Customer Reviews

Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook: Core Rulebook I, v. 3.5

5 star:		(65)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

My gaming group has switched to edition 3.5 mainly becuase we started adding new players, and the 3.0 books were no longer available. Also, I'd been rough on my 3.0 books and they were falling apart. It was a matter of convenience.

It is not a perfect system. As a matter of fact, it's only margionally "better" than the 3.0 game it's replaced. It is not a new edition - that will be D&D 4.0. But it's changed more than a simple errata sheet could explain, so it's not really 3.0 any more either.

It probably did not need to be made.

That said, I think some of the reviews here have been rather unfair.

There's the "I've been playing D&D since the 70's and this sucks" reviews. Version 3.x is a different game. Get over it. You can still play D&D the way you like - nobody's stopping you. Dust off your old rulebooks and have yourself a good time. It's awefully childish complaining that the new version of the game isn't the game you fell in love with 25 years ago. Of course it isn't! When you complain that the things you loved about D&D have changed, you don't come off as a seasoned, intelligent role-player, you come off as a whiney old fogey pining for the "good ol' days."

There's the "how come they have to make everything balanced?" reviews. D&D has never made sense. No matter what edition you played, if you were a God and set up a world that followed the D&D rules, it would fall into chaos within weeks becuase things don't make sense. Why compain that wizards and fighters are now pretty close to each other in terms of power? Why does it "make sense" to do it some other way? This is, ultimately, a game, not some sort of simulation. All the players around the table deserve to have equal amounts of fun. It's no fun to have the player of a low-level mage being bored at low levels 'cause he only has one stinkin' spell to cast. It's no fun to have your high-level fighter overshadowed by a mage that can deal hundreds of times more damage than he can in a single round. The game is not about making sense, it's about having fun, and that's the way the rules should be designed. If you want to change it, you can house rule it. The 3.x default of equally-powerful characters is a good thing, and should have been done earlier.

There's the "this game is the best thing ever" reviews. Get some perspective people. It's not perfect. Unless you can admit to the flaws in the game, you're going to be interpreted as a clueless fanboy, mindlessly drooling over the next release.

There's the "version 3.x is for powergamers and is like D&D the video game" reviews. This is a bit unfair, but I have to admit that the rulebooks are very rules-heavy. In fact, there are virtually no rules for "role playing" becuase this is an activity that, by it's nature, can't be covered with rules. The quality and frequency of quality "role playing" (which means different things to different people anyway) is going to vary depending on the people in the group you've joined. It can take months or years to find a group with the battlegame-to-roleplay ratio your really like. This has not changed through the years.

Just for clarity's sake, and the sake of anybody reading these reviews, let me go over in brief some of the more contraversial changes from the 3.0 edition to the 3.5 edition.

1) Spells have been nerfed!
This is true. Several spells have been seriously reduced in power. Harm now allows a saving throw, Haste no longer lets wizards cast extra spells, and the stat-booster and invisibility spells are much shorter in duration (the stat-boosters, by the way, now increase a stat by a set amount, instead of rolling).

2) Rangers have been nerfed!
Previously, Rangers got all of their cool abilities at first level. To the savvy power gamer, there was no need to take more than one level of ranger. It was pointless. Now, their abilites are gained more slowly as they level up. Also, they get fewer hit points per level now. This changes their emphasis from front-line warrior to something more akin to a wilderness-oriented fighter-druid multiclass. You now get to choose, at second level, whether you want your ranger to specialize in archery or two-weapon-fighting. This essentially subdivides the class into two more classes, and a more elegant solution could probably have been found.

3) Bards have been increased in power
This is true. Bards in 3.0 were practically useless. Their spell progression was slow and their special musical powers useless at higher levels. To me, a bard is now a useful character and worth playing.

4) Somebody complained that Sorcerers are now overpowered compared to Wizards.
I don't see this. The major change to the Sorcerer class was to allow them to, when they level up, swap out a single spell already in their repitoire for a different spell of the same level. This change was made because people playing sorcerers would avoid certain spells on their spell list becuase these spells would become useles later on. A sorcerers primary disadvantages are still present. They get fewer known spells. They get 2 new spells per level that they can cast, and can never exceed this amount. Wizards can, conversely, scribe any spell into their spell book they feel like (for a price). Second, sorcerers have a slower spell progression than wizards. A 5th level wizard has access to 3rd level spells and a 5th level sorcerer doesn't. Wizards always gain access to the higher levels of spells faster than sorcerers do. A sorcerer's only compensation for this is the fact that they can cast more spells per day than a wizard, and they don't have to prepare their spells ahead of time.

5) Square monsters
This makes no realistic sense, but is the logical progression of the "no facing" rules introduced in 3.0. It is assumed that, in battle, a character is constantly turning around, assessing threats, etc..., and cannot be said to be "facing" a particualar direction. The rules support this concept by allowing the character to strike opponents on all sides without penalty, letting his shield bonus affect creatures on all sides, etc... No "facing" rules means simpler, faster combat at the expense of realism. But some creatures, dragons for instance, obviously have a front and a back. On a battle mat they are rectangular. Characters on all sides are still subject to all attacks, breath weapons, etc... This seems ridiculous when you have a rectangular critter. It would have to turn to point it's head in the right direction to bite or breath fire. But what if there's a character there and there's no room to turn? The rules say it can still do it, but it's silly. So they simplified the combat rules further and declared all creatuers, large and small, take up perfect squares on the battle mat. Horses take up 4 squares now instead of 2. Again, it was a sacrifice of a lot of realism for a little more ease of play.

6) Weapon sizing rules
This was an odd change. In 3.0, a longsword was a "medium" weapon, a dagger was a "small" weapon, etc... The size of a weapon depended on the physical size of the weapon. This has changed. Now, weapon size is defined by the size of the creature intended to wield it. There are longswords. A Large longsword is a longsword meant for for a Large-sized creature to use. A Small longsword is a longsword meant for a Small-sized creature to use. If you use a weapon too big for you, you suffer penalties. This change did not need to be made and needlessly complicated the process of buying equipement, as well as confusing existing players.

7) Cover and Concealment
These are combined into one concept: Concealment. Anything that in any way obstructs your view of your target provides concealment, from invisibility to hiding behind an arrow slit. I feel this change greatly simplified the Cover/Concealment rules, especially in cases where both applied.

All in all, I feel the people who complain that this revision was unnecceary are justified. The rules worked just fine before, and if you already have a 3.0 library there is no real convincing reason to change and try to convert everything. You might complain in that case that new products and whatnot that are printed with 3.5 rules are not compatible with your 3.0 game, but I have frequently used material from 3.0 and 3.5 interchangably and nobody has noticed or cared. The rules changes are so minor, and the odds of a player auditing the DM's NPCs and modules so slim, it works out just fine. Purists will cringe, but my last group had a new player join with a 3.5 bard, and I was the only person in the course of 4 months to have noticed that he had abilities our other bard did not.

So if you have 3.0, and have no need to upgrade, just don't. Go ahead and use new material from Dragon Magazine or online message boards just as if nothing had changed and it will somehow all be fine.

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.

Wizards of the Coast made a good marketing move by releasing a revision of its most well known rpg, not only it can increase sales but it is supposed to make the game system even better. Thats not exactly what happens when you fire the original game designers and put new people to revise it. Its kinda like making some newbie fantasy author reviewing Harry Potter books and releasing updated versions. How can you really revise something you didnt create? Perhaps by talking with the authors, but not even that occured as Monte Cook said on his review.

Theres are lots of good news though, like the urgent fix on Harm, Heal and Haste spells; The downgrading on wizards power by reducing the ammount of spell DC augnment on bumping feats/class abilities; The total redisign on Ranger and Monk classes; and so on...

But... There are some terrible terrible mistakes. Like making weapons vary with size (like small longsword and large longsword, which in fact is the same as a great swrod); Combat rules even more tied to miniatures system (looks like a war game, and not everyone likes miniatures or can afford tons of them); Some weird racial abilities (half elves now gain bonuses to diplomacy skills because they "get along with everyone" ??);
Clerics got even more powers with mass healing/harming spells; etc...

Overall its 3.5 stars for 3.5 edition. But because you have to pay 90 bucks for the 3 books I give 3 stars.

First things first: If you already have Third Edition, you probably don't need this book unless you're the Dungeon Master. The material is by and large similar enough to 3.0 that you can continue using your PHB and trust your DM to advise you of any important changes.

If you don't have 3e, though, or if you're a DM, this is the most usable, accessible, thoroughly playtested version of D&D yet. 3.5 came out of tons of feedback WotC received on 3rd edition, particularly through the RPGA's Living Greyhawk (basically a huge international multi-party campaign for D&D). It seems that there were a lot of play-balance issues that were not obvious during in-house development, but quickly emerged in the face of thousands of min-maxers trying to game the system. Some things were too strong, others too weak, etc., for the game to be as fun as it could have been.

3.5 is an attempt to fix those imbalances, as well as make everything just a little easier for the players and the DM. Examples:
--Skills have been condensed, so your hard-earned skill points go farther
--Rules for concealment and cover have been simplified. No longer does the DM have to try to figure out whether that rogue sniper has three-quarters' cover or only half cover.
--Spells that were being rampantly abused, such as haste, were doctored to fit the original design intent -- no more hasted sorcerers walloping your party with two fireballs per round.

Some things were just altered so they made more *sense*. For example, 3rd edition rangers all had Two-Weapon Fighting, period. But the archetypal rangers, LOTR's Aragorn and Legolas, were known far more for their archery skills than for two-weapon fighting (Legs' tricky knife work in the movie version notwithstanding). So now rangers can choose whether to primarily follow the melee path or the archery path. They also get cool new ranger-like abilities, like the ability to run for days without tiring (again, harkening back to Aragorn and Legolas).

Some people will always believe that things were better in the Good Old Days. More power to 'em -- let them curl up with their old boxed sets and dungeon modules and live in the 1970s. For those who are interested in playing a sweet fantasy RPG that has gone through more playtesting and fine-tuning than any other, take a look at D&D 3.5. Is it perfect? No. But it's the closest D&D has come yet, and it's well worth your time.

Why all kids should play Role Playing games.
1) You have to learn rules to play.
2) You have to know how to READ to play.
3) You have to be able to WRITE to play.
4) You have to learn basic MATH to play.
5) No computers are involved.
6) You play at a table with other people; in fact it's impossible to properly play any role-playing game without at least one other person.
7) Role playing games create an interactive story through player interaction and continuing story development, unlike TV, which can only give you interactivity if you vote online and watch the next show to see who is voted off.
8) Will give you something to day dream about when you're bored out of you mind at work/school.
9) Can be played by just about anyone even if you're handicapped, sick, or depressed.
10) You will learn basic acting skills as you play the character you have created and learn to put yourself into your new character.
11) You become involved in a very open friendly community of fellow gamers who almost always look past socioeconomic or racial barriers because the characters you play can be anything from playing a Human Wizard, to a strange alien Jedi Master, or even a Nasty Goblin with a heart of gold.

The D&D game has been in a state of constant evolution for about 30 years now--the 3.5 edition is the latest exponent of that evolution. This edition helps clarify some of the 3.0 edition rules as well as addressing some of the game balance issues in the previous edition. Some character types have been made more viable and fun to play; there are new skills (which are more accessible to a wider variety of characters)and abilities to choose from; rules for combat have been streamlined and clarified; and there are important revisions that affect all magic-using characters.

Much is being made of the "planned obsolesence" of the previous edition. Monte Cook, one of the three credited authors of the previous edition, has said that the 3.5 edition was planned fromt he beginning. The actual product, however, goes far beyond a mere reprinting with errata. The new edition addresses many concerns voiced by the thousands of active D&D players. Regardless of the original vision for 3.5, here is what it actually is: a response to customers who have given ideas to improve the product.

I loved the previous edition, and I am excited about the changes in the 3.5 edition, which I view as a definite improvement.

That said, 3.5 is still comprised chiefly of old material. Most of the rules material is taken from 3.0 and 3.0 supplements. The art, which was largely criticized at the release of 3.0, is almost entirely the same. The rules changes are significant enough that 3.5 and 3.0 will not be smoothly compatible. It will be difficult to play the game out of the different rulebooks. If you have already bought the core rulebooks of the 3.0 edition, you will be re-purchasing a lot of your old material, with enough changes to make the new books all but indispensable to the continuing development of the game.

Repetition of old material notwithstanding, I am pleased with with my purchase of the 3.5 edition rulebooks. I would like to have seen some new and better art, and I believe that the books could have been edited more carefully. Still, I bought the books for the rules, and they are, by and large, a significant improvement to an already superb treatment of the D&D game.

I would recommend (and have recommended) the 3.5 edition rules to anyone who enjoys the role-playing experience of D&D. 3.5 will not be the last word in the evolution of D&D--the last 30 years is indication enough of that. But 3.5 is a good step forward.

Like the Six Million Dollar Man, the 3.5 PHB is much the same as the 3E PHB--but better, stronger, and faster.

Highlights:
* All classes get some kind of new ability most every level, for levels 1-10 (spell, feat, new ability, or improvement of existing ability)
* Ranger is less of a Fighter with Track and TWF, more of a unique class of its own; 6 skill points/level, d8 hit die, gains (revised) Endurance feat free, can progress along TWF or Ranged combat paths (light armor only), gains Aragorn-like abilities (like Fast Tracking)
* Bards can cast bard spells in Light armor, lose medium armor proficiency, gain 6 skill points/level, gain proficiency in all bard weapons, gain new Bard spells
* Many spells fixed (Harm, Heal, Haste, 2nd level stat buff spells)
* Familiar bonuses streamlined and standardized
* Paladin Horse is now summonable and dismissable, solving the problem of "What do I do with this big Paladin Horse during underwater adventures, teleports, dungeons, etc?"
* More feats and expanded feats, including Weapon Finesse granting Dex bonus to-hit for *all* finessable weapons
* Revised skills: more skill synergies, rules for using Knowledge skills to learn about monsters, using Intimidate in combat, Bluff in combat is opposed by BAB
* Better Combat section: streamlined Cover rules (only three degrees of cover: full, partial, none), clarified AoO rules, better diagrams

At the end of the day, this is simply a much more user-friendly (and thus more fun) version of the game you're currently playing.

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.

I'm going to tell you right now, that I've only been playing D&D for about 2 months. I grew up as apart of the Nintendo generation in a Christian home where quite a few people in my church looked down at this game because of things they had heard from a friend of a friend of a relative... or something to that effect. The first time I became interested in RPG's was when I heard one of those "Adventures in Odessey" tapes say anything about it, and even though it was written to scare children, it only made me interested in trying it.

This was well over 8 years ago, and though I had wanted to try the game in high school, I was actually disallowed to play because I was a girl, at least, that was the excuse I was given. It would have turned me off the game if I hadn't met the right people or started going to conventions. That's where my vague interest turned into a passionate desire to find out what D&D really involved.

It turned out that a few of my friends were also interested and one of them had even played before (2nd Edition). We started a group and have been playing since then. We attended and enjoyed D&D day and more recently we were a part of a 1st edition campaign.

A limited comparison:
-Yes, it has changed, whether for good or bad is your own decision.
-No, the 1st edition is NOT better, but then again, neither is 3.5. It's like comparing "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". It's the same concept with different visions, both have their own unique/good/redeeming qualities.
-Personally, I found 3.5 to be a better intro game then 1st edition. But the truth is, no matter which version you play, you will probably NEED someone to be there and help you as you make your first character and play your first game. But that shouldn't be a problem as this game relies on interaction between humans. Whether your DM has played before or your local gaming store rep goes over the rules and guidelines with you, someone should be there to help you along.

Could the book have been more helpful? Probably, but it isn't meant to be used by itself. If you don't have all three of the core rulebooks, you are missing something. The reason the books have been separated is that most people wouldn't buy a 960 page book, especially if it would cost $60-$90. That might be fine for a few people, but it's a good way to turn a lot of other people off. In my honest opinion, this was a smart publishing move that they continued from previous editions.

Overall: I like this edition; it works for what it's meant for. It's a dream to think there will ever be an "end all" edition. There will be good/great editions, and there will be mediocre/bad editions. It will always be a better experience if you are playing a bad edition with a good group and a good DM, as compared to a great edition with a mediocre group and a bad DM.

I have not had much D&D experience. I only played the game a few times with friends when I was a kid. Now as an adult out of college I am revisiting my childhood games.

I am coming from 2nd edition D&D. Let me tell you this book is a big improvement over 2nd edition. Studies have shown that gifted and bright kids tend to play D&D after you have played the game a few times you will to see why. This is not an easy game to learn. There are a lot of rules, a lot of stuff to try to remember, this is something that really discouraged me as a youth from it. Since I have always notoriously had a bad memory this game was hard for me to learn back then. I always had to look up stuff in the rulebook, because I couldn't remeber. This slowed down the game a lot. With the few games I played with friends I fudged a lot of the rules and left out a good chunk of them just to speed up game play.

The new 3.5 rulebook is a blessing to me. I find it much easier to learn, since I never really learned D&D back then. A lot more easier to learn. Here are a few things I find easier with 3.5 edition.

1) Although I prefer The old 2nd edition savings throw method, the new savings throw method is a lot easier to learn.

2) Movement is a lot more logical now I think and answers so many questions I had from 2nd edition. Movement in combat in 2nd editon made no sense! You could move 120' in one round and attack! This was so unrealistic. I like the 5' system a lot better. This visually makes a lot more sense and is easier.

3)Improved minature rules! They also tied up a lot of loose ends with minatures and how to move them in this edition which helps a lot. The rulebook in 2nd edition didn't explain minatures all that well or how to move them, this book makes things more clear.

4)Hex paper. Ok in 2nd edition as a kid I was really confused how to use the hex paper and how to layout the maps. 2nd edition didn't explain this at all I don't think. This edition makes the use of hex paper a lot more clearer to the reader.

5)Available help. The internet has been a blessing in so many ways; I can now ask for help online. The online forum is the biggest blessing to me! So many questions I had about how to be a good dungeon master have been answered on those forums. I can great advice from veterans on how to construct an adventure.

6)Better written adventures. I have to say in 2nd edition the premade adventures that a player could buy were confusing. There were a lot of questions not answered and many adventures were too open ended. I find adventures published for 3.5 are a lot more clear, less confusing, and less open ended. Clearly a lot better written too, in my opinion.

7) Improved character class progression. Hey I like the way they tried to make all the classes more even. The wizard was so problematic in 2nd edition for me. This is one thing that fustrated me about the baldurs gate games; playing a wizard. Wizards started out too weak, leveled at a much slower pace then everyone else, and were hindersome to the party. With everyone leveling at the same experience rate this is such a blessing for both the player and the dungeon master. This was so fustrating to me as a DM. Trying to remember all the different level progressions. It made the game interesting, however really hindered game play and therefore needed change.

Overall I think Wizards of the Coast did a great job at cleaning up TSR's flawed, confusing, and difficult rulebook. This game is now easy to run, easy to learn, and Dungeons and Dragons has regained it's popularity.