Player's Handbook: A 4th Edition Core Rulebook (D&D Core Rulebook) [ハードカバー]

4th edition D&D = Different.

That fact alone would have spawned endless teeth gnashing from loyalists of prior versions - but what differences are we talking about? How different is it?

In a word: very.

4th edition is a sea change in the core rules that is easily on par with the change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.

Start with the thematic changes:
The core races have changed. Humans, Halflings, Elves, Half-Elves and Dwarves are back - they've just been supplemented with three new races. Dragonborn (dragonmen), Eladrin (magical fey of the wood) and Tiefling (humanoids with an otherworldly taint).

Classes from 3.0 and 3.5 have been dropped from this volume (There is no druid, monk, bard, or barbarian). These classes are promised in future Player's Handbooks. Not the most auspicious beginning.

Thematic changes like this are easy to spot - but are perhaps the least important changes in the game. I dislike the concept of Dragonborn ("Dragon-anything" is a label I feel makes its subject seem cartoonish and clichéd), but as a GM - I can easily fix this. In my world Dragonborn will be lizardmen, with a backstory that I choose. I take the rules and make them my own.

The WotC game designers have clearly tried to shift the game mechanics towards customized character development: (a rules buffet, so to speak) - so anyone who wants to have a druid could achieve a reasonable facsimile of powers and rituals and achieve the rest thematically.

Many will have a problem with this - but I frankly don't. Being able to mix and match classes in 3.5 was a radical shift (and a brilliant one) and the re-thinking of that model that occurs in 4th Edition provides more options, not less.

The artwork (particularly the book's cover) will come in for a large amount of abuse - but again, this is such a minor issue. Quality artwork is important for RPG (imagery is the lifeblood of storytelling), but any one picture will have those who love it/hate it. So long as the majority of the art isn't bad (like the schlock in 2nd edition) any gamer is free to switch to pictures they *do* enjoy.

Again, thematic changes will get a lot of attention, but any GM is free to re-imagine any theme that they have a problem with.

On to Rules:

This is where the true sea change is. Any discussion of what is happening in 4th edition can be boiled down to this:

4th edition wants to simplify things and speed up your gaming sessions.

3rd edition and 3.5 attempted to create flexibility and lots of independent rulesets (feats, prestige classes). This was good - but the complexity inherent in this model caused a lot of problems. When scalable feats collided with spells and class abilities - often the only guidance the GM would have is the precise language in the rulebook. Is a charge an attack action? No, it is a full round action that allows you to attack - and so on.

I sincerely believe that 3rd edition was superior to 2nd edition, but I never had as many rules disputes when I played 2nd edition.

4th Edition was clearly intended to address this issue.

Base attack bonus tables? Gone. You get a bonus of half your level, rounded down, to pretty much anything you do (as well as to many stats, like your AC). The advantage of this is twofold - it's easy to remember and it always scales.

All attacks are now attacks: be they claw, sword or spell - the character will roll a die, add their modifiers up and try to hit a defense number. This streamlines combat spells, since instead of a saving throw, you will have a passive defense number that your opponents will try to beat. One roll, from the attacker - always.

This kind of symmetry will allow players to better remember what to do. I'm a target, I do nothing. I'm attacking, I roll.

The combat round has gotten an overhaul, as well. Characters are now allowed to perform the following in a round: A standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions. These labels exist in a hierarchy, so the character can forgo a standard action to take an additional use of a lesser action.
Standard actions are the big actions (attack, use a power, etc). Move actions are exactly what you'd think. Minor actions include readying a weapon or maintaining a spell effect. Free actions are virtually unlimited (drop something, speak, etc).
The groupings are intuitive- and the initial adjustment aside - this structure will add some real clarity to the always problematic question of "what can I do in a round?"

Now the biggest shift of all: Powers
All 3rd edition/3.5 casters get weaker and less useful every time they cast a spell, resulting in the entire party needing to stop and camp just to get their magic back.
If the party had an early morning encounter that was intense enough - the caster would spend the rest of the day "empty" and pretty much useless.

4th edition tackles this issue head on. Character have powers that can be used once per encounter. Meaning: no matter how many encounters your spell caster has in a day, they will have something to contribute.

This is brilliant. A real slap-the-forehead moment, even for gamers who (like me) have been playing for decades. Once per encounter powers are scaled to not be show stoppers - but they scale as you get more powerful.

Powers that refresh for encounters are supplemented with powers that are refreshed after an extended rest (much like old times). The difference is that the rest need only be 6 hours long, which fits better with the model of dungeon crawls and treks in the wilderness.

Spells weren't the only resource PCs needed to hole up and replenish. The other one was Hit Points. The old healing model was: everyone gets a pittance for resting, and then the healers burn magic to *really* fix people. This system exacerbated the previous problem of spellcaster depletion. Caster rests, uses all their spell slots to heal other PCs - and is useless for the rest of the day.

Now - everyone can heal by themselves. Every PC has a healing reserve - a set number of times they can heal 1/4th their total hit points. In combat, most PCs are allowed to do this only once - magic and special abilities can increase this.

This seems weird for lots of reasons, but it will free players to pursue action instead of good places to rest. Clerics can still be healers, without being straitjacketed to the role. This is good, really good news for gamers. Parties will still have to hole up and rest, but healing reserves and encounter based powers will ensure that they will never be completely out of options.

And powers aren't just for spellcasters! This, too seems weird - but warrior types are given abilities called "Exploits." These are essentially special moves that enhance the warriors martial abilities. Call them magic or call them tricks their guild master taught them - they are expended in the same way as powers - and the advancement model ensures they will scale better than 3.5's feats.

The last big change to magic is the creation of Ritual Magic. Rituals are spells that take too long to cast in combat (10 minutes or more) but have long lasting, or purely utilitarian effects: summon mounts, scrying, etc. Moving these abilities out of the realm of combat with casting times decreases the likelihood that their effects will collide with combat rules in unforeseen ways. As a GM - I like this a lot. Players will still get creative, but when combat is ongoing - I hate to stop and figure out if a utility spell like Prestigitation can have an effect on combat.

There are many other changes:

-Three tiers of level advancement, each containing 10 levels - entering any new tier affords you new powers and development paths. Each tier contains powers scaled to that tier - no more feat free-for alls.
-Skills have been (mercifully) simplified so that there is better parity among PCs of the same level (The bonus follows the same format of 1/2 level + bonuses). You either are trained in a skill, or you are not. Training nets you a flat +5 bonus. (Gone is the insanity of 3.5 where a level loss had you searching prior versions of your character to reset your skill levels. Remember what INT drain did to skills? the horror!)

There is a lot to like here. The long suffering DMs of 3.5 will finally get some speed back into their game. It will be an adjustment, but the goals of this system are admirable.

That said, I have three gripes.
One is just a personal bias. 3rd edition required miniatures for combat in all but name. 4th edition codifies miniatures. The idea of a purely "in your head" encounter is a rapidly fading memory for gamers like me. Sometimes, you just want to do a combat on the fly, without figures and without maps. WotC has clearly come down on the side of precise tactics - and I truly wish they'd made more accommodations for DMs who don't like to map every improvised encounter site.

Second - while the 4th edition PH's index is merely lacking; its glossary is non-existent. In books of this size - a one page index is just inadequate. To be fair, the books explain any terminology as it is introduced *very* well, but any player who needs to know what a term means would have an easier time scanning a glossary than the entire rulebook.
(DnD Insider claims to have many features to simplify things - but online access has not been the hallmark of my gaming sessions. This may change - but a good, frequently-updated glossary should be available for download on their website.)

Lastly, the unpardonable yet unavoidable aspect of 4th Edition: It is so near the release of 3.5 - and has so many changes that it cannot help but spawn a 4.5 edition in the near future. I was a playtester for 4th edition, so I know they've gotten a number of kinks out of it. But there is no way playtesters and designers got it all. Like every other edition, players will find the weak spots of the new system and eventually rules will get revised.

There is such a thing as buyer's fatigue. I've bought every ruleset since the Expert Set, and having invested deeply in 3.5, I am being asked (along with every other 3.5 player) to start over - again.

I like the rules - and I obviously love the game - but there is a limit to the number of times a game can switch rulesets. If 4.5 comes out in the near future and we are yet again asked to pitch our (still like new) rulebooks in favor of the latest products - I suspect I will not be the only DM to slam on the brakes.

There, rant over.

Game on!

I don't mind at all that WotC has sacrificed some sacred cows to make the system more streamlined. I don't mind that you have to roll to hit with magic missile. I don't mind that you have to use miniatures, or a battlegrid. I don't mind that the game is more combat-oriented.

I do mind that the game just feels boring.

Sure, I can make a Dragonborn fighter and an Eladrin wizard. But they don't do anything spectacularly different. Except that the wizard is, for some magically unknown reason, unable to whack anything with his staff. All of the powers that they've added essentially boil down to XdY + Ability modifier damage, and if you're lucky, a 1-turn status effect.

I give great praise to WotC for making the classes blanaced. It's very difficult (if not impossible) to push your character off the RNG completely. The problem is that they made everything too balanced, so that no one does anything particularly flavorful.

Not only that, but the character you make is essentially straight-jacketed into one of the two (and sometimes three) predetermined character archetypes that are presented. Taking a power from a different character build is inefficient, because it takes a different attribute to use, which you probably don't have as high.

I don't care if my wizard impales people with ice spikes or burns them with fire, because there's functionally no difference. Defenses against particular damage types are so few and far between that you can do the same thing with the same spell, over and over again.

The elite and solo monsters that are presented are a joke. They have anywhere from 2x-5x the amount of HP a normal monster should have, and have an extra 10%-25% chance to end any effect on them every turn. Considering that combat against normal enemies takes forever, you spend all of your encounter and daily powers against the enemy, and then sit there and grind away at its massive amount of health with your piddly at-will abilities, which do precisely jack squat in the long run.

The rituals are dumb. All of them are assigned a cost. It takes 10% of your level-equivalent character wealth to detect a secret door. The rituals themselves are interesting, but I'd rather save up for the 3,000,000 gp required for a better sword (yeesh) than pay 5,000 gp every time I want to teleport.

It seems like the playtesters didn't go past about level 10. Magic items are ridiculously expensive. The higher-level encounters just don't add up with the math the designers used. And you're chokeheld to even fewer options the higher you go.

Overall, the system is great for a one-shot weekend thing. But if you want to make a long-running campaign, stick to one of the other editions.

People call 4th Edition many things- a World of Warcraft ripoff, a simplification of 3rd edition, a moneygrab by Wizards of the Coast considering D&D 3.5 was released not so long ago... but the one thing that most people are calling this is "different".

For long-time fans, here's a list of some basic things you'll need to come to terms with to start playing basic 4th edition: You have to roll to hit with Magic Missile (yes it can miss now); There is no Bard, Monk, or Druid (though these are promised in PHBII- see the moneygrab comment); No classes get any ability minuses anymore, only pluses (Elves have average Constitution, Halflings have average Strength); Wizards and all classes for that matter in fact now have at-will powers they can use without depleting their spells or powers per day.

Long-time D&D fans instantly scoff at a few of the above points (rolling for Magic Missile just seems intuitively wrong), but hey- it's a new edition. Every new edition means new mechanics, so let's go along with it- until you lean just how changed the mechanics are.

All of the rules, all of the combat, and all of the encounter information is all provided in terms of a square combat grid. Essentially, Wizards is shortchanging free-form players and pushing combat requiring miniatures. It's entirely possible to play a game without using a grid and miniatures, but you'll probably wind up doing more on-the-fly conversions than ever to make it happen. Many players are already using miniatures anyway, so this might seem great for them, but even then the flavor makes it seem more like you're playing a generic strategy game instead of D&D. Change the flavor text a bit and the rules could easily read "This power lets you move your tank two spaces to the left regardless of physical barriers" or "The Knight piece can only travel in the four cardinal directions". There's just no more real-world feel like "Fireball can travel up to 100 feet before exploding and damaging a 25-foot radius".

All of the characters have tons of at-will, per-encounter, and expendable refreshers that add up to players having more varied options than ever before in combat, especially at first level. This seems exciting, but anyone who's ever seen an MMO (like World of Warcraft) will quickly see exactly what this adds up to- combat is rarely going to be about just rolling a d20 and waiting for an attack to come out, and it's going to be more than ever about choosing from a list of fairly pre-fab powers to attack the enemy with. Even if you're just a "simple" Fighter, you still have access to a list of powers at first level that make a plain attack pretty useless. In the end, this does make for more involving combat, but the combat that comes out is tremendously different from previous editions (and again, tremendously more like a lot of MMOs out there).

The final shift I'll mention here is the shift away from "utility" powers and entirely toward combat powers, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but that's again very MMO-like. Every class has a ton of new powers, but read between the lines and you'll see virtually all the powers involve damaging enemies. Wizards can't, for example, use a spell to create a rope when the party needs one. Nor can they use a spell to help their Rogue woo over a crowd when he gives a speech at a banquet (technically you can write powers called Rituals for this, but the basic spell list doesn't have this flexibility). Most of what they can do is apply Force damage, Elemental damage, or more Force damage. If you were to divide Wizard powers into direct attack spells and everything else, you'd find nearly all their powers are the exact same thing: "Deal X (choose type) damage to target". This same trend applies to every class in different ways.

So in the end, I'm left with a conundrum. I want to play D&D because I love the game that D&D has always been, even though the game has had some glaring flaws in every release. This edition has done a lot to address the flaws of previous releases, but in the process it creates something that just doesn't feel very much like D&D. Maybe the game that's in here is a really good one, but I'd feel a lot better if the cover said "d20 Fantasy Game" instead of masquerading around as a new edition of D&D. My suggestion is to look up some of the free sites out there that have produced try-before-you-buy quickstart intros to 4th edition, or find a friend who's bought it and see it firsthand. I can't recommend outright jumping into this edition to anyone.