Talk:Player's Handbook

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article Title

message: 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)
replies: text: Dealt with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Class Reassessment, November 24, 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Amazon.com's PHB2 power card product pages have confirmed all eight PHB2 classes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th edition PHBII

message: Could someone convert the Heroic Worlds citation to an inline citation? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I looked through the history and fixed it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroic worlds

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weird Dungeon Master statement 

message: Read this comment:
In 1983, TSR changed the cover art of the Players Handbook, although the interior contents remained the same. This printing featured cover art by Jeff Easley. Printings with this cover also bear an orange spine that fits in with other Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books.
...and I believe it is incorrect.  I have that particular version of the 1st Edition AD&D Players Handbook, with the orange spine and the Jeff Easley cover art (blue cover, wizard, and what appear to be imps), and the publication date clearly shows as 1980.  Not 1983.
https://imgur.com/a/fl1zpAZ Waldo1984 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested correction