Yes, that's a three. I'm going to take this chapter-by-chapter, and hopefully explain why its a three.
With regards to layout, this book had some serious problems. The lines in the background were somewhat confusing, visually, and gave the book an unfinished appearance. Some tables seem to be poorly placed, and others are begging to be condensed; the combat modifiers for size really should have been included in the table of size on page 131, instead of buried in text on page 118, for example. The artwork, however, is very good; while some is slightly ridiculous (the symbol of Pelor that Jozan wields on page 139 seems to be the same size as his breastplate), the diagrams are excellent.
First chapter is on ability scores, and I must say that this is quite well done. The single bonus chart for abilities is elegant, and the two point increase resulting in a bonus is simple to figure. I also like the more lenient 4d6 minus the lowest method being the standard, and the redefinition of attributes was also very nice. I think it will take some time for people to adapt to the new definition of charisma, but Shadowrun players should have less problems; the attributes and their definitions are pretty close to what Shadowrun has been using for more than ten years.
The new rendition of the races is good, but I think it could have been much better. Being personally indifferent towards halflings, I'm not especially affected by their completely new outlook on life. I do like that humans now get a distinct bonus for being human, and its one that fits reasonably into the into the system and the previous views of humans in most core worlds.
Some things were puzzling about the major races. Given their low charismas, dwarves seem to have weak personalities, which is far from the stereotype. Elves really should have had their favored class be sorcerer; magic is described as coming naturally to them, and their naturally chaotic bent seems at odds with the slight bent towards law found within wizards (it also would have served to highlight the ability of gnomes in illusion magics).
The gnome and the half-orc, however, really got shafted. When the gnome's new ability adjustments were announced, the minus to strength was justified by saying that as smaller creatures, they weren't able to lift and carry as much as larger creatures. However, as page 142 of the Player's Handbook shows, this is already figured into the system; even if a gnome had a 18 strength, he'd still only be lifting and carrying 2/3 as much a human with equal strength, and only a third of what a ogre with 18 strength would carry. And, if you reference the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 24, we find that a bonus to constitution seems to be well balanced against anything but a minus to strength, making the gnome the only race to be so encumbered.
While gnomes receive 3 bonus cantrips and 1 bonus 1st level spell, that's all these will ever be.; a 20th level gnome illusionist casts his bonus cantrips as well as a (proportionally) 3 year old gnomish child, and a 20th level gnomish druid casts the bonus speak with animals as well as a gnome who spent his entire life living in a city. Lastly, of all the races, gnomes are the only one without a true class as their favored multiclass; a gnome is supposedly a master illusionist, but an elf can equal them, as wizard is their favored multiclass, and that can include illusionist.
Half-orcs are simply encumbered by a lack of bonuses. Their strength bonus is balanced against their intelligence and charisma penalties, and they get darkvision, but that's it. Orc Blood is as much a curse as a blessing, as any item designed to harm orcs is likely going to be more common than any designed to aid them. They receive no saving through bonuses, no bonuses to intimidation (indeed, they seem to be less intimidating than other races, as their charisma penalty reduces their use of that skill), and little in the way of other abilities. Even a limited slate of bonus feats might have been preferable; most facets of playing a half-orc, however, can be mimicked by playing a strong, dumb warrior of any other race.
The third chapter covers classes, and again I find myself with mixed reactions. I dislike the alignment restrictions on bards and barbarians; they seem to imply that a disciplined mind cannot be creative in the case of a bard, and that "primitive" societies do not have a code of behavior that its people follow. The definition of lawful, in fact, would seem to apply more to "primitive" societies than to "civilized" ones... they place stock truth and honor, respect authority and tradition, and rely upon others to do what must be done. Who does that describe better?
Clerics, incidentally, do not serve Gods... compared to other characters, they are Gods. No weapon or armor restrictions, coupled with the second-best attack and save progressions in the game; they may not know all weapons at first level, but they aren't barred from using them. They are _highly_ effective spellcasters; with domain bonuses, they are the equivalent of specialist wizards, but without having to give up 1/8th to 3/8ths of the spells they might encounter. They may spontaneously cast an entire category of spells (healing or harming, depending on their alignment), get two granted powers from their domains, and can effectively deal with large portions of undead.
What are their weaknesses? Ethos, though that's easily avoided if you choose a deity who fits your character's style. No spells of opposite alignment from theirs or their deity's, though that's also not too bad, since most Good or Lawful spells have analogues amongst the spells of Evil or Chaos, and vice versa; plus, if you're true neutral, this doesn't affect you in the least. Compared to a wizard, they are slightly behind in the magical assault category, they're their equals in magical defense, and can usually heal any wound that a Wizard can dish out, and have enough hit points to survive the initial attack of any wizard of equal level. I can think of few more effective adventurers than a True Neutral Cleric of Boccob who chose Magic as one of his domains, as he will be able to use, through items, all the spells that a wizard would otherwise dominate him with.
Comparatively, druids were ill-treated. While their shapechange was moved forward some levels, making on of their more popular traits quickly available, one of their "special abilities" at first level is actually a spell that they (and certain clerics) know, and their weapon list is still severely, and unreasonably, curtailed. Why is it acceptable to use a spear, but not a javelin? A sickle, but not the identical in nearly all respects kama? A scimitar, but not a falchion (which is erroniously described as being a big scimitar)? Why can they use a metal sword, but not studded leather armor? None of these are explained; all of them need to be.
Fighters received a huge, and much-needed boost in this book; not only are they attractive as single-class characters, their abilities make them a nice addition to almost any multiclass combination. Wizards, sorcerers and bards don't gain as much as many other classes (since they cannot use armor), and druids only slightly more than they (since their use for the armor proficiency is limited to exotic hides later, and they have no use for the weapons) but the possibility of adding two bonus feats, +3 to fortitude, and 2d10 to hit points will entice anyone who's considering multi-classing.
Monks are well-designed and while I can understand why they were included, I'm personally biased against them by my preference for European-style games. Also, their restriction on multi-classing seems wrong to me; while I can understand the reasoning behind it, monks are effectively limited to being single-class characters; you cannot pick up a level of something else and return to being a monk, and I don't imagine that one can simply wake up one morning and decide to be a monk.
Paladins should have been a prestige class; I think that it would have suited them better to lay the opposite to the D.M.G.'s Blackguard, rather than a standard class. However, as a standard class, they are very good. While they gain quite a few benefits, that's somewhat balanced by needing high scores in several abilities to really be effective; they need strength to fight, at least a 14 wisdom to take full advantage of their spell abilities, and a decent charisma for other benefits. Their extra abilities are nicely spaced out, as well; unlike clerics, who get everything at the beginning, paladins have a slow rise to power, maintaining fairly a fairly constant power level within the party; as fighters outpace them on the battlefield, they gain in spell strength and other special abilities. Also, unlike clerics, their ethos restrictions are quite concrete; playing a paladin doesn't limit you to one character type, but it will often dictate your primary course of action in any case.
Rangers. Arrrgh. On the upside, they took away the alignment restriction. On the downside is nearly everything else. Rangers gets three free bonus feats at first level... but only sort of, since wearing medium armor negates two of them. They get spells at 4th level if they have a good Wisdom, but those spells aren't terribly useful. Their favored enemy bonus is nice, but its really of limited use; its a minor bonus that improves very slowly and simply won't work against some creatures; no matter how cool your background idea is for taking a favored enemy of Undead, you'll find you'll get no damage bonus against them, and in many cases Bluff and Sense Motive are wasted on them. Whereas a Paladin's need for three abilities (Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma) to be truly effective is a nice balance on a strong set of abilities, a rangers need of three abilities (Strength, Dexterity to offset low AC armors, and Wisdom for spells and many skills) is an anchor on an already heavily burdened class.
Rogues were well-treated by the transition. As opposed to being the class no one wants to play, they now have a suite of useful abilities and a wide range of mundane skills to call upon. Sneak attack is far more useful than the old backstab, and their progression of abilities emphasizes their role as the Artful Dodger; the person you have to get around problems, rather than through them.
Though many will disagree with me, Sorcerers are not, in my opinion, a highly useful class unless you wish to add some minor magical ability to another class or, as a DM, want to use a lot of spells against the characters without their wizard getting a chance to learn them. While they can cast more spells per day than a wizard, and don't have a need to memorize, that's heavily hindered by their limited selection of spells at any given level and slow progression. Perhaps their sole upside is that they really only need two abilities to be successful; Dexterity and Charisma, so they can cast spells better and offset their poor AC.
If viewed in continuity with previous editions, wizards are an excellent class. Indeed, most of my complaints about the wizard class do not arise from the class itself, but rather with the magic system and the skill system, which will be covered in their own areas. The improvements to familiars, the removal of "Maximum Number of Spells per Spell Level", the addition of bonus spells for high intelligence, and the amount of variation possible in specialists is a great improvement in the class as a whole, however.
The new multi-classing system is perhaps one of the best features of the game. I disagree with the limitations placed upon Paladins and Monks in this regard, but it truly allows people to create flexible characters. The distinction between Class Level and Character level is reminiscent of Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy Tactics, but it works very intuitively. Perhaps my sole beef is the ease with which one can multiclass; the example given on page 55 makes it seem like wizardry is just a simple task, an ability easily acquired without much effort. I think an intermediary step in multi-classing should have been introduced, from absolute lack of knowledge to full proficiency, but I am at a loss as to what that step should have been.
Chapter Four deals with the skills system. I truly like the skills system, but there is one major, and several minor, flaws that I see. Certain skills work wonderfully, such as the opposition between skills like Spot and Hide. I would have preferred that literacy were less wide-spread in the game world, with few save wizards starting with the ability, but that's simple enough to fix in individual games.
My major problem is that, after 5th level, many skills become fairly simple. By sixth level, even the iconic bard will be able to use most magical items with only a 50/50 chance of failure, and by 20th level there is almost nothing beyond a character who's studied the skill since 1st level, even if they roll a 1. While a improvement is to be expected, this seems extreme.
On a lesser note, there are some curious selections as to what classes can use which skills. Why can bards and rogues learn to use any magical device, but a wizard (who studies and understands magic) just has to shrug his shoulders and say "What are you going to do?" Why is it that only Druids and Rangers can learn animal empathy? What about Barbarians, who are arguably as in touch with the wilderness as those two, or bards, who make a way of life out of influencing others reactions? Why can't wizards learn Decipher Script, despite the fact that their class seems to be oriented around what they read? The odd skill limitations really grated against my sense of game design; while I understand that bards and rogues got their ability with magic items from previous editions, it still doesn't explain the logical leap of why wizards didn't get it, as well.
Chapter five covers feats, and chapter six covers describing your character. Both of these chapters are simply excellent. The alteration in the way magic items are created makes sense, and the use of metamagic provides a wizard with a choice of either creating magical items or improving the variety of his magic. I would have liked to see some options for alternate ways to power a meta-magicked spell, as well as a feat that would add a cantrip or orison to a non-spellcaster and one that would allow an arcane spellcaster to use armor and cast spells, but otherwise the feats were well done, with logical prerequisites. In chapter six, the redefinition of alignment was very well done, adding some character aside from "crazy person" to Chaotic Neutral and changing the definitions themselves from abstract arguments to actual behaviors. I nearly went berserk when I read the Lawful Good section and read the line "Lawful Good is the best alignment because...", fearing they were starting the previous editions' prejudice that Lawful Good was the "best", but then read the other entries, where each explained why they were the best or most dangerous alignment. I also liked the new system of determining height and weight; it works neatly, without the fear that a random height and weight will result in someone shaped like a football or someone better suited to being a quarterstaff. If the quality in these chapters had appeared throughout the book, I would've given this book a 5 without reservation.
Equipment fills chapter seven, and here again the problems reassert themselves. The simple weapons category seems under-populated. Weapons such as the short sword, pick, flail and hand axe should have made an appearance here; these are simple to use weapons that many people are going to be familiar with simply from daily life. Similarly, though the kama, kukri, and siangham are rare, they're also fairly intuitive weapons. You're not going to find yourself staring at a siangham trying to figure out how you're supposed to hurt someone with it, and while a master might be able to do many things with it, the fact remains that it’s a fairly simple weapon to use competently. Of similar note is the old speech about weapon weights; wielding a 15 pound greatsword for any length of time is going to destroy your arms, and a 30 pound double-bladed sword is even worse (though that weight has been errata'ed). Some of the double weapons are simply unusable by any save masochists, such as the dire flail. On the up side, however, the new statistics for armor are quite nice; max dexterity bonuses give light fighters a reason not to wear heavy armor, and the stepped arcane spell failure chance might entice some people to take the risk of wearing armor. The addition of Masterwork items, with set costs is also a boon; it gives characters something to strive for between normal and magical, though a percentage system likely would have been better for determining the cost of masterwork armor. Apparently, it is 30 times more difficult to make masterwork leather than it is to make normal leather, but you'll probably pay more in sales tax than the cost of making Full Plate as a masterwork, rather than normal.
Combat, in general, works very well. The new Armor Class system is more intuitive to newer players, and the bonuses to hit are similarly easier to deal with. The cyclic initiative being rolled once, at the beginning of combat, helps to reduce the number of rolls, though combined with the rules for being flat-footed, it does place more emphasis on getting in a good first strike. I am disappointed with the rules on flanking; it seems counter intuitive to say that, while you have problems defending against two enemies who are on opposite sides of you, you don't have any problem defending against the third opponent who also in close combat with them, but its clearly shown to be the case on page 122. The combat section is also the most egregious offender of layout; simply look at page 127 for an example, where the list of partial actions is noted in a separate column, and would more logically refer to the "Loss of Hit Points" section than the Partial Actions. Lastly, attacks of opportunity, while a good concept that adds to realism, also need careful control by a DM; they can be confusing to newer players, and in some cases simply do not apply when the rules say that they should.
By and large, chapter nine could have likely been folded into other chapters. The section on Carrying Capacity could have fit better into the first chapter. The Experience and levels section could have been added to chapter three, and the Treasure and Other Rewards sections would have worked well in the Equipment section. Only the Exploration and Movement sections wouldn't have neatly fit into another category; perhaps their closest analogue would have been found in the Combat section, but that's a very loose fit.
In spite of this problem, however, the information in the chapter is very good. I like the idea of varying carrying capacity by size, and the rest of the information is things that players are going to need to know to play the game. The chapter itself doesn't suffer from any gaming flaws; simply an anomaly of layout.
The last two chapters are on Magic; the first on its practice, and the second on the particulars of the spells. I think that the various changes to old spells are going to plague long-time players of D&D for many years to come, but for the most part the spells are excellently done. Each lists the appropriate level for the various classes who may learn and cast it, and describes the effect of saving throws and spell resistance on the spell. Schools are clearer, and various tags make determining what kind of spell is being cast, so the player can tell if his bonuses apply. There are definitely some problem spells, such as Harm having horrific damage with no save, and the ability to "hold" a touch spell indefinitely has the possibility for abuse, especially when combined with Harm. However, the concept of named bonuses and bonuses with the same name not stacking does clear up many old questions about various spells, especially those that protect people or increase their combat effectiveness.
Many of the problems come in at the conceptual level. A prime example is the question "Why can't wizards cast healing spells?" Healing spells are the conjuration of positive energy, which wizards obviously have no problem with, given the cantrip "Disrupt Undead". It can't be explained away as a facet of Arcane Magic, as bards can cast healing spells as well as any class but clerics starting at 2nd level (provided the bard in question has at least a 12 Charisma). Even the argument that it would take away from clerics doesn't work; not only can Bards, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers all cast healing spells at one point or another in their career, Clerics can still cast them spontaneously. Since everyone but the bard has to memorize, and the bard's selection is severely limited, that amounts to a large advantage.
Similarly, you must ask why arcane magic cannot be cast in armor, but divine magic can, even when they're casting identical spells. A 1st level cleric with the Fire Domain could cast Burning Hands while wearing half-plate armor and carrying a tower shield with no chance of failure, while a 20th level wizard casting the same spell wearing even padded armor would have a 5% chance to fumble it completely. It’s the same spell, with the exact same somatic components described, yet for some reason the books provide that a cleric can cast the spell without a hitch, and the wizard is seemingly incompetent.
Finally, my copy of the Player's Handbook, purchased in September 2000, contained a copy of the "2000 Survival Guide", designed to get us all through the dark months between the release of the PH and the other two books. Some have slammed this; I applaud it. In the 90's, D&D was always somewhat of an oddball for requiring three books to play, and Wizards took something of a risk continuing with that (not much, given that hype and loyalty alone were likely to sell their first print run, but a slight one, especially given their artificially low price). However, since those who were buying the books were going to need something to play right away, this allowed people to get started on the system before the second two books were out. I ran my first game without the benefit of the Monster Manual, and this part was necessary. I am given to understand that new printings include information on attacks of opportunity and how to deal with them instead of this survival kit; I think that alone shows my earlier point that attacks of opportunity can be difficult to handle and confusing to new players.
Is the Player's Handbook a terrible book? No. As the rating indicates, its simply average. Much of what was hailed as revolutionary, however, has been done before in other games. Perhaps my main beef comes with their marketing of the game. While the advertisements said "Challenge Your Perceptions", much of what they turned out was simply a repetition of the old stereotypes, without truly examining the ideas behind them or trying to improve them.
