|
|||
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 3rd Edition | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I know what you're asking: Do we really need another review of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) Third Edition Players Handbook (3E PH)? Well, not really. But this review is far more critical than the previous ones, although hopefully still balanced, so I think that it is a valuable contribution to anyone who is trying to evaluate the game. That is the point of these things after all, right, helping people evaluate a product?
There are parts of the game that I like and parts that I dislike. If the review seems to concentrate more on the parts that I dislike, that is because I feel that others have already sung the praises of 3E and done it far better than I could. This review aims to serve as the counterweight to unbridled optimism.
First, a brief overview of me: I have never been a big fan of D&D. I've played my fair share of campaigns in it, and am even currently playing in a 3rd Edition campaign. I found 2nd Edition to be cludgy and confusing, filled with inconsistencies and generally not as conducive to running a fun game as other systems. I did have fun in the campaigns that I played in, however, so the deficiencies in the system were mild, more annoying than damning.
When reviewing a game I like to ask what were its objectives, then try to evaluate it based on those. So, what were the objectives of the new edition? I would say to simplify the mechanics of the system while preserving the high-fantasy and epic feel of D&D. Does it succeed? Yes, with some major caveats.
The Good
Starting on a positive note, I like a lot of what I see in the new edition. The unification of the mechanics under D20 is refreshing and simple. For those of you who somehow haven't heard of it, here's the gist of it: All actions are resolved via rolling a D20 and adding modifications then comparing to some reference number, the target's Armor Class (AC) in the case of combat. This means that AC now increases from a base of 10 rather than decreasing from a base of 20 as it did in 2nd Edition, which I consider far more logical.
I also like the simplification of the experience point (XP) system. The absolute range of XP has been compacted; no longer does it take 1,250,000 XP for a fighter to reach 13th level. They now reach that milestone after only 78,000 XP. This has absolutely no affect on game play other than to reduce the size of the numbers that you need to keep track of. Further, all classes now advance at an equal rate; after 78,000 XP all classes will have advanced 13 levels. No longer will the rogue be far ahead of the Mage. The classes have been tweaked so that they are now balanced relative to each other as they go up in level, so the rogue isn't under-powered nor is the wizard over-powered.
On the subject of classes, the mechanics for multiclassing have been simplified. Now when you get enough XP to advance to a new level, you can choose which class receives the level, if multiclassed. There is no keeping track of two, or more, different sets of XP, one for each class. No more figuring out which set of THAC0 and saves are the best from each class; the save and attack bonuses from each class and are now cumulative. Speaking of saves, there are now just three: one based on Dexterity (called Reflex Save), another on Constitution (Fortitude Save), and a third based on Wisdom (Willpower Save). No more trying to determine what it means to "Save vs. Rods." It now seems obvious that you would make a Reflex Save to dodge a Lightning Bolt or that you need to make a Willpower Save to resist a Hold Person spell.
There are two new additions to character creation beyond selecting a Race and a Class: You now have to select your skills and feats. Skills are broken down by class into three categories: Class skills, Cross-class skills, and Exclusive skills. Class skills are integral to your class, such as Pickpocket for rogues and Spellcraft for wizards. Cross-class skills are those that you can learn, but aren't really related to your class. The downside to cross-class skills is that they cost twice as much as Class skills. Fighters can learn Move Silently, but not as easily as rogues. Exclusive skills are those that only specific classes can learn. Some of these make sense: fighters can't learn Spellcraft since they don't have magical ability. Others seem totally arbitrary: Why can't a bard learn to Read Lips? Why does she have to take a level in rogue to get this skill? Why can only bards and rogues learn to Decipher Scripts? Why can't an adventuring cleric try to "piece together the meaning of ancient runes," as the skill is described? These seem like totally arbitrary rules simply meant to preserve differences between the classes. This exclusivity does not simplify the rules nor does it help to preserve the epic feel of the game. It creates needless complexity as players try to figure out what classes they need to multiclass into to get the skills that they want for their character concept.
The idea of feats is another new addition to 3rd. Feats are special abilities that set characters apart. No longer are all 6th level fighters identical. Now, in addition to different skills, they have different feats to choose from. Feats can do anything from improving your ability to fight with two weapons simultaneously, to letting you shoot a bow more rapidly, to letting you cast your spells silently (without the verbal component). Needless to say, feats can be quite powerful and help to set your character apart and make her special. As the characters go up in level, they get more feats, usually one every three levels.
The Bad
Unfortunately, this gaining of feats results in some very bad role-playing styles. I have heard numerous players who have a very clear plan on how their characters will advance: "I'll take this feat, then this one, then this one", etc… They focus quite intently on the stats of their character, trying to make them into just what they want, or trying to get just the right feats to get the largest bonuses. I haven't really experienced this in other systems. GURPS players might use tricks at character creation, but once the game starts, they don't have a tight plan on how the next 10 points will be spent. It seems to me that the rules encourage players to think more about building up their characters' feats and stats than about building their character's personality (did I forget to mention that every four levels you get to improve one characteristic by one point?).
Another annoyance with feats is that the Leadership feat has absolutely no useful description. Its only description is "Leadership is described in the Dungeon Master's Guide." Not having the DMG, I can't say what the feat does, but I find it quite annoying that it is listed without a description. Is it a feat only for NPCs? If so, why list it in the Player's Handbook? If it is a feat that PCs can take, why don't they even get a brief description, something of the sort "This feat gives you a +2 bonus to morale checks for troops under your command. Rules for morale are detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide." This would have let a player know if it was a feat that they should consider taking, while not including extra rules.
Speaking of character's personalities, more space is spent in the book on rules and charts for how to roll your character's age/height/weight (starting age is even dependent upon which class you choose!) than on encouraging the player to describe the looks, personality, and background of the character. The players are not encouraged to come up with detailed backgrounds or personality, instead they are told that "You can detail your character to any degree you like. As you play the character, you will probably come up with more details you will want to add." To me, this is saying, "Don't worry about detailing your character when you start, you can always come back later if you think its important." I'm not asking them to encourage players to write a full life history of their character, but I would like something to the effect of this quote from Shadowrun 2nd Edition: "To really get the most enjoyment from the game, players should flesh out their character and bring it to life. Again, a character without a background is just numbers on paper." Such character development is still an optional step in Shadowrun, but at least one that is encouraged. In D&D, players are told that they need to know their character's height, age, and weight, but can create their personality later. To me, this attitude is backwards. I would prefer to know that a character is "tall and thin" and know more about their background and personality than know that they are 6'4" and 160 lbs. and only know that they are "a loner." Again, this is just my preferences on priorities. In D&D's defense, however, the choice of alignments is not optional and this gives at least a basic set of guiding principles. It doesn't explain why the character chose those principles, but at least it is required.
There are many changes in the combat mechanics, the largest of them being the addition of Attacks of Opportunity (AoO). The basic point of this mechanic is that you get an extra attack on anything that tries to move past you. The principle is sound: It allows a fighter to stand in the middle of a wide corridor and strike down anyone who tries to pass him. Unfortunately, there is something basically wrong with the implementation: A simple concept is overly complicated and inadequately explained. There are special cases for being flanked, running away, moving less than five feet, and a host of actions that automatically open you up to someone perform an AoO on you. The designers seem to understand that there is a problem. How else can you explain the number of articles in Dragon that deal with explaining AoOs and providing clear examples, for both explanations and examples are woefully lacking in the PH. How many more articles will be needed to fully explain the rules?
There are a number of grating errors in the equipment section of the book that make me question the amount of research that went into the book. First, consider the weights of the weapons. Since when does a heavy flail weight 20 lbs., or a greatsword weigh 15 lbs? I've seen actual ceremonial greatswords standing 8 feet tall that only weigh 10 lbs. Is the D&D greatsword made out of lead rather than steel or is it 15 feet tall? The second complaint is that the description of a Falchion is: "This sword, which is essentially a two-handed scimitar, has a curve that gives it an effectively keener edge." I do not claim to be a scholar of Medieval weaponry, but I do know that the accompanying illustration does resemble a broad bladed two-handed scimitar, not a Falchion. How difficult would it have been to get even a nonscholarly work such as Paladium's Compendium of Weapons, Armour, & Castles to get a feel for approximate weights and depictions of the weapons. I don't have a problem with the new "fantastic" weaponry like a Darth-Maul inspired two-bladed sword. It is when they start taking liberties with historical items that I complain.
The Rants
Even those aspects of the game which seem very promising at first glance, like the new multiclassing rules, have flaws when looked at upon reflection. My main complaint with multiclassing is how to do it. The wizard is described as having spent "years … in apprenticeship to learn the arts of magic." The fighter knows how to fight in any armor, use a shield, and wield maces, flails, swords, axes, and bows. How does one learn these skills all at once? When does one find the time to train with each of these weapons? A rogue knows how to use a short sword but not a long sword, so there must be some nontrivial training involved with learning each different type of sword.
Barbarians "come from uncivilized lands or from barbaric tribes on the outskirts of civilization." They aren't just people who use their inner rage to enhance their fighting ability, they truly are unruly, illiterate barbarians. So, I ask again: How does one ever multiclass into a Barbarian? How does one multiclass into a wizard without taking years of game time off? How does one multiclass into a fighter without enrolling into a school where they have the resources to properly train you? There are easy fixes to this problem (such as changing the description of the Barbarian), but you shouldn't have to change the description of the classes to allow players to do something allowed and encouraged in the rules. A game is good because of its rules, not in spite of them.
While I am foaming at the mouth about multiclassing, bear with me while I rant about how attack bonuses for multiclassing work. As you go up in level, you gain bonuses to attack. Seems sensible enough, right? Both 5th level fighters and Paladins get a +5 to all attack rolls. At 6th level, they get a +6 to attack rolls and get to perform a second attack at a +1 bonus. By 10th level, they get +10 to their first attack and +5 to their second. The confusion sets in, however, if a 5th level fighter decides to multiclass and become a paladin. By the time the character is 10th level, with five levels of fighter and five of paladin, he has amassed a +10 ability to their first attack (remember, bonuses stack), yet have not gained a second attack. If he had stayed as a straight fighter, he would now be quite proficient with a second attack. This seems like a major disadvantage to multiclassing, if you haven't noticed that all classes get a second attack when they get a +6 attack bonus, hinting that whenever the combined attack bonus got to be +6, you gain a second attack. A quick perusal of Eric Noah's discussion boards quickly revealed that others had made the same conclusions, but for the life of me, I can't find any rule to this effect, nor is there anything that I can see about it in the errata. More on the errata later. Must calm down now…
The designers made a return to classic D&D with the return of some elements that were removed in 2nd Edition. The half-orc returns as a race as does the monk as a class. There is even a brand-new class: the sorcerer, who only knows a few spells but can cast them frequently and without "preparing" them (the new term for memorizing spells). Overall, I like these additions, I just wish the designers did more with them. The sorcerer is described as having very instinctual magic, as opposed to wizards who to study for their spells, yet they both have access to identical spells with identical components. Sorcerer's apparently automatically know what the correct spell components for any given spell are. This is quite impressive given that a spell like Nondetection requires a pinch of diamond dust to be cast, not the most obvious component for a spell that wards against divination. Druids, paladins, clerics, and rangers all get their own, differentiated spell lists. Why do sorcerers and wizards have to share? I understand the need for simplicity and not wanting to add needless complexity, but a few changes would have been simple. Giving sorcerers their own spell lists and allowing the players to define the spell components (assuming that they are of similar material value) would have gone a long way to giving sorcerers a unique feel that sets them apart from wizards.
In the same boat of overly similar classes is the cleric. What is it similar to? Other clerics. Under the new rules, spells are divided into two groups: those that are generic to all clerics and those that relate to the domains of certain gods. Each cleric chooses two domains from the 3+ that her god represents. At each casting level (1st - 9th level), each domain provides a special spell, which is usually not available as a generic cleric spell. The problem is that if the spell is special and not included on the generic spell lists, then the cleric can only prepare one casting of one of the two special spells she has for each casting level. I know that doesn't make much sense, so here's an example: Sasha is a cleric of Moradin and has chosen to represent Moradin's aspects of Earth and Protection. Now at 15th level, he can cast six 1st level spells plus one 1st level "domain spell." This means that he can choose six 1st level spells from the generic lists, and then has to choose between Sanctuary and Magic Stones for the final slot. He can't choose to cast Sanctuary twice, for he only has one slot for domain spells. I didn't say the example would explain the purpose of the rule, only how it worked. The end result is that now any two priests' spellcasting abilities are very similar, no matter what deities they worship.
The majority of the races are relatively richly detailed, with numerous advantages and a good background. There is a particularly good description of the difficulties that the half-orcs have in fitting into other socieities. Unfortunately, this is all the "uniqueness" that half-orcs receive. Their special abilities consist of being strong, stupid, uncharasmatic, and being able to see in the dark. Contrast this with the elves, who are dexterous but frail, immune to magical sleep, have low-light vision, are automatically proficient with long swords and bows (yes, you can now have sword-wielding, bow toting wizard!), and are more aware of their surroundings. In comparison to the elves, the half-orc seems to be a walking stereotype. They are also the only class that has more disadvantages, a total -2 to both Charisma and Intelligence, than advantages, a +2 to Strength. Presumably this is some admission that Intelligence and Charisma are not as "important" of characteristics as Strength. Finally, why do elves get automatic proficiency with long swords and bows, while dwarves have to spend a feat to learn to use a Dwarven waraxe the same way that a human would? Don't they get any special treatment for using their own racial weapons?
The Beautiful
No review would be complete without some discussion of the layout of the game. To put it bluntly, the book is beautiful. I am not terribly impressed with the cover as I find the round plastic jewels to look rather cheap and out of place, but the interior is lovely. Some people have complained about the lined-paper look of the book. While I don't think it adds anything to the presentation of the material, it certainly doesn't distract from it. I did find the chapter labels rather difficult to read, however. They are printed vertically against a dark background on the border of each page. I prefer a horizontal label at the top of each page, but this is not a terribly major point. The game also includes an index and a glossary! The book gets major points for this, as we used both numerous times in our first session with 3E and they saved us lots of time.
The one bit of layout that I did dislike was how they described the characteristics. Here is the chart describing the "Average Wisdom Scores"
As I said, I've played in a number of campaigns, but I've never been a DM and thus have not had an opportunity to see the write-ups of the creatures listed here. I had no clue that an Owlbear had a higher Wisdom than a human, but lower than a Wraith. Since this is the Player's Handbook, are the players supposed to know the stats of all the creatures above? I know Wizards of the Coast would love it if all the players bought the Monster Manual, but I have a feeling that their DM's wouldn't be so happy about it. If they wanted to give a point of reference for the characteristics, why not do what the Fuzion Rules do, give real-world examples. They give examples of what a character with a characteristic at a given level would find challenging, such as a rugged trip through a jungle, competing against an Olympic athlete, or if they are counted among the legends. Strength is also listed as saying how far a person with that strength could throw a baseball, how much they could lift (examples being a bag of groceries, a child, an adult, etc), or what they could break with their bare hands. Players aren't interested in whether their characters are wiser than a Owlbear or not, they want an example of what the numbers actually mean, and this is what the PH doesn't provide.
I was not planning on saying anything about typos, since, for the most part, they were minor. Unfortunately, after printing out the 12 page errata, I feel that I need to comment. The problem is that 99% of the entries in the errata are totally worthless. As an owner of the first print run, I really don't care that in 50+ instances spell names weren't italicized, or that they forgot to write out the word "one" and instead used the number one. These typesetting changes are not changes to the substances of the book. I would have preferred that the true changes, the ones that affect gameplay, be highlighted as a separate listing so that I could easily see which rules require changing. The deletion of an entire paragraph on page 140 or changing the condition under which Attacks of Opportunity occur are corrections on an entirely different magnitude than adding italics or bold to a word. To illustrate the problem, the GM of my group said that he looked at the errata and didn't see anything important in it, that they were all minor corrections. I'm not faulting him, I'm faulting the level of support that is provided for the book. For those of you who are also struggling with the official errata, may I refer you to two excellent sources of "improved" errata. The first is a Condensed Errata that lists only the important changes, while the second reorganized errata breaks the official list down into three sections, Rules Corrections, Clarifications, and Typos. If WotC had provided the errata in either of these formats, I would not have commented.
Also, there is a very confusing bit of language in the PH. It includes a list of the "most common deities." This is not listed as a list of gods on one world, or even a suggested list of gods: It is the list of common gods, and by extrapolation, any other gods are minor. Since D&D aims to be a set of generic fantasy rules, I would have expected there to be some statement saying that there could be different gods if your DM decides to use a different world. I know that this list is of the major deities in Greyhawk, the official D&D setting, but I'm sure there are those players who don't know this. No, it's not major, but it is potentially confusing for new players.
What is my overall impression of the presentation of all of these new rules? In a word: Functional. From the first time you open the book, it feels like a reference manual. They buck the trend by not including the obligatory introductory piece of fiction. There is no statement of the setting; you have to wait for a small box on page six to even figure out that this is a fantasy RPG. While the internal art is very, very good, I couldn't ever shake the feeling that I was reading a dry instruction manual rather than a fun game.
Conclusion
D&D aims to be a "cradle to grave" game, easy to learn yet deep enough to keep experienced role-players interested. I feel that it fails in both of these aspects. The poor comparisons of characteristics, complicated AoO rules, and lack of explanations for how bonus attacks work will turn off many new role-players. The difficulties of explaining multiclassing and still somewhat limiting choices in classes may prompt players to leave as they gain experience and try other systems.
What do you actually get when you purchase the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook? You get a set of rules that allow you to run a D&D style game, a specific style of epic adventure. You also get the basics of the cosmology of your world handed to you. You are also told that "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Sure, you can change the rules or have a world that is morally ambiguous, but then, apparently, it is no longer a game of D&D.
Who should buy 3rd Edition? If you are currently playing in a 2nd Edition campaign, I would strongly encourage you to convince your DM to switch to 3rd Edition. Although I list quite a number of complaints, the rules are much better than 2nd Edition. In this, the designers did succeed in simplifying the myriad different rules and mechanics in D&D and unifying them, while preserving the "feel." If you are thinking of starting a new fantasy game, I would suggest that you check out the other options that are out there first. No matter your experience level, you could very well find something that you like better and that better serves your interests.
Is this a bad book? You certainly could get that from all of my ranting, but that isn't my intention. When I look back on the game, my impression is of unfulfilled promise. They went so far and did so much to improve and modernize the game, but it is not quite enough. Some rules, like Attacks of Opportunity, need extra explanations for how they work, others, like multiclassing, need more justifications for how they fit into the game world. Personally, I would have liked it if they had included the option of combining the abilities and feats that interested you so you could implement your character concept at first. It really bugs me I can't start out playing a child thief who later enlisted in the army, for this is the classic rogue / fighter which I could only create at second level. I would like something similar to the old 2nd Edition rules for creating new classes, but I would like each of the classes in 3rd Edition to be built using it. That way you could play the old, familiar classes, or you could easily design your own. For those of you who say this would be too complex for new players: I refer you to the Attack of Opportunity rules. Style: 4 (Classy and well done) Substance: 3 (Average) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS | Partner Sites | Contact Us | Advertise with Us ] |
Go to forum!