The Fourth Edition

RPGC Community Realm of the Dragons Forum
#29

A lot of the extraplanar entities got switched around for 4th Edition. I’m not sure how much you remember of the 2nd Edition cosmology, but the Eladrins (who are now a player race) used to be chaotic good angels (generally referred to as Celestials). I think the idea was to take two popular archetypes of elves (nature lovers vs. magic users) and separate them into distinct races. Personally I think they worked well as a single race, variety makes things interesting after all, but it’s not a big deal.

Another big change is with the Archons, who were once lawful good Celestials! While the core idea of the Eladrin in 4th stays true to the 2nd and 3rd Edition versions, the Archons are completely different. Again, I prefer the old 2nd Ed. version, but that’s entirely subjective on my part. In the context of 4th Ed., the new Archons work out pretty well.

Are they now calling all Fiends demons and devils? I actually liked Tana’ri and Baatezu myself. I believe that TSR changed demons and devils to Tana’ri and Baatezu to avoid accusations of occultism. This was back in the D&D scare of the '80s, when a lot of people thought it was some satanic ritual game that taught you how to cast actual spells, or something. Daemon might have become Yugoloth, but I’m less certain about that.

#30

I remember the previous D&D cosmology pretty well, in fact I still have a lot of those books, which I bought to read them, my friends and I never actually got to play a Planescane campaign (we drifted apart after high school; too bad, I was looking to play it.) And yes, I remember the Eladrin as Celestials and was surprised to see them “demoted” to a player race, but as you said that was probably to give those people who wanted their “Elves” to be more than humans with pointy ears what they wished. The Archons are an even bigger change, the only thing they have in common with the originals is the name, they’re now elemental warriors, which is OK, since we still have Angels, even if not all of them are good-aligned.

And yeah, the renaming of the fiends was very likely done to avoid using “demonic” names (never mind that anyone with EYES and half a brain could tell what they were supposed to be!) And yes, the Daemons (which btw were invented by the game, to fill in the logical niche between the Lawful Devils and the Chaotic Demons) were renamed yugoloth. I think they still exist in 4th edition, but not as a specific race, for example the Mezzodaemon is now a Devil. Since the outer planes of this version no longer have a “Wheel of Alignments” concept anymore, I guess it doesn’t matter.

#31

OK, I read the second Monster Manual today. It’s pretty much the same as the first- same format, same art (seriously, what is it with ALL the D&D books now being illustrated by the same guy? Are they going for a “house style” or just saving money on artists?) Which is good because the first Manual was pretty good too. I do have some comments, though:

First of all, I noticed that the vast majority of the monsters in this volume were actually 4th edition versions of old D&D monsters. There weren’t as many new monsters as in the first manual. You’d think that it would be the other way around, with the first book containing the “classic” monsters and the second one new ones. Then again, to most new players the majority of these monsters will be new anyway, so it’s no big deal.

On the other hand, I noticed that, once again, most of the formerly good-aligned monsters have been changed to “unaligned”- even the Metallic Dragons, whose very purpose is to counterbalance the Evil dragons! That’s really sad; there used to be so much material on good monsters on earlier editions. In fact, I noticed that these Manuals focus a LOT on evil monsters- the Devils and Demons are among the few ones that get an extended background. Don’t get me wrong, it’s interesting stuff- I like how, for example, Demogorgon now has TWO personalities, one for each head, and is allied with Dagon, the First Demon Lord. But one gets the impression that the universe is very lopsided, with so many evil or dangerous monsters and very few heroes to defend it. Even the stars- yes, THE STARS!- are evil now!

The only good monsters in the second book are The Devas, who used to be the “angels” in the previous versions and still are, kinda, except now they’re bound to the Material Plane while the new, not-always-good Angels have taken their places among the gods. And even the Devas have some members who have turned to evil!

I’m starting to wonder if this is being done to fit in with the “Eberron” campaign, which I hear is pretty dark, or if they’re just imitating the style of the Warhammer MMORPG. (That would explain the huge number of hulking, spiked armored monsters, a WH staple.)

In fact, I think I’ll read the Eberron book on my next trip to Border’s. I’ll let you guys know what I think then.

#32

Thank you all for posting this has all been helpful

#33

OK, finally read the Eberron Sourcebook today. Here are my opinions:

First of all: it turns out that the player-related info- the Eberron-specific PC classes and such- is in ANOTHER BOOK. Why?? I get that this book is meant for the Dungeon Masters and should not be read by the players, but having to buy TWO books for the campaign, when the basic D&D sets you back 100$ already, is absurd. They could just have told the DM to photocopy the pages the PCs were meant to see and give the copies to his players. WAY less expensive.

OK now, on to Eberron itself: I understand that this setting was created before the 4th Edition, and this is just an update. It is NOT the “official” setting for D&D, though people can be forgiven from getting that impression since it’s the only such setting out right now.

Eberron itself is mostly like your typical D&D world, except for the following details:

  • The sky has 12 Moons and a ring like Saturn’s!! Must make for a very impressive night sky. :wink:
  • Steampunk-type “technology”, such as trains and robots, exists, though they’re really all powered by magic. Crystals known as “dragonshards” are found all around the world, and are used to create magic items. They’re in fact the main source of the economy.
  • Apparently, the fate of The Entire Universe is dictated by “The Prophecy”, sort of a set of cosmic rules that is literally written On The World Itself! Bits and pieces are scattered everywhere, from small rocks to ENTIRE LANDS (those can only be read from on high, ala the Nazca lines.) Even if you find a piece of the prophecy, you still need to have the means to understand it. As you can imagine, a LOT of characters are trying to learn as much as they can about it so they can manipulate the world. However, as of yet, no one has found all the pieces. Who “wrote” the prophecy is a mystery as well. You’d think it was gods, except-
    -Eberron has NO GODS! Oh, it has religions, and plenty of them. But from what I could gather, none of them are worshiping actual gods. Some are based on misinterpreted legends, other worship beings like demons or spirits. Even in the history of how The World was created, no gods seemed to be involved (though it may be that they have been forgotten). Apparently however Eberron HAS priests with magical abilities, though it might be that they’re granted by other beings, or even gained from the background magic due to sheer faith (I’ve seen that concept in other D&D books.) This in turn brings about the next problem…
    -Eberron seems to have NO major force of good!! None of the good gods are real, and the major source of good priests and paladins, the Church of the Silver Flame, apparently also produces its fair number of good-justifies-the-means fanatics. In fact, of all the major NPCs listed in the book, not a single one was good. Not. A. Single. One. They were all either Unaligned (neutral) or evil. This might be intentional, since the book specifically establishes that Eberron is a “Noir Fantasy” setting. The only major heroes in the world seem to be the player characters… and that’s assuming that you ARE playing them as good! Note, this doesn’t mean that Eberron cannot be used as a more traditional setting- nothing stops a DM from saying, “The gods ARE real”. Or “The Silver Flame IS trustworthy”. Or creating his own Major Good NPCs. But taken as it is, I would feel (as a player) that I couldn’t fully trust anybody else in the world.
    -On the other hand, there are menaces aplenty. The Aurum is a secret society of rich people- this world’s version of the Mafia. The dragons manipulate events from the shadows, as they believe that only they should have access to the Prophecy (the other races are too immature to them). And the Scions of Dust are servants of the demons who once ruled the world, who are trying to find a way to release their imprisoned masters! There are other dangers as well, but those are the major ones.
    -Some people are born with “dragonmarks” that give then natural bonuses to certain types of magics or skills. They seem to appear mostly within the 12 Major Houses of the setting (which is the cause of their influence) though some do appear among commoners. Even the dragons have no idea why the dragonmarks started appearing among the humanoid races.

Eberron’s history:
Now, this part IS very interesting. It looks like someone looked at all the classic races and monsters of D&D, factored in their powers and longevity, and figured out how such a world might evolve socially. Nice work!

First came the dragons (don’t ask me from where.) Three in particular where godlike in power, and the struggle between them killed them, but also created the land, the sky and the underdark (the subterranean world) as well as all the other races. (This part might just be a myth. Or maybe the first three Dragons were actually gods.)

Demons ruled most of the world, except the continent ruled by dragons. The dragons joined forces with the coatls (winged snakes) and they managed to bind all the great demon lords (in a forbidden continent) though the couatls were virtually wiped out in the process, and the dragons retreated to the shadows.

The giants then ruled the world, enslaving all other races. Until a war with abominations from another universe left them weak enough for their slaves to revolt.

Then, during the “Age of Monsters”, believe it or not, the GOBLINS had a major empire! Even the Orcs, who were part of it, seemed to have been reasonably civilized. But another invasion of alien creatures again collapsed their Empire. By this time, humans and Elves had come to prominence, in their own continents, though it would be the former Goblins’ continent that would become this world’s melting pot and the official setting of the Eberron campaign.

Then came the 100 years war. Started by 5 nations that could not decide which one should rule, the war only ended when a mysterious cataclysm, The Mourning, happened- a gray mist that killed EVERYONE in one of the nations, causing the rest to stop fighting to try to find out what happened. Nobody knows if the Mourning was caused by a divine retribution or a superweapon gone out of control. The default Eberron campaign assumes that the war ended only a year before the characters start adventuring. Investigating the disaster’s cause is only one possible goal.

In general, I found the Eberron setting to be fairly interesting. As I said, my only problem is the lack of a fully trustworthy good force for the PCs to ally with. But that can be fixed. Unless of course the PCs like playing in such a setting. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Eberron is bad- I’ve seen far darker D&D settings (Ravenloft, for one.) what I’m not forgiving them for is not having included the PC material in ONE book. Things are expensive enough these days, you know.

#34

I checked out another 4th Ed. book yesterday: The 2nd Player’s Handbook. Why the second? Well, from what I saw the first has reinventions of the original stuff (the basic races and classes, such as Elves and Wizards) and so (presumably) the second one contained brand new stuff. I was partly right; it also had races (like Gnomes) and Classes (like Druids) that had long been D&D mainstays, but for some reason were left out of the first book. Still, none of it is vital to a campaign; it can all be considered optional. It’s still interesting stuff, tho.

There are five new races here: Devas, Goliaths, Gnomes, Half-Orcs and Shifters.
-Devas are the servants of good gods; in earlier editions they were thinly disguised versions of Judeochristian angels; for some reason, they have been reinvented in this edition as a race of immortals, bound to the World to fight evil. They can be killed, but they will just re-form in some holy place later- though with only scant memories of their previous life. In fact the effects of having had hundreds of lives is basically their main gimmick. They look human with colored skin patterns. Overall a pretty-looking, interesting race to play, though it might too mystical or nice for some players.
-Goliaths are simply tall humans (8’ tall) with stonehard skin. The text says they have peeble-like growths of bone over their bodies, but the pictures I saw of them didn’t show them (artist error?) They have a basically barbarian culture, where “survival of the fittest” is law.
-Gnomes used to be just skinny, slightly more magical Dwarves; the new version is more like small elves. They are refugees from the Feywild, the dimension of fairies. The picture in the book also gives them some really weird eyes, but the description in the text doesn’t mention that, so it might be an error (I hope so… it makes them looks creepy.)
-Half-Orcs is another race from earlier editions. They used to be, not a true race on their own, but just the offspring of humans and orcs (ugh.) However they now seem to be an actual race that just looks like humans with Orcish features. Though they may be descended from Orcs; even they are not sure. So basically they are big, ugly humans with a tribal culture. If the Goliaths are too weird for you, play these.
-Shifters are descended from humans that had lycanthropy. Which basically means they are humans with catlike or doglike features; they cannot change into full beasts, but they do look more animalistic when they go berserk. There’s two types, the Longtooth (canines) and Sharpclaw (felines.) These are basically for furry fans. (Just kidding!)

The eight new Classes are:
-Avengers, priests that fight in the name of their gods (basically, Paladins, but they don’t have to be good.)
-Barbarians, fighters who specialize in berserking in battle.
-Bards, wizards who use music for their spells.
-Druids, priests of nature itself rather than the gods.
-Invokers, priests specialized in destructive magic.
-Shamans, priests who worship spirits.
-Sorcerers, wizards with innate magic rather than learned spells.
-Wardens, warriors specialized in defense.

Of these, the Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer are from previous editions. There are changes, of course. There’s a new Power Source, “Primal Power” which comes from the spirits of the world rather than energy of the universe (Arcane magic) or from the gods (Divine Magic). It’s basically Shamanism; Barbarians, Druids and (of course) Shamans use it.

Is it me, or is there some redundancy here? As you can see most of these classes can be considered just variations on existing ones. Is something like a Warden justified? Why not just use fighters? What’s the difference between a Druid and a Shaman? Unfortunately in order to tell I would need to actually read the book thoroughly, as their descriptions (especially of the Spells) are pretty long. The book however looks like a fun read and I WOULD have bought it, if it did not cost 35$ (+ local taxes.) Uhh, some other time.

Oh, the book also contains new options, such as new “paths” for high-level characters (including the classes and races in the first book.) I admit I had fun in my mind mixing and matching Races and Classes as I read the book. It also has varied artwork (unlike other 4th Edition books, which usually have art from only one artist) and all of it is good (and in full color!) Overall, it IS a good, fun product, and I think I might buy it some day (when I can afford buying D&D books again) and if you can afford an extra Player’s Handbook for your campaign, I think you’ll like it too.

#35

Because wardens are hardier than warriors and force monsters to focus on them because if they don’t, the warden gets an immediate interrupt attack on the offending mob. Warriors can only mark the targets they attack, wardens can mark anything that is adjacent to them. Wardens get multiple saving throws per turn.

Wardens own, hth.

#36

As said before, the only difference in each class is the power source. All of them, bar Martial (which lacks a controller) have one of each class to call their own. For each power source, the classes have different uses, but are generally the same. For example, Divine characters are more devoted to healing themselves and others while they fight, while Arcane ones are meant to hinder their enemies so they are easier to kill. Other than that, it’s simply a character background choice.

Story wise, Avengers are meant to be holy assassins of a sort, with their abilities and practices being condemed by followings around the world(s) simply because it’s not humane/honorable.

In respect to the Divine classes, I feel that, even with Divine Power, Paladins and Clerics seem to have been left in the dust of other classes. From things I have seen before I played DnD: WoW, various fiction, comics etc., Clerics were meant to be individuals who would provide some form of Deus Ex Machina at the end of games, healing a much loved party member. Paladins were meant to be feared power houses, individuals who had the skills equal to a fighter, backed by the immessurable power of a deity, allowing the story to present them as mysterious (like the Jedi). Now, though, the two classes seem to be fairly useless and over used (like the Jedi), especially when compared to the new Primal Equivalents, the Shaman and the Warden (not so much the Shaman, healing wise, but Shamans were still pretty good)

#37

Well, it might be because of my writer leanings, but I tend to evaluate Classes according to their role in the societies they are set in (and secondarily, on their abilities.) For example, the basic concept of the Priest is that he or she receives special abilities from a deity in exchange for his/her services. This is definitely valid in a fantasy setting, but what those abilities (and services) are should depend on the individual deity. The original Cleric was based on the Christian Priest of the middle ages, which is why they had abilities like turning undead and restrictions like not using bladed weapons. But these characteristics would not fit, say, a Celtic priest, which is why they invented Druids. And then they came up with Shamans and Avengers and Invokers and- you see the problem. Why not just have a single Priest class and just give the DMs the option to customize them by religion? (The 2nd Edition Cleric class had something like this, thanks to the concept of Spell Spheres, which limited what type of spells a Cleric would get according to his patron deity.)

Another thing I noticed from the 4th Edition is that multiclassing is no longer possible- well not strictly. In older editions, if you wanted to play, say, a fighter/magic user, you could (as long as your character met the requirements for both classes, of course.) Now however, you’re stuck with one class, though you can learn feats from other classes. With all the customization options they have now, it might be entirely possible to give your character all the abilities a Fighter/Magic user would have… but instead of just writing “F/MU” in your character sheet, you have to jot down “Fighter with the following feats and character paths and whatever”. More complicated.

#38

There is this p cool class called a “swordmage” that can fight and also use magic.

hth

#39

I did hear a while ago that Player’s Handbook 3 would include rules for ‘Hybrid Classes’. You’d pick two classes from level 1, take half the stats from one and half from the other, put them together, and pick alternating powers as you level up. I think it might work out, but not by much. they’d have to work out some bugs to keep classes from being ever so slightly overpowered.

#40

Acenra: Again, that sounds needlessly complicated. In the old days, you just decided to which of your classes your current experience points gain would go to. This would represent which one you had been training for lately. Of course, it might be argued that adventuring classes do their training on the field; in that case, a GM might insist the exp. go to the class whose abilities you used most significantly in the adventure, for example if you failed to cast any spells then you would not get to raise your Wizard class level.

In practice this means that a character with two classes would level them up more slowly than a single-class one would (to say nothing of one with THREE!) but that is realistic and helps game balance.

#41

I guess I can agree with that. I did have a problem with some of the multiclassing a while back, where you could have as many as you wanted, but once you’ve achieved 20 levels, you don’t do any more. So, while you’d technically be max level, your abilities would be so pitifully low, it’s laughable (if you’re like me and tries to go for a good balance rather than a specific role) But I guess I must have missed something (Neverwinter Nights, or any DnD video game aren’t exactly the best translations of the old rules)

I guess that would be the same of the 4th ed hybrid classes. you may be a hybrid paladin/cleric but you wouldn’t be as good a defender, or as good a healer. “Jack of all, master of none” type thing. I guess it would work for the 5th party member. While there would be a role filled for each of the initial 4, it would be a good idea to have the 5th do its best to fulfil as many roles as it can.

I think I’m rambling now

#42

Not at all. One of the problems of D&D classes as originally envisioned was that they were TOO specialized: the Fighter fought well, but couldn’t use any magic; The wizard had his powerful spells, but couldn’t heal (for no good reason) and was an utter wimp in close combat; the Thief was good at sneaking around and nothing else; etc. This forced the players to have to take certain “roles” even if they didn’t want to. Actually, it’s the other way around- it’s the GM’s job to make sure the adventures he makes fit the needs of his players, and if they all want to, say, play fighters, then he should not use curses that need magic to be fixed, provide them with plenty of healing items, etc. Of course a smart GM would also create NPCs of other classes to both help the PCs when needed, and maybe inspire them via example to try different classes later. :wink:

#43

Forgotten Realms: The Fourth Edition Version

I must admit I was quite surprised to see this book. I was under the impression that Eberron (discussed above) was going to be the new D&D’s official setting. Then again, the Realms were THE D&D setting for many, many years, and still has many fans, so I guess it makes sense they would continue to use it.

…Except… this version has changed. A LOT.

First of all: remember how I pointed out (in my review of the new Manual of the Planes) how there was a new design to the D&D Multiverse? Well, the new FR setting uses it too- but it explains that it was CAUSED by the death of Mystra, the goddess of magic! Borrowing a page from DC comics’ Crisis on Infinite Earths, they had this incident literally change everything on the planes so that it resembles the standard 4th Edition cosmos now! For example, the Positive and Negative Planes are gone, and in their places stand the Realms of Faerie and Shadows, respectively. OK, I guess that’s acceptable (though it does avoid using the new D&D cosmic origin, that is, Primordials versus Gods). Basically what they’re saying is that yes, these ARE the same Forgotten Realms from earlier versions… except everything has massively changed! (Why not just reinvent the whole thing?) ENTIRE new lands now exist, most apparently switched in from “Abeir” a previously-unseen parallel planet to Toril (where the Realms are.) This was also a way to get the new player races, like the Draconians, into Toril.

Further, the time of the setting has been moved up to a HUNDRED years after the original setting; this means that most of the original characters are now gone (though presumably those with longer-than-human lifespans could be around.) There was NO mention in the book of Elminster, The Symbul, The Seven Sisters, Drizzt or any of the other major FR personas. In short, this setting doesn’t resemble the old Realms very much…

Not that I’m saying it’s not a good setting! There are now new FR-based playable races (Drows and Genasi); new classes, new paths etc. And plenty of places and campaign ideas. More importantly, this is a more “traditional” High Fantasy setting than Eberron is, for those who prefer it that way.

My only problem is the idea that this is the SAME Toril as in the earlier supplements. Why make such sweeping changes? Why not just say, “This is the 4th Edition version, no relation to the previous one?” I’m sure many fans of the original setting must be cheesed.

On the other hand, if you don’t care about that, then this book will very useful for your 4th Ed Campaigns. (It has some swell art too!)

#44

but it explains that it was CAUSED by the death of Mystra, the goddess of magic!
Eh, it’s not the first time. So who dispenses magic now?

#45

True, there have been other cataclysms in the Realms before- but not of this magnitude! I know it’s just an excuse to revise the setting, but again, couldn’t they have left the previous version alone, for those who preferred it?

I admit I miss Elminster, Author Avatar Mary Sue that he was. And Drizzt, and Blackstaff, and-

-I suppose they could still be introduced- in ANOTHER book. (Yeesh, TSR, these things are EXPENSIVE, you know? Try including everything relevant in one book!)

Anyway, I don’t know who is in charge of magic right now, I couldn’t find it in my first browsing of the book (there might not be ANYBODY in charge, which would explain all the chaos magic still rampant). I’ll let you know if I find out.

#46

Before I get to my next 4th Edition book review, one quick comment: Remember how I mentioned above (in my Eberron review) how impractical it is to have a TWO books for every campaign, the Player’s and the Dungeon Master’s? Well, they did it again, with Forgotten Realms- except the player’s book contains NOTHING BUT REPRINTS from the character sections from the main FR book- it even has the same art! As far as I could see there was NO difference at all! Why then bother buying it?? Yes, I get that the players aren’t supposed to see the DM’s section, but in that case, why not sell the two books TOGETHER in a bundle? Why sell hardcover editions separately? Oh, right- TO MAKE MORE MONEY! I’m sorry, but this is blatant exploitation. Remember that the three basic books (that you need to play D&D) cost about 100$ (!!) together. So now, to play the D&D FR campaign I also need to buy two more books, one of which has NO new material?? Screw that!

OK, now on to my review of:

Dragon Magazine Annual #1

Those of you even slightly familiar with D&D known that DRAGON Magazine was the heart of its fandom; not only it was the source of ideas for campaigns and game-related news; it was a way for the fans to communicate with the people behind the game, and with each other, at a time when the Web was not even a dream. The D&D fandom has always been very interactive; a comment on a letters page might lead to an article that could lead to an actual addition to the game (the Psionicist Class is but an example) and, for some, it even led to working for TSR and developing their own Official Campaigns. Thus, I was actually saddened to learn that Dragon became another victim of the dying magazine market (though I had lost contact with it years before) and now exists only as an online version.

However, judging by this book, it is still thriving creatively. :slight_smile: This (hardcover) collects the best material featured in the site from 2008 to 2009. Sure it’s expensive, and technically speaking none of the material in it is “official” (that I know) but it is still, for the most part, very good and worthy of being used in many player’s campaign. Even the stuff that I felt was just “OK” was still fun to read.

So, what is included in this book? Well, there’s more articles than I can remember right now, but among the highlights:

-A 4th edition version of Yeenoguh, the Demon Lord of the Gnolls (Hyena-men.) I’ve never cared much for this character; I think of all the Infernal Lords invented by D&D, he was among the lamest. This article however does the most it can to make it impressive, including creating several Gnoll characters to serve under him, from exarchs to priests. I’m still not very interested -the stuff they invented for Orcus and Demogorgon in the 4th Ed. Monster Manual is more creative in my opinion- but still, Yeenoghu definitely makes for an appropriate menace for Epic-level heroes.

-Speaking of Orcus, another article covers the followers of the Demon Lord of the Undead, and they actually found a way to make the cult stand out: they gave them a goal (beyond just spreading eeeevil) AND they had the cult split over how to carry it, thus creating multiple possible campaign adventures! The goal is to help Orcus replace the Raven Queen as the God of Death itself- by somehow fixing it so that undeath becomes the “default” existence after death for all beings! This is not just a menace to the Queen, but to all gods, since the realms of the afterlife would no longer receive the souls of the living! How to bring it about is the splitting factor; for example, some factions think they should turn the Queen herself into an undead, though others think that might just make her stronger. It’s actually interesting to see such evil characters (each faction comes with an already-developed leader) discuss (and clash over) how to achieve their goals. In addition, the article reinvents some long-forgotten undead monsters (like the Huecuva and the Eye Of Fear and Flame) in new, interesting ways.

  • A similar article expands on the notion (that I complained about above) of the STARS being evil entities in this edition of D&D. It basically details how to make “pacts” (for the Warlock class) with several specific (made up, I think) stars and the legends surrounding them; though humorously, it seems even the warlocks themselves aren’t sure if the stars really are alive or if their pacts with them are successful. :stuck_out_tongue: It’s an interesting article, but I’m still annoyed by the lack of Good (or even Neutral) Star entities.

-My favorite article was the one about the Epic-Level Paths related to the Planes of the Multiverse. One of my favorite aspects of D&D is that it CAN go beyond the typical “slaying local monsters” setting of most High Fantasy and go much further. The options here vary with the plane- you could become part of the Shadowfell (The Plane of Shadow); or create your own Astral Realm; or develop the ability to travel through Time and Space; or become a Primordial (elemental Lord); or a Prince of Hell (not necessarily an evil one!) or the Punisher of the Gods (as in, you punish those who defy the gods- ANY of them) and others. I’m happy to see the potential of the D&D multiverse finally exploited (beyond the Planescape campaign setting that is.)

-Other articles in the Annual include: an adventure dealing with a Red Dragon that set itself as a tyrant; an underworld organization (think Mafia) composed of goblinoid races; a new player race from the Shadowfell that defies the plane’s apathy effect; the return of the Assassin Character Class (now available for any alignment!) and others.

In general, the 4th edition books are very good (if expensive) and (unlike the Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide) the Dragon Annual guide is very much worth it, with enough material and ideas to last for years. Oh, and it has excellent art as well! :slight_smile: Recommended.

#47

I have started to rebuild my website http://rotd.rpgclassics.com from the ground up and I’m including sections for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, but I will need help with the latter of the 2 since I don’t have much for them especially the 4th edition.

#48

DN: nice to see you update the site. Sadly I’m too behind the times to help, except with the reviews of 4th edition books I’m posting here. Hope that helps you in some way.

Speaking of reviews, here’s ANOTHER one: Player’s Handbook 3!!

Most of the stuff in this edition is either new or optional, or both. Still, it includes the return of that old D&D standard- PSIONICS- out of place as they may feel in a pure fantasy setting, as well as another expansion of the new “legendary origins of the 4th edition universe” that actually works in justifying the existence of psionics in the setting, assuming you want them.

It also brings back the concept of the “Far Realm” which has been mentioned before but not used much except to explain the origin of Aberrations (the really freaky monsters like Mindflayers.) The Far Realm is a universe that is so alien that just looking into it can drive you mad- in other words, it’s the D&D version of the Cthulhu Mythos. According to this book, a “living gate” to this place existed long ago -before the Dawn War between the Primordials and the Gods- but it was closed and guarded. Three gods- Pelor, Ioun and an unidentified third deity- managed to peek through the portal and swore that they would never allow it to be opened. However it is hinted that it was looking at the Farm Realm that gave these gods psionic powers. The nameless god broke the pact, however -perhaps driven mad by the experience- and later shattered the gate, unleashing the Aberrations upon the physical universe. Since then, the madness of the Far Realm has been slipping into the main D&D universes, and psionics have become (relatively) more common; in fact Pelor and Ioun have been training beings in their use precisely to combat the aberrations (who often have psionic powers themselves.) While this is all up to each individual DM to interpret, this is an interesting addition to the new background that adds potential for campaigns without really changing anything.

New Races and Classes:

  • The Shardminds are fragments of The Living Gate that were scattered across worlds when it was destroyed. In effect they are clouds of crystals that rearrange themselves into (barely) humanoid forms. They believe it is their mission to someday reform the gate so the influence of the Far Realm can be blocked again. Whether this is true or that would only open the portal further is a matter for each individual DM to decide. This is the least-human player character race I’ve ever seen in D&D; even Draconians are more “human” than the Shardminds. Still, they could be a fun new challenge to play.

  • The Wilden are a relatively new race from the Feywild; basically they are half plant/half catmen.They believe that they were “birthed” by the Feywild as a response to the harmful influence of the Far Realm into the natural universe, and they spend most of their time hunting down aberrations. (One wonders WHY they were born so recently if the Gate was shattered so long ago- unless it means the warp into the other universe has gotten bigger recently.) This is the first vegetal PC race I’ve seen (unless you allowed Dryads as a playable race); they will probably be a favorite of druid-loving players.

-Two old monster races are back as player characters options now: Minotaurs and Githzerai. Gee, I wonder why D&D decided to allow minotaurs as PCs? Cough Warhammer Cough :stuck_out_tongue: As for the Gythzerai, they are related to the Githyanki, the evil race of (formerly human) slaves of the Minflayers. They split off from the 'yanki due a leadership schism centuries ago, and unlike them became a monastic, relative neutral race, though they did retain the capacity for psionics both races developed under Mindflayer care. The 'zerai make a lot of sense as PCs in a campaign that uses the new origin for psionics, and most of them are Monks, which is a class that is also reintroduced here. It makes sense for a race mostly composed of meditative hermits to develop psionics AND martial arts.

Monks have been around in D&D for decades despite their being yet another odd fit for a (mainly) European Fantasy setting. But hey, the original edition had ANYTHING their DMs though would be fun to use, up to an including dinosaurs! Besides, the game started in the 70s, and like the song went, Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting back then. :wink: The class seems mostly the same as in earlier editions, except they have psionics now (what, not Chi powers? Oh well.) Oh, and of course the full-fledged Psion class is also reintroduced in this book. There’s also a variation (whose name escapes me now) that psionically manipulates emotions rather than thoughts.

Psionics and related creatures are NOT the only new material in this book; there are other new classes, but the day I was browsing the book I was in a hurry and couldn’t check them all out well; more on them later. I can tell you that there is a lot more stuff in the book, including, as Acenra surmised, the new Hybrid Class system that allows a player to start with TWO classes from the beginning instead of the having one class that adopts a few feats from other classes as you level up. Which system is better is a matter of opinion, but I like the fact that multi-classing is back in the game.

Overall, Player’s Handbook 3 can be considered entirely optional BUT it fits in well with what has been reinvented on the 4th edition so far and has many useful ideas. If you can afford it (on top of all the other D&D books you need to play) then go for it, but don’t worry if you can’t. Oh, the art is good too, though again it seems to have been entirely illustrated by ONE guy. At least it’s in full color.