Talk:Player's Handbook

Image

Like with the Monster Manual article, this one would benefit from an image of the cover of the book. One or two shots of internal illustrations would be cool too (all covered under fair use). Anyone have any of these? —Frecklefoot 16:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It just so happens... :-) and the Dungeonmaster's Guide too, before you ask. :-) Stan 17:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Boy, you're on top of things—I guess I can stop asking now! :-) But I'll pester you one more time for any scans of internal illustrations—they were generally my favorite. But any images are better than none. Thanks, man. —Frecklefoot 18:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of images, the sample cover to the 4th edition Player's Handbook shown in the article is not the one that will be actually published. Chris411 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.jpg is up for deletion. 2601:D:9400:3CD:F943:B8AC:969:506D (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Title

When I first created this article, I named it Player's Handbook (with an apostropher 's'). After researching it a bit, I discovered the correct title is Players Handbook (no apostrophe). However Gtrmp moved it (and Dungeon Masters Guide) back to the apostrophized version with no comment. Since I beleive that version is incorrect, I have moved it back.

If you think it should be the apostrophized version, please discuss why. The included scan shows it as the version without the apostrophe. —Frecklefoot 16:29, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The current edition is spelt with an apostrophe. See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030705a and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030711a . Ausir 16:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well then (thanks, BTW). How do we decide what to call them then? The scans provided are of the old version which uses the name Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide. However, the articles are about all the versions of the book. I guess we could have two seperate articles for the book (one for the old, one for the new), but I don't think that's the right approach (the wrong version will get linked to often, I'm sure). I'm kinda leaning towards keeping them without the apostrophes since that are the versions we have artwork for. What think ye? —Frecklefoot 16:55, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should use the apostrophes since they are used in the most recent editions, so these versions are more likely to be looked for. Ausir 17:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I vote for newer editions, with apostrophe, since by default we favor current names over historical ones, and of course include discussion of the variations in the article. Older editions are charmingly amateur productions, and confusion about proper punctuation is of a piece with the crude drawings, funky typography, etc. :-) Stan 17:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move them back and include discussion (and make sure all references in article to the book include the apostrophe). It'll be a few minutes, but I'll handle it. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:48, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I own a copy of the True 1st - as detailed on acaeum.com - and would be happy to post a picture if there is interest.Mabeco (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Just D&D

There's more than one Player's Handbook, just as there's more than one bible - for example, there's the Marvel Player's Handbook, and every TV show has a bible. Shouldn't this article be about the general idea of a Player's Handbook (that is, information specifically for players) as opposed to one particular game's various Handbooks? If not, then don't mind the newbie and feel free to ignore. Elemental Knight 00:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are more than one Player's Handbooks, but we don't have articles about any of them. This was a notable book, recognized by an entire generation of geeks and other types of gamers. Once we have an article about any other type of player's handbooks, we can disambiguate them and provide a link to this article.

By the way, in the case of the general "player's handbook" you describe, the article would be capitalized "Player's handbook" (wikipedia demands that the first letter of an article be capitalized). The second word would not be capitalized, but this one is since that was the title of this book. If you really want to create an article about the general idea of a player's handbook, you're still free to, without clashing with this article. But I doubt you could find enough to say about the subject past a stub. :-S Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

HumanJHawkins 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC): More importantly than that, this is an article under the category of Dungeons & Dragons books. If there is a (for example) golf player's handbook, then it should be written about ins a seperate article under golf.

If the article's name is changed to D&D Players Handbook, then this is a fine article. Otherwise the general contents of PHBs in RPGs should be defined. How different games seperate core rules, GM rules, etc. is a good topic. Mathiastck 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The D&D Player's Handbook is the most notable book with this title. Moreover, until there are articles on other player's handbooks, there is no need to disambiguate. --GentlemanGhost 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

The image Image:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Focus

I still need to add infoboxes for 1st and 2nd edition, and will do so soon. The article's format with the infoboxes isn't really good right now, but once the article is expanded more it can be properly formatted. Also, could someone check into the August 2000 release date of the 3.0 PHB? I saw it somewhere but I'm not sure how reliable the source is, and I can't locate anything on WotC's website. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added the v2.5 infobox; boxes for the other two editions will come shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but do you think there's a way we could have it where it's not so right-half heavy? Maybe there is a way to put multiple images (maybe like a moving gif?) and have all the info in the same box with line breaks? BOZ (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the article will soon be expanded enough that the infoboxes don't go down so far after the article. Why don't we give it a week so that the article can be expanded (I'm going to do my best to add relevant information), before moving them around. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe a misread your last comment. Were you suggessting having one image that cycled through the covers? I don't know how to make that, but it could work. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I won't move anything around on you - I'll let you have your fun. ;) The cycling gif might be cool, although I have no idea whether it's allowed or not - just a little idea that popped into my head. :) Do your thing! BOZ (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I've finished adding the infoboxes, and I've shortened them all slightly by removing unneeded content. Within a day or two, I'll start work on expanding the article; any help with that would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a separate section for 1st edition; I'll create sections for each edition over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Class Reassessment, November 24, 2008

I think that I have made significant improvements and modifications to this article, and was wondering what class everyone thinks it should be. Any idea what would be good to work on next to get it closer to GA status? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no response, I'm reassessing it to B-class. Please feel free to alter this assessment if you think it isn't correct. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

4th edition PHBII

Have Warden, Deva or Goliath been explicitly confirmed for the PHBII? Also, is there any source supporting Minotaurs? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Warden was confirmed (I think in one of the Dragon playtest articles), and I believe Deva and Goliath have been confirmed in various locations, but I haven't been keeping up with all of that enough recently. Minotaurs are not in the PHB2, although there was an article on playing them in Dragon. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com's PHB2 power card product pages have confirmed all eight PHB2 classes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic worlds

Could someone convert the Heroic Worlds citation to an inline citation? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked through the history and fixed it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird Dungeon Master statement

This quote refers to the first AD&D Player's handbook

"The new rules were so open-ended that game campaigns required a referee or Dungeon Master.[8]"

This is quoted verbatim from an authoritative source which is Wizards website. However I find it to be factually wrong and misleading, as a Dungeon Master was always required by the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.56.43 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)