Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes (Roleplaying Game Core Rules)

Fourth edition D&D really got a bum rap. The game was very different from its predecessors and many didn't like the feel of the game compared to what they were used to. I absolutely understand this complaint and made it myself many times. But over the course of a 2 year campaign and a couple of shorter arcs, I started to really figure things out. Now, after a multiyear campaign in 5E, my group has decided to return to 4E.So, about the book and the game. The book is well built and sturdy. The binding is strong and the text and fonts and design are grade A. This is a book for people who enjoy reading. It is clear and easy on the eyes, with plenty of quality original artwork. Just based on the layout and design, it is by far my favorite PHB of all the D&D hardbacks. It is beautiful. The 1st editions are classics and I love them to this day, but the information flow and layout is simply not very good. The text is very dense and there is not enough artwork IMO. The 2nd edition books were quirky with very limited color (just blue, with a few full page full color pieces throughout(. They maintained the strange 3 column layout that was a holdover from the Mentzer Basic softcovers and modules. Something that actually worked well on a small 32 page booklet but felt strange in a full size hardback. Third edition was an abomination of visual design. Horrible fonts printed over parchment like pages with lines and sigils and all manner of nonsense in the background made every page an impossible chore to read. The covers were hideous and lets be frank, the spines on the 2E, 3E and 5E books are just ugly. The spines on the 4E books are glorious. I own almost all the books across every edition, being a collector, and the 4E books are a sight to behold on my shelves.As for the content. We get the core races and most of the core classes one would expect. The only ones notably absent are the Barbarian and Druid, and perhaps the Gnome. All of which were introduced in PHB2 (along with the Primal power source). Extras for this edition PHB 1 include Tieflings and Dragonborn as well as Warlords, a class built to lead others in battle, to help inspire and empower other characters with their charismatic words and impressive actions.We also get all the combat rules, feats, magic items, a simplified skill system and the biggest portion of the book, and probably the most controversial, the "powers". The designers of 4E, I think, made an honest effort to address many complaints about D&D that had existed since the early days of the original game, complaints like wizards start too weak and get too powerful. Like the complaint that fighters don't get enough interesting things to do and eventually just carry the casters gear. That multiclassing was breaking the game. That DM prep was out of control and things like balancing an encounter took hours at higher levels and still was hit or miss. Nevermind whether or not these complaints were legitimate, they existed, were common and even pervasive at the time.To address this, they made some major changes to the core system. And killed a few sacred cows along the way. If you had ever made these complaints, you were probably happy. If you hadn't, you might see this new edition as solving problems that didn't exist. And even if you were open minded you would eventually admit that the solutions of these problems lead to some problems of their own.Early in 4th edition (and certainly in this PHB), we see all the classes have a similar structure. You get to pick similar numbers of "powers" (which are really just mechanical abilities of your class) at the same points in the level progression. This enabled a natural power balance among the classes, solving a huge complaint from earlier editions. The casters no longer necessarily ran off and left the Fighters holding their gear. Advancement was now consistent between classes. 3rd edition had started down this path with a unified XP table for all classes. Something that also chapped the hides of traditionalists.As for skills, gone are skill points. You no longer had that granular control over an elaborate list of skills that included all sorts of esoteric game elements that might never come into play. Replacing it was a much simplified list of skills that could be either trained or untrained and that improved automatically with level. Some will miss the granularity. Others will welcome not having a host of skills that never saw the light of day. The skills include things like Perception, Insight, History, Religion, Thievery, Streetwise, Athletics, Acrobatics, Arcana and Endurance.Another big change was to saving throws. In early editions of the game, there were 5 categories of saving throws, like vs. Spells, Petrification, or Death Ray. In 3rd edition, these were consolidated down to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. 4th edition took it a step further and turned them into defenses. So instead of someone doing something that causes you to save against these numbers, now, your enemy would attack you and roll against these defense scores, much the same way the enemies roll against armor class. So instead of having your AC and 5 or 3 Saves. You simply had 4 defense scores. Each one being the target of a various subset of attack types. Saving throw as term still survived as something you did to remove a debilitating condition such as being dazed, or slowed, or poisoned. You would do this at the end of your turn, or continue being subject to the debilitating condition. Also, saves are used to avoid certain things, like being pushed over a cliff or while unconscious to determine if your condition worsens or gets better. In all these cases, the roll requires a 10 or better on a D20. It's basically a "one last chance" roll in these cases.Monster design took a dramatic shift back to earlier editions. In first edition, monsters were kind of their own thing. They often had their own rules and mechanics, some elaborate and often based on existing rules structures. But frequently they were completely unique. This made monsters mysterious but also someone painful to learn and run. You needed to do a lot of reading to run a monster correctly making pickup games harder. 3rd edition attempted (in its "unification or death" design goals) to unify monster design by forcing it to exist within the exact same rules structure as players. This sounds great on paper but lead to some of the most elaborate and difficult to manage monster blocks of any game I've played. Trying to add classes to monsters and choose their spell lists and determine what that would do to their challenge rating, was maybe the worst part of 3rd edition. The complaints were pervasive and many people would simply stop playing at level 10-15 due to the challenge involved in running those games. 4th edition made a goal of making it easier on DMs, making prep quick and painless and making running the game smooth and simple. They largely succeeded but failed on several fronts. Monster blocks are a godsend. Everything you need to run the monster fits in their stat block. No more looking up spells to run a monster. No more monsters having lists of abilities that will never see the light of day. Creating balanced encounters (or easy or hard) was so simple as to require no math whatsoever. Just pick out the same number of monsters at the save level of your players and you're good to go. Add more levels to make it harder, remove levels to make it easier. From -4 to +4 for super easy to super hard.So what went wrong? Well, a lot depending on who you talk to. Some will say the feel of the game changed. It wasn't D&D anymore. Some will say they miss some of the options they had before. Some will say the game feels to much like a video game. Some will say the classes having similar structure makes them too "samey". Some will complain the combats take too long. Some complain that too much power was taken from the DM. Some will say the characters are now super powered and its harder to tell more simple gritty stories, rather that something akin to D&D Supers. There is some truth to all these complaints. But a diligent gamer can overcome almost all of them, and find a game that is fun, fast, simple and feels like D&D did decades ago.If you like tactical challenges and a combat heavy game experience, 4E might just be perfect for you. If you like the mechanics to take a backseat to story, 4E can accommodate you nicely. If you want a game that is obviously derived from its forbears, you may be disappointed. This is really a ground up redesign. Many of the elements share little more than a name with their predecessors.In closing, I think this is a good game, deserves the title of Dungeons & Dragons and history will view it as an important excursion into the unknown that may have failed but was successful in many ways. In its firey ashes we found 5E which seems to be a grand success, but in many ways has rejected some of the advances of 4E. While this was probably a commercial necessity, it is also somewhat unfortunate. But, thankfully, they kept many of the successful innovations of 4E. DM prep is still pretty simple, the monster blocks are still much better than 3E and the game still has a clean and elegant presentation throughout.If you like 5E or even 1E D&D and want something a little different with some elements that really make the game stand out, I highly recommend taking a look.

This is not my original review of the product. Originally, I was so shocked by the sudden change from 3.5 to 4th edition that I instantly wrote 4th edition off as World of Warcraft on paper, more or less. But this isn't really true. If anything, 4th Edition is the most thought out and balanced pen and paper game I've ever played and it deserves a review that pays an equal amount of attention to it. So I've decided to focus this review on problems I originally had with the system, and how I perceive them now.Problem #1: Missing ClassesA huge problem I had with this system right from the start was the lack of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer classes. I called the inclusion of Warlord and Warlock "questionable". While I still believe that the exclusion of the aforementioned classes is definitely a money making scheme (and a pretty good one at that), I can understand WotC's reasoning for replacing those classes.While all of those classes certainly had their fans (myself included), they aren't necessarily the "iconic" classes many nay-sayers claim them to be. Barbarian wasn't in the first edition of D&D and it's flavor sometimes didn't fit the tone of the other classes in 3rd edition. Wizards famously had a difficult time making Bard (and it's racial counterpart Gnome) a palatable class for most players. Monk didn't fit the flavor of 3rd edition's other classes by a long shot, and Sorcerer was a completely new addition to 3rd edition. Warlord and Warlock aren't quite "questionable" either. Warlord is a nice replacement for Bard in many ways and Warlock was already a pretty popular optional base class in 3rd edition.Problem #2: Limited Character OptionsThe first time I looked through the book I saw "Controller, Leader, Defender, Striker" and I instantly wrote the rest of the system off as a cash-in attempt to pull MMO players away from WoW. From my experience playing so far, this kind of language is different from the actual play experience. While many characters do have a "role" in 4th edition, they also did in 3rd. The difference is that now most classes fulfill their role better than they did in previous editions. Defenders can actually defend!And furthermore, the role descriptions are more like gameplay suggestions than anything else. It's possible for a Fighter, a supposed "Defender", to become more of a Striker in a group; just as it's possible for a Paladin to be more of a Leader than a Defender. It's definitely true that there is less freedom than in 3rd edition, but it's not at the cost of options. There's still a ton of feats, diverse power selection, and racial powers which can help you achieve the flavor you want your character to have. And with the promise of a new slew of classes every year, chances are you will eventually find something that fits your desired archetype.Third edition almost had too much freedom, if there is such a thing, to the point where you could seriously hinder your character by choosing the wrong options. What they've done is they've ensured that your character won't be overshadowed MECHANICALLY by other characters based on your choices.Problem #3: Too Much Focus on CombatThis is the main one that myself and others were angry about, I think. A lot of people said that all the combat powers and combined skills came at the loss of roleplaying. First off, combined skills really work to everyone's benefit. If you want to be the Ranger with acute senses, instead of having to dump skills in Listen, Search, and Spot, you now simply need train in the Perception skill. This gives your character MORE options.There is a huge focus on combat in 4th edition, but that doesn't have to come at the loss of roleplaying. What Wizards has done is they've defined what your character can do during combat and challenges, but the rest is still up to you. Plus, despite 4th editions focus on fighting and large amount of fighting powers, combat is still more streamlined and faster paced than 3rd edition. The combat advantage mechanic is amazingly simple and streamlined and should be adapted into other d20 games.The game is not without its faults. It's difficult to make the wacky characters possible with 3rd edition, like the Ranger 5/Wizard 3/Bard 1. Hopefully as more books come, more options will present themselves for players. People have a tendency to get wrapped up in names and descriptions too much when it comes to RPGs.One problem I have is that some of the classes are very similar in function. I believe that the Primal power source should have been included in this Player's Handbook, with Ranger as the Primal Striker, Barbarian as the Primal Defender, and Druid as a Primal Controller/Leader. The fact that both Ranger and Rogue are Martial Strikers and that Warlock and the upcoming Sorcerer are Arcane Strikers feels weird to me; I think they should have limited one role per power source. Otherwise, it seems like certain classes just step on the toes of others. I can't change my original rating, otherwise I'd give this book 4 stars.

After reading scores of reviews, both good and bad, I decided to write my own.As a book, PHB1 is pretty amazing. I am disappointed that WOTC decided to separate info into three books (though I feel the phb3 is unnecessary anyway). The addition of the Dragonborn race is interesting, especially with so many video games trying to come up with a twist on fantasy, but failing miserably. I feel the Dragonborn really bring something new to the game. The classes presented here are well balanced and interesting. I see feats that will get used and feats that will be taken at level 28 because there's nothing left that's worthwhile. Its interesting that, except for wizards, you only get one daily/encounter power per level. That makes for some VERY hard choices!If you're planning to play 4e, also get phb2. There are many worthwhile races and classes (Shifter race, Avenger & Invoker classes) that don't appear in phb1.There are so many complaints about 4e... DnD should be combat rules and maybe some fluff to give a DM the ability to include combat in the world he/she creates. This book, and the many other books, do exactly that. I read reviews that people can't get into their character or that the classes all blend together. Sitting down with the phb1, I came up with about five characters with full personalities AS I READ IT. That tells me, the problem is the imagination of some DM's and players, not with the book itself. If you're going to fault WotC with something, it should be spreading class information, feats, etc over 10 million books, not with writing garbage or unbalanced content. I can say with confidence the content in phb1, phb2, Divine Power and Open Grave has been well thought out and is balanced.

I hadn't played dungeons and dragons since I left school, though I still painted miniatures in my spare time. Then my son got in to Warhammer 40K and then we tried this. Now the whole family plays (in secret of course!). I think this version is great - and the presentation eclipses everything that has gone before. The children tuned in quickly to the play, especially around the newly introduced class powers. I think this is because they share some commonality with computer games where characters can select powers or upgrades as they progress (think Skylanders). Keeps us all busy for one night of the week and lets their imaginations run wild. Well done.

Missing a lot of important classes such as bard, monk and sorcerer. Missing races such as Gnome and Half-Orc. Character creation is needlessly complex. Actual physical item is of high production quality.Each character class has a lot of attacking options - the problem is that this actually makes them all a bit samey, since all of their attacking options are based largely on keywords and numbers. The result is that the biggest differences between a lot of the characters is what keywords their attacks have and how many enemies they can hit at once, and for how much damage. But a wizard simply uses his or her powers just like a fighter does. This is problematic, as many characters simply don't feel very different.Having played 4th edition for 2 years and having bought the 5th edition Player's Handbook, I can say with some certainty that the 5th edition one is better. 5th edition focuses a whole lot more on the roleplaying aspects of the game, as opposed to the combat. If it's an option (e.g. if you can convince your friends to play 5th edition), I would recommend ordering the 5th edition player's handbook instead. On the other hand, if all you're interested in is combat, this might be for you.

If we're doing a review of the handbook itself, I'd give it 5 stars. It's well presented, arrived in pristine condition and was reasonably cheap for official merchandise. If we're talking about 4e in general I'd say I probably recommend 3.5. I feel they oversimplified a lot of areas of the game. It's easier to play and to DM than the earlier editions so it's ideal for new players, but I started on 3.5e a couple of years ago and now play exclusively 4e and I much prefer the earlier version.

I really dont see any problem with this. I would use this, just like the older editions, as a guide rather than a rulebook. The combat is balanced and fast moving simple and fun. You want to to have depth add it! It's your game! I believe that those who need more of the same old from 4e than this should buy the older editions that are still being sold or scrape the rust off of their unimaginative stubborn dwarvern DMs skull caps and find remember why they started playing DnD in the first place.

This official player's handbook is beautifully illustrated, concise and set out in a simple way to introduce anyone to the world of tabletop role-playing games. It doesn't matter if you're new to the whole thing or a seasoned veteran of dungeons and dragons, the book explains everything you need to know to get the most from this edition of the rules.