Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Messageboard Golem" data-source="post: 2009015" data-attributes="member: 18387">You can read this and other reviews at http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/darkcitadel/roleplay/roleplay.htmlIntroduction: The reviews of the Core Rulebooks have been long in coming.  I've had over a year to collect my thoughts and, after great discussion with my colleagues, have decided that I have had enough time to consider them and give them a fair and honest review. Cover: The cover of The Player's Handbook is beautiful, with the appearance of being bound in a leather jacket and adorned with various jewels and a nifty little bolt to hold it closed, giving it a much more arcane as well as grandiose feel than previous books. Writing Style: The book is very well written.  The authors put a great deal of thought into everything they wrote into the book, and they did a fantastic job.  My only major complaint is the combat section, where they grow rather vague when it comes to certain abilities, such as attacks of opportunity, as well as in the magic section.  Aside from that, the book wasactually a very pleasant read.  The authors were not very dull at all, and gave excellent examples of play throughout the book to illustrate the rules they were discussing.  Although the dungeons the characters dove into weren't as interesting as the sewers with the wererats in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, they were still interesting reads. Artwork:  This is where the book began to turn sour.  Don't get me wrong.  The artwork is abosolutely gorgeous!  The pictures were incredibly painted and the book is so well illustrated I couldn't believe it!  I can easily remember the 1st edition handbooks with pencil-drawn artwork that looked like it was sketched by a 3-year-old, and the dull, emotionless,almost medieval or Celtic artwork of the 2nd edition core books.  This book definitely makes an incredible impression with the absolutely incredible artistry.  But now we come to my problem, a problem that will plague me for the rest of 3rd Edition, it seems (right down to Elminster and Fzoul Chembryl in The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book).  The artwork is incredibly inaccurate.  I remember at the end of one of the old 1st edition core books Gary Gygax expounds on the differences, strengths, and evolution of pole-arms for several small-print, sparsely illustrated pages, all for the sake of accuracy.  The 2nd edition Arms and Equipment Guide was incredibly well-researched and detailed, with highly accuratedrawings and information concerning the use and strengths of various weapons and armors.  However, when looking at the equipment section of The Player's Handbook for 3rd edition, I have to admit, I was disappointed.  The armor looked absolutely too elaborate and the weapons were all wrong.  What they depicted as a heavy lance was, in reality, more like a padded practice lance, and didn't have nearly the reach or the sharpness of a true heavy lance.  Then there are the ridiculous double-weapons (such  two-bladed sword, which was probably just to amuse Darth Maul fans).  Some of the weapons were well-drawn and effectively researched, but a few things just completely baffled me in the equipment segment. Mechanics:  This is probably the most important part of the book.  It is what won me over to the idea of 3rd Edition back in fall semester of my senior year at college.  The D20 system streamlined Dungeons & Dragons, giving it a much-needed facelift, smoothing out many of the old problems (and ushering in very few new ones).  The manner in which they handle skill checks and combat, with everything revolving around a d20 (hence, the system's name) simplifies combat and skill usage alike.  The character classes (except for the monk) are incredibly well defined and balanced with the others.  The races are also much more versatile, and they have trimmed the fat (literally) off of many of them, making them much more playable, and attracting the interest of more than just Lord of the Rings fans who want to play Bilbo Baggins in Greyhawk.  The addition of feats is probably the best thing they introduced, however, since it makes characters infinitely more customizable.  The character classes are much more vague (influenced by the late Alternity), allowing which skills and feats the player selects to further define the character itself, eliminating the necessity (or desire) for kits.  A pirate can be a fighter with the Knowledge: Navigation and Swim skills, and the Weapon Focus:  Rapier (or Cutlass, from Forgotten Realms) feat.  A horse-nomad (like the Mongols or Huns) may be a barbarian with several ranks in Ride and Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, and Ride-by Attack feats at level one. My problems with the system, however, fall under monks and magic.Monks:  I just think they are extremely unbalanced.  Their abilities go beyond the rational and enter the realm of the surreal the farther they go up in level.  Many of the other DMs I know either disallow them in their games or trim down their abilities.  Their unarmed attack damage gets a bit too powerful, as well as some of their skills, one of which does the incredible and makes the monk an outsider.  The first edition monk was incredibly powerful, but I find the third edition monk to be absolutely unbalanced, almost to the point where you really don't need a party, just a monk.  They are more than just the Swiss Army Knife of D20, but the Swiss Army Howitzer.Magic:  Magic has been completely overhauled.  The idea of clerical domains and such are excellent additions to the system.  Dungeons & Dragons still has that system of fire-and-forget spellcasting, although they now have added the sorceror to the mix for those who hate the idea of forgetting your spell once you cast it.  However, the spells themselves have been reduced.  They brought back cantrips, but I would have rather seen the cantrips as much more simplistic, similar to 1st Edition cantrips.  Many spells, such as light, have been gravely weakened due to their downgrading in level.  The name-changes don't bother me, but whatever happened to spells like fools gold?  In addition, the new system makes anyone's 2nd Edition Tome of Magic completely useless unless their DM wants to spend a week converting the spells (which are, by the way, still not 3rd Edition canon).  Wizards spell progression is also somewhat stifled.  When converting a wizard from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, you'll end up losing a great deal of spellcasting power.  The sorcerer, although he doesn't know as many spells as the wizard, easily overpowers him when it comes to raw firepower.  A wizard ends up needing an 18 for his Intelligence or he is weakened considerably.  Yeah, he may end up casting more 9th-level spells than in 2nd Edition, but extra 9th-level spells are never worth losing several 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells, which are used much more commonly than 9th.Overall: All-in-all, this book impressed the hell out of me.  After I was through critiquing 3rd Edition's take on magic, I began to develop hope for future spells in books like Tome and Blood and Magic of Faerun.  To give your wizard a bit more omph, I'd suggest buying Relics & Rituals for Sword & Sorcery, because it puts a lot of utility spells back into 3rd Edition that the original conversion from 2nd Edition lost.  I can do nothing but extol the virtues of the D20 system as a combat and skill system, because it is a fantastic mesh of Alternity and 2nd Edition AD&D.  I am quite satisfied with this purchase, and although I use the "Spells per Day" list from the 2nd Edition wizard for my 3rd Edition wizards, just to keep any sorcerors in my games from getting too cocky, I don't encourage everyone to do so.  It all depends on your DMing style and what you want to focus on.Note on monks and magic:  Since mechanics are part of the "Player's Handbook", I review them quite a bit.  However, my opinions of 3rd edition are largely in support of it (that is why I collect and read the books).  I know people who defend monks and the 3rd edition magic system to the death, and I know people who despise them.  Personally, I liked 2nd magic better, but I love the engine that 3rd edition runs on.  I stand by my rating, but I try to explain what I see as shortcomings as fully as possible.  There are undoubtedly merits to the 3rd edition wizard as well as the monk, and I accept that.  I am just trying to express what I believe is somewhat unbalancing.</blockquote>

Verification