the multiclassing is that it gives you a free skill to use and should you choose to take additional feats, the abilities that the feats grant can be change every time you level without retraining.

PS: Did you compare the table of multiclassing feats to the actual write-ups of those feats? Seems that in a few cases they don't agree on what ability you're suppose to get ^_^