Customer Reviews

Revised Player's Handbook: Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebook

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(21)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

The artwork, the paging is the same. No new breath there. Some classes are revised yes, but overall, those are just a few errata that could fill a little book of 20 pages or so. Publishing a revised version, while it is still the same game, would have been perhaps a good operation.

Problem is that for a new edition, there is not enough revision, and for "just" a revised handbook, there is too much revisions in depths through the details (like classes, combat). This book is a gigantic erratum for a few dozen bucks and the hardcover. Period. In a sentence: if you possess already D&D 3.0, don't buy it. If you don't have any 3rd edition book, you can invest, because it's a good game (which would have 3 or 4 stars if it wasn't a "revised" book but a all new brand new system).

I've heard all the backlash before I got a chance to review this. I heard that this update was not only not needed, but an ill concieved attempt just to boost Wizard's profits for the year. I've heard numerous people describe the evils of the D20 system. I heard it all, and needless to say, I feel that critism was unfounded.

The Player's Handbook 3.5 does a fixes many of the problems of the original book. Wizards of the Coast came up with a much overdue and spectacular idea a few years ago when they opened up their game mechanics wth the open gaming license making source books for any type of character (gladiators, necromancers, and even shamans) easy to find, and it all fit together. 3rd edtion was the grandaddy that started it, and it gets an overhall.

Most notably, they change 3 of the classes. The Bard finally gets more skill points (6) so that he can more resemble the "Jack of all Trades" than a low rent, underpowered mage/theif that nobody wanted to play.

The Ranger, perhaps one of the most loved classes in First and Second Edition D and D was nearly unplayable in 3rd edition (past 1st level anyway.) This problem is fixed, with choices in specialization with the bow or two weapon fighting, more skill points, and increases in power more in line with the other classes. (No more playing for one favored enemy and a few cantrips you can cast at 8 level.)

The Monks are no longer cookie cutters of each other, as you have choices to make along the way so that you can do things that not every other monk you'd meet would be able to do.

Oh, by the way, now every race that has a special weapon (Dwarven Warhaxe) can fight with it without a feat. What an idea!!

The races have minor tweaking, with changes to the Gnome, Half Elf, and Dwarf the most notable.

Feats have been expanded, and some combined. Gone is Ambidextarity, which is now just "Two weapon fighting." Some of this is from the class books (Song and Silence), and some new. Cool feats that give you bonus to a few skills rather than one are a nice touch.

Skills have been combined. Gone is Intuit Direction and Wilderness lore. Hello Survival, that now does both. There are more examples like this. Slight of Hand, which is better, replaces pick pocket in one example of the new skills that are listed.

The combat chapter is rewritten and top notch, answering many of the questions that have come up since we first adopted 3rd edition.

All in all, I think this was a much needed update, and will be imediatly adopted in our playing group. I told a few of the changes at our last session, and all of the ones who "swore" they'd never get it, were already making plans to do so.

Highly Recommeded.

First, I'd like to say thanks Wizards of the Cost. Thanks for nothing! The much hyped 3.5 is little more than 3.0 with a ton of house rules applied to them. What's worse is, that there are enough major mechanical changes scattered throughout the 3 books, that converting your 3.0 game to a 3.5 game will be a major task. And there will be no compatibility to your 3.0 campaign.

I thought the point of a new revision was to make improvements to the system and to clarify rules that were unclear. As it turns out the improvements are so minor, and the clarifications are only covering about 30-40% of the issues my group argues about. That and stat-boosting spells have been rendered almost completely useless. Unless you are certain that you are going to have an encounter in the next couple of minutes, Bull's Strength is now a trash-can spell. It makes no sense to me. Granted an hour per level is a little long for a duration, but a minute per level is way too short. Our DM house-ruled a long time ago that stat boosters durations were 10 minutes per level, thus usable in most situations, but not lasting all day long.

Rangers took the biggest hit of all the class revisions. They're supposed to be improvemed? I'm having difficulty differentiating between the new ranger and a druid. The only difference I can see is that one is more spell focused vs. combat focused. They even have the same hit die now. They should just be call them Combat Specialist Druids and the Spell Slinging Druids.

What's good about this book? I'm still struggling to find something noteworthy and posative to say about this version. It's a challenge.

As I've mentioned in several of my pther reviews, I had a difficult time accepting that 3e was in fact the wave of the future for the Dungeons & Dragons game. Truth be told, I bought the original 3e PHB the day it was released, and read it cover to cover several times in only a few days. To make a long story short, where once I did not liek the system at all, I am now one if its strongest advocates.

Enter 3e.5 (or whatever you want to call it). Partial actions in combat have been removed (thank the creator) to simplify combat, character classes revised to balance them, some spells reworded to actually make them useful, and on and on.

This is a book review, so, is 3.5 a good revision? In a word, yes. The book has included just the right amount of information and rehashed rules to make the new system streamlined without threating the core genius of the rules. While two players could sit at a table and play with the different rules (3.0 and 3.5) for a while without compatibility problems, there would eventually be clashes over class abilities, combat actions (especially those pesky and now non-existent partial actions).

Overall, a great book. My only criticism really isn't about he book, but the 3.5 system in general - the lack of 3.5-updated material adds a workload to DMs trying to keep their library up to date. Wizards needs to light a fire under their editing department and get those revisions out there. They did release a revision summary (available for free download at www.wizards.com) that covered the other as-of-yet unrevised books, but the cross-referencing is driving me (and other DMs, I'm sure) a little batty.

All in all, bravo.

Même avec certe version les changements sont très important par rapport a la quatrième version. Au moin les images belle...

While I used to play 2nd edition AD&D a lot, there was always the problem of lack of balance in most of the rules. That system had grown too wide and wild, with too many worlds and new races and classes that critically outshined the core rules, not to mention that the core itself was unbalanced.

This is all over now.

3rd edition rules brought real balance to the game, and a fresh restart all around. The old worlds were revised, same with the classes, races, spells, everything.

Now 3.5ed gathers all the good balance in 3ed, plus revisions and a better support for both players and DMs alike: everything you look for is widely explained exactly where it should be. Information is all so well organized now, you never miss a rule. Just look out the index and you're done.

And let's not forget this is one of the most beautiful books we've ever seen.

Great edition, great artwork, nearly flawless new system. Thumbs up!

LOL. I remember when I was younger Christian groups and parents used to always claim that AD&D was a secret occult plot to pass on occult lore to the young so it could spread to a new generation. It was supposed to make us demon worshippers... LOL. How foolish can people be?
Oh... wait.... I am grown up now, and I actually -have- become an occult demon worshipping sorcerer. Ooooops! But I'm sure D&D had nothing to do with it. After all, those massive catalogs of spells, pagan religious tenets, and compendiums full of demons complete with their real names and backgrounds couldn't have pushed me in that direction... Could they?? BAH BAH BAHHHHHH

There isn't much difference between 3rd edition and 3.5. Some minor rule changes and some window dressing basically. This edition came out too soon. I should say the artwork is great though.

D&D has gone from being a RPG to a "minatures" game, which is o.k. if you like lots of tactical combat and complex rules. I prefer 1st and 2nd edition which were a little easier to administer. Some of the new rules just create arguments among players, such as "does this constitute an attack of opportunity or not?" Other rules are way too complicated, such as turning undead. Even the saving throws have gone from a table-based design to a formula design, forcing the players to keep track of exactly how high each monster needs to role in order to evade a particular spell.

The Feats further complicate things, leading to situations in which players are using virtually separate rule systems during the course of the game. For instance, if my PC has combat reflexes, he gets 4 attacks of opportunity, while everyone else only gets one.

Combat takes about 3 times as long when compared to 1st and second edition.

Spells are less powerful, which is o.k. in most circumstances.

Some things I do like. The DC concept is good, and the skills system adds some flavor to the game.

Utlimately, it depends how much complexity you want.

I have to say one thing about this book. IT ROCKS!!!!!! For those who says 'This new type of D&D sucks.', they are so wrong. Balancing maybe made it less fun, but it made my players happier, instead of 'I missed 5 times in a row and all you had to do was cast a spell and he died, now i'm going to freakin kill you.' Yeah I get that. But now you can balance it out a little better.
One bad thing I noticed is that this game is supposed to be balancing, when monks can do incredible feats, highskill, ridiculas damage, and AC bonuses like crazy which can be more than a full plate of armor, and overwhelming speed.
Other than that, this game is so cool. Very realistic and the miniature thing makes it easier to describe the battle. The problem with miniatures is that there might be a minor encounter of 8 of the same monsters which miniatures cost 20 bucks each. Weird and expensive but you can substitute them and buy one to show them what a 3D perspective looks like.
All in all, this book Rocks! But you NEED the Dm's guide and the Monster Manual and perhaps other kinds of books for it to be easier. Like how tough the monsters are and what prestidge classes are, but its cool. So don't listen to those 'it sucks' people, and get it TODAY!!!!!!

I am a GM, and I have started with my group playing 3.5 rules. I have played 2nd edition AD&D as well as 3rd edition, and I find that 3.5 fits my style best out of any of these.

My group consists of three people who have never played except via games such as Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, one 3rd-edition junkie, and one 2nd-edition wizard-obsessed child. There was a lot of stuff coming from the last two, believe me, as they discovered while creating characters, many differences.

In fact, I know for a fact that the wizard-obsessed boy was appalled at what they had done to his spells, but I allowed him to spend several thousand GP to pull quite a few spells (at my disgression) from his 2nd-edition books.

Now to discuss some of the past reviews:

First off, the 2nd edition junkies who claim wizards were screwed by being more "balanced". If you can honestly claim that wizards do as much damage as fighters after watching one of my games, I will eat my hat. The party started at level twelve, and the first enemy was an Elder Black Pudding. There is a ranger in my party with dual longswords, and she was our primary physical fighter. She's pretty nicely powered, too, not overpowered, but not underpowered, either. The ranger ran up to the pudding and attacked it, and then the wizard cast a few spells. The wizard took out about three quarters of the Pudding's hit points, while the other quarter was taken out by the ranger and the cleric.

This goes to show that yes, wizards are more balanced, but they are not screwed over.

Also, about the "square" thing... I am a GM who is more into storytelling than miniatures and making sure that the combat is going just right, etc. Honestly, I don't care how many squares a creature takes up, as I only need this information to determine how large it is. My players, too, focus upon the roleplaying-- which is more fun when it is balanced, as everyone has a bit of a twinker in them.

I'm saying that it's a matter of style, but, honestly, I have never used an encounter map nor have I needed one. Storytelling is all that I need in my campaigns. I prefer 3.5, as to me, it just seems easier with some of the feats and skills being changed, and the classes more balanced.

My 3rd edition player was shocked that monks were actually *balanced* in this one. I am, overall, a big fan of the balanced changes. Despite the fact that my playing of a bard in third edition, and roleplaying her well, I did enjoy the fact that bards in 3.5 are actually useful.

There were several people who said that the art seems... commercial. I have seen no pictures of unrealistically beefy fighters, nor have I seen only pictures of beautiful characters. Your precious 2nd edition manuals were also produced en masse, and I find the art in 3.5 much prettier.

Also, despite there being a fanboy of 2nd edition and a 3rd edition player in my group, by the end of our first session, everyone was in agreeance that they were having great fun.

Overall, I enjoyed this. If you have the third edition books, there is no need to get these, as third is quite fine upon its own.

The long and short of this review is:

-If you have 3rd edition, and are satisfied, no need to get this, even if you are in a 3.5 campaign. As I have explained to my 3rd edition player, you can ask your DM about changes.

-If you like 2nd edition, play 2nd edition!

-If you are new to D&D, this is worth checking out, as the older books are hard to find. These books are detailed, entertaining, and pretty enough to keep your attention.

-If you are a DM, you may wish to consider how rules-heavy your campaign is. There is not much rolling that goes on outside of combat at my games, except for entertaining little checks. I'm not sure how my opinions would change if we rolled for everything.