Rating: 
Summary: Might as well call it something other than D&D
Review: As someone who was first exposed to D&D in the late 70s, I have to say that this game is not what it used to be. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 (I love the hip, contemporary "3.5" denotation as if this is computer software) is obviously aimed at the adolescent, power-gaming, comic book-reading gamer. Even the style of artwork suggests it, the D&D of today looking more like an extension of the comic book realm, with superhero player characters and hip monsters and humongous steroid warriors who look like they're out of the pages of Spawn. It's with a long, wistful sigh that I remember the days of DM manuals with cheesy homebrewed art and the beautiful Erol Otus covers on the game modules. It was the days when D&D was spoken of by the general public as if it was the dangerous pastime of Devil-worshippers and cultists. It was a mature, intelligent game that drew heavily upon the great fantasy realms of Tolkien, Howard, and Leiber, not to mention centuries of old folklore and mythology. Even the language used in the manuals was sophisticated and not easily digested by someone with less than a college reading level. It was a game of substance, a game with real SOUL. It was geeky and esoteric and a lot of fun. You played wizards and warriors, clerics and thieves, and each class had its own drawbacks and advantages. Some were even plainly more powerful than others. That's just the way it was. There was no obsessive attention paid to making every class so perfectly balanced, into turning AD&D into egalitarian fantasy, but since when is everyone in life so equal? Wizards were pathetically weak early on but then turned into the most dangerous of characters at higher levels, undoubtedly wielding the greatest power in the game. Cavaliers were unbalanced too, and barbarians. Yet at the same time the game wasn't so crazy like the D&D of today where suddenly everyone has loads of skills and super abilities and anyone can do anything and the object seems to be making your character into a superhero. But I suppose that's what everyone is looking for nowadays, Diablo II with pens an paper. A pity, because so much richness has been lost over the past 20 years, ever since TSR started cleaning up its image in the mid-eighties and marketing its games towards teenage gamers. That's what big business is about though, and how can a company reap big profits nowadays without turning "corporate" and catering to the lowest common denominator? And profits are obviously WOC's primary concern. It really breaks my heart though to see what's become of a game that once meant so much to me. At least I still have all my old 1st and 2nd edition books and they'll always be there. Let me close by saying this to everyone: No one's forcing you to be sheep and run out and spend money on this crap. If you're happy with what you're playing then what's the need to ever "upgrade"? Why not do the truly creative thing and stop buying this garbage that Wizards of the Coast is churning out and use your old stuff (be it 1st or 2nd edition or 3.0) and make your own adventures? And who needs a company's house rules when any decent DM can make up his own? Give me a break people. Think for yourselves and stop being victims of consumerism and slick marketing.
Rating: 
Summary: A welcomed revision.
Review: I have played this game since its incarnation known as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition. I fell in love with the second editon of the AD+D game and I am beginning to feel the same way towards the 3.5 revision. I was an avid scepitic regarding a third edition of Dungeons and Dragons in the first place. However, after playing the game now for a little under two years in the third edition setting, I have to say I would never look back. The 3.5 revision was also a disheartening announcement as I knew they were going to but it out, just not this soon. As it stands now, if the 3.5 revision has the same effect and staying power on gameplay as AD+D second edition did, (which I feel it does) all would be foolish to not upgrade.
The game has become more simplified in the new Player's Handbook, the only book you need to actually "play" the Dungeons and Dragons game. (not "run" it) The editors have seemingly balanced out all of the classes, skills and feats. Not to mention adding a bunch of new ones and weeding out useless old ones. The combat section is drastically improved and integrates a new battlegrid option to playing out combat, making the battles in your world all the more real and easier to picture.
While not a majority of the rule system of the current game has changed, the attempt at balancing the game and making some of the overlooked classes more user friendly and ripe to play with is a breath of fresh air.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent gaming for everyone from newbies to old pros
Review: Dungeons and Dragons 2E was needlessly complicated, counter-intuitive, and elitist. That's right, I don't like 2nd edition. You needed a frickin math degree to figure out certain rolls. Many of the concepts were extremely limiting such as the multi-class system. Many of the stats and rolls were illogical. Save vs Death and Save vs Wands for example. Who has the innate ability to save against wands?!! Fortitude, will, and reflex are a much more logical way of handling saves. If a character has quick reaction time and dexterity, his ability is reflected by his reflexes. Finally, the complicated nature of 2E made it unappealing to many new gamers. Since RPG players are not immortal, it is nice to be able to bring new blood into the game. I have served as both player and game master for many RPGs including White Wolf, Call of Cthulhu, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Traveller, and GURPS and I find D&D 3E to be one of the easiest and most enjoyable to play and DM. As for it being a "super-hero" game because of the capabilities of characters (particularly at high levels) I seem to remember a small party fighting off a few armies of orcs in a certain book series by J.R.R. Tolkien. That's not superheroic?
D20 is one of the easiest systems to use with both new players and veteran gamers. With the care given to balancing the classes, races, and feats, new gamers can create a character without having to worry about being totaly out of their league. The sheer amount of available options allow veteran gamers to create exactly the character they want while still giving the Dungeon Master a controlling ability. The classes are still diverse enough that, particularly at higher levels, each character plays very differently. Wizards may no longer be able to obliterate everything they see before them at high levels (although a well-played wizard is still a terrifying force to be reckoned with. Everyone griping about the "underpowered" mages in 3E might consider using the intelligence that is supposed to be the mark of a wizard. But of course, that would be role playing). Unlike 2E, high level fighters don't have to be satisfied "commanding armies" (yeah, that's real exciting. Let me roll a few hundred attack rolls real quick...) but can instead throw themselves into the fray as their weaker companions back them up.
Their are a few things that I don't like about D20 that keep me from giving this product five stars. One is the class based system. While the class based system is nice for easy character creation and balance, it does somewhat limit the tweakinng available to each character (BESM D20 is an excellent resource for those looking for some wilder options). The other complaint is somewhat limited number of revisions between D&D 3.0 and 3.5. A cheaper book containing just the revisions would have been nice for those of us who own 3.0 books.
Bottom line: If you don't own D&D Edition 3.0 and you want to play an enjoyable, addictive, easy to learn, and, above all, fun role playing game, pick up Dungeons and Dragons 3.5.
Rating: 
Summary: Clarity doesn't warrant an upgrade, new players may like
Review: While the book is generally accredited to the design team of Skip Williams, Monte Cook (who has some interesting comments on his web site) and Johnathan Tweet, these were the original 3.0 design team and had (according to the Wizards web site) some hand in retooling the rules. The original d20 system is a very solid product, but why it needed a revision so soon seems a blatant attempt at profiteering, without putting in the forthought and work required to maintain the companies credibility with its fans. The good: Certain systems were cleaned up, namely some classes that were weak or front loaded at early levels, combat explanations, certain spells. The bad: A lot of this is rehashed, uninspired (the new feats spring to mind) or taken from books that many D and D fans already shelled out to have. Most of the art is even recycled. So it basically the old book, with tweaks, and some pages ripped out of some 3.0 books that many of us already bought. I would like to credit the old book's material with a "5", but assuming a person would be supplanting there old PHB 3.0 with this - not worth the cash to me for a few changes, a lot of which are mixed in their game effect. One of the impressive things about the 3.0 book was it had a MASSIVE list of playtesters. While none are listed - even if they used the same amount of people one wonders how many games could have been run under these supposedly better rules given the small amount of time from conception to publishing the material. I would assume that Wizards was not sitting around patiently watching focus groups play, then retooling. They were rusing it off to the presses. If one was starting out, however, this might be the place to do it. I have a feeling the rules of 3.0 and 3.5 will end up turning into a lot of "house rules" which who knows, maybe we can expect in a few years to come out in a better designed, better playtested 4.0. It is worth noting that one can download the rules independant of the book on the Wizards website (called the 3.5 System Reference Document) if you really want to see what you are getting before you buy a hardcover.
Rating: 
Summary: A Necessary Revision for a Generally Excellent System
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Another Update...
Review: This is the Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition Players Handbook. The latest version of the game. It is also called the Core Rulebook I. This book tells you how to create and play your character. This is the only book required for the players. You will also need a special set of dice and paper/pencil, and in some campaigns, a figure to represent your character in the game. This book has everything you need to fleash out and equip your characters as well. A very nice table of contents. And is a well made hardcover book, If you plan to run a campaign you will need as a minimum everything listed above plus, The Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual. This update from the 3rd edition is more than just some clarifications, which are included. But there are also significant rule changes. And there are more options available to players. Even though this edition still has typographical erros, it is a better game.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle Evolution
Review: First off I have to say that I don't mind spending money on something I enjoy. Although I am having flashbacks to when 3E first hit, and WOTC said they would try to keep the core books at 20.00 and the supplements would be more expensive, but hey its been a few years and prices go up. 3.5 is pretty alright, my group is still using 3e even though most of us have already bought 3.5, we're kind of taking it in for a while, and might start using changed rules one or two at a time, especially the spell duration stuff. All in all the books are clear, I would've liked more new artwork, I personally only bought the PHB and DMG, figuring that if the specialty monster manuals (ie Faerun, mm2, and fiend folio, etc) are still alright, then the core MM should be too. Beyond that there isn't much to say, this game is all about new rules, new options, and imagination, if you don't like something houserule it out and keep playing, that's what's important, so wait till the binding on your PHB gives, and upgrade to 3.5.
Rating: 
Summary: I'd like to address issues raised in other reviews
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Overpriced Update
Review: I have been a D&D player for 15 years. TSR made some great products. I was disappointed when Wizards bought them out, but I must say the 3.0 rule book they made was great. I see some other great D&D products being made from them too. My only complaint about Wzards is that all the newer products they sell seem to be overpriced. I just bought the 3.5 rule book used. I'd never pay the $30 new price they have on the book. Really its a $20 book, like the old ones. What made me even madder was the fact 3.5 came out shortly after 3.0. The additions and changes are great, but I still feel ripped off. Wizards really need to create an update manual for people who have the 3.0 book. Even a downloadable pdf file would make me very happy. If you are new to to D&D get the 3.5 manual, do not even consider the 3.0 rule books. If you have the 3.0 rules, then live with them. Its really not worth getting the 3.5 rules, unless everyone you play with is using them. I do recommend everyone buy it used, its not worth the extra $10 in my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Solid
Review: I actually bought this to help me with my Neverwinter Nights module. I needed better race/class descriptions, and I was curious about the changes. I like it--but only because I didn't have the 3rd edition handbook before I put down my cash. In other words, if you've got the "3.0" handbook, don't bother. I like most changes Wizards of the Coast made. Heal and Harm were nerfed (made weaker), for example. And if balance is a good thing, they needed to be. Actually, some people don't like that 3.5 levels things out. But if you're anti-powergamer, then this is necessary. If there are so many powergamers in the world and if they're so bothersome, you must balance things to "disarm" them (pun intended). Maybe they've sullied "your" game, but it's your fault for making it popular. ...You bought it, didn't you? Talk about unintended consequences. Out with the old, in with the new. Nothing lasts forever. Love is never having to roll a 9 when your critical hit range is 10-20. D'oh! Things change, people. D&D is but a game, not a political ideology. Powergaming forever!
|
