I just got the core books boxed set in the mail, and I'm reading it now, so if any of you have any questions about something specific that would be covered in the core books, feel free to ask.
I'm on page twenty of the PH, and to be quite honest, I'm not liking what I'm seeing. A few of the changes I like, but I get the uncomfortable feeling that I'm being spoon-fed instructions on how I'm "supposed" to play the game, rather than being given a general set of guidelines and suggestions and told "go wild".
I'm also getting the vibe that the "play testers" may have taken their job a bit too far. The information in the books has a ridged, beaten-to-death feel about it, which I don't find all that appealing.
Soo. From what I've read right now:
Alignments: Yes, I know they nerfed the alignments, but I personally like the fact that alignments are no longer wholly connected to what classes you can be. A paladin can be Evil if they want to, or not. It's their choice.
Now, what I
don't like is the fact that they've cut the alignments down and made them little more than an accessory. There are only five alignments now, and if you get technical, there are only four. Why? Because apparently, "Unaligned" is now a viable option.
Good: Freedom and kindness.
"Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do."
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
"An ordered society protects us from evil."
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
"It is my right to claim what others possess."
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
"I don't care what I have to do to get what I want."
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
"Just let me go about my business."
I'm sorry, but no. While I support the idea of alignments being less restrictive on what a character can be or do, I strongly disagree with the way they're being presented. Now, they have more in common with religion than anything else. What happened to Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil? What happened to the Neutral alignments, like Lawful Neutral? They've all been deemed obsolete.
Also. . . since when can you be "Unaligned"? Last time I checked, it was literally
impossible to not have an alignment. Even animals and creatures not intelligent enough to make moral and ethical decisions, and constructs incapable of independent thought have alignments (usually Neutral). I'm sorry, but you can't just
choose not to have an alignment. An alignment is a key part of defining who and what you are. The only things that should be "Unaligned" are lifeless, inanimate objects, and even then there are numerous exceptions to that.
So no. As far as alignments are concerned, I like the fact that they're less restrictive, but I can't stand the fact that they've been turned into some sort of pseudo-spiritual pledge, let alone the concept of Unaligned and the destruction of over half the alignments.
Three Basic Rules: This is something I don't like at all. From what I've read, the Three Basic Rules are taken directly from 3.5, but they apparently don't really matter.
That is to say, the sourcebook breaks its own stated rules. The first (and to me, most important) of the three rules are
Simple Rules, Many Exceptions.
The problem, though, is that what I've read so far isn't about the exceptions. In 3.5, the general attitude was "Here, this is what you can do, and how the rules and mechanics work. Feel free to add on to, bend, or break the rules as necessary for your story and campaign."
Basically, the SRME rule is all about freedom. You have a small number of basic rules and mechanics to follow, and everything else is up to you, including violating said rules as you see fit. As long as you can balance it out in terms of power and gameplay, you can do whatever you want (and the only reason balance was a concern was because it usually wasn't as fun to play when things are unbalanced).
What I've read so far, however, isn't at all like that. Instead of telling you what you
can do, 4.0 seems determined to tell you what you
can't. I'm barely through the introduction of the PH, and I'm already being told what I
can't do as a player, and how so-and-so restrictions apply to me.
And as both a player and a DM, that fails. Not only is it annoying on a personal level, but it goes against the entire point of D&D. It's supposed to be about freedom of the player to do whatever they want, with the DM keeping things fair and balanced. Instead, 4.0 decides to do the complete opposite. Sure, you can do whatever you want. Within these rules, strictures, and guidelines, of course.
What's that? Your vision of your character doesn't translate into the game? Well, sucks to be you then, doesn't it?
No. Just, no. There isn't a silver lining to this one. It's Fail all around.
Encounters: I'll be honest with you. Some of the stuff in 4.0 I like. Others, however, scare me as a RPer and as a DM. This is one of them.
And I quote:
HOW DO YOU PLAY? said:
Basically, the D&D game consists of player characters taking on an adventure presented by the Dungeon Master. Each adventure is made up of encounters - challenges of some sort that your characters face.
Encounters come in two types:
- Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other is defeated.
- Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character's skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it's a noncombat encounter.
Notice what's missing?
Role playing.
In the 4.0 breakdown of "How Do You Play", it goes on and on about fighting and making skill checks, but doesn't once mention role playing.
I'm sorry, but isn't D&D classified as a Tabletop
Role Playing Game? Because it was last time I checked.
What's with the lack of role playing? It isn't even
mentioned in the What's In a D&D Game or How To Play Sections.
This isn't a Players Handbook. It's an instruction manual. I don't feel like I'm reading TRPG rulebook so much as a video game walkthrough. This is how you do this, this is how you do that. You must choose to be this, this or this. This isn't an option. Why? Because we say so.
I say it in bold, capital letters.
FAIL.
As both a DM and a player, I want the freedom to do what I want. The D&D franchise (and indeed the TRPG industry as a whole) is supposed to provide structure and purpose to an otherwise purely imaginary exercise. Instead, it's locking down my choices, decisions, and preferences into one tiny, narrow field from which there can be no deviation whatsoever.
4.0 isn't focusing, forming, and directing my imagination, it's choking it and stuffing it into a premade hole that I
must conform to, no ifs, ands, or buts.
This is not the 3.5 that I joined the D&D scene with, nor is it the AD&D I explored under recommendation from others who'd been playing longer than I had. This is D&D trying to be something it
is not while simultaneously being what it already is, and as a result, failing at both.
Race: Now this is downright galling.
The Dragonborn are unnecessary IMO, what with the Savage Races and Half-Dragon rules in place. They're an interesting choice, but in any normal campaign that I've played, dragons don't interbreed with humanoid races nearly often enough to warrant making those with strong draconic ancestry one of the Main Races. Half-Dragons and those with prominent draconic ancestry are meant to be oddities. That's what lends them their allure and exotic feel. Making them common cheapens their overall concept in a way that I'm not at all a fan of.
The Eladrin transcend the realm of unnecessary into the realm of Really Bad Idea. Not only are they
superior to the Elves in the same way Elves are superior to Humans, but they're
just as common as all the other Main Races, Elves included. Not only does that cheapen the concept of the Elves, but it screams "overpowered Mary Sues" at the top of its lungs.
And worst of all, Tieflings. Yes, you heard me. Tieflings are now one of the Main Races. But guess what? There isn't an equivalent opposite to check them. Aasimars no longer exist, and there isn't another race to take their place. Not one. It's Tieflings, and. . . that's it. Just them.
And you know why? Because the person who lead the racial revamping said, and I quote:
I kept mistyping and spelling their name into something inappropriate by accident, and I got tired of it. After thinking about it, I decided that Aasimar as a race are not necessary. After all, Good isn't as cool or memorable as Evil, is it? No PC ever really has fun being the goody-two-shoes. Why would they? The Hero isn't cool any longer. It's all about the Anti-Hero, and we wanted to translate that into the racial choices.
Telling
me what kind of races and heroes
I like? Telling
me what
I have to choose to play as, just because
you didn't pay attention in High School vocabulary and can't remember it's "
Aasimar", and not "
Assimar?
Let alone the Fail that is not even
bothering to replace them with an equivalent race?
Fuck you, sirrah. Fuck you.
I haven't finished the Players Handbook, let along the other two core books. I've only just started, really. But I can tell you right now, I'm not going to be playing 4.0. I'll probably take the ideas, concepts, and rules from 4.0 that I like and implement them into my campaigns as I see fit, but I'm not going to play pure 4.0. Not a chance. I'll stick to 3.5 and earlier, and use 4.0 as a supplement.
Sorry, Rule Nazis. You Fail. You're just lucky Gary isn't around to see what you've done, or heÆd go Elminster on your asses.
And of course, the "any questions, feel free to ask" thing still applies. I'll be more than happy to skip ahead of my reading and answer questions.