Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sergikins 08-21-05, 07:39 PM	Can someone please explain a couple things about it? 1- Psychic feats 2- Is it unbalanced? and about less supplements If you use the basic three books only, why do you not allow the supplments in? My personal reason is that if my PCs are shoddy roleplayers, they can't use the supplments.
Board_Rider 08-21-05, 08:12 PM	I don't know much about the psychic feats but from what I have seen from other players using them they do not appear to be unbalanced. I allow everything that WoTC makes. It is every DMs choice what he or she allows. I do not get the correlation on how more supplements equal worse roleplaying or powergamers.
Shaken, not Stunned 08-21-05, 08:14 PM	Yea. I don't allow non-wizards books. Other than that, I agree with Board Rider
dongol 08-21-05, 08:28 PM	Personally, I will allow just about anything on one condition. I have to personally review it and approve of it. If it looks unbalanced or just ridiculous, I won't allow it. If it looks balanced, I'll let it slide. Whether it's a WOTC thing or not.
weasel fierce 08-21-05, 08:46 PM	Most supplement material, for any RPG is shoddy or simply unnescesary. I generally handle it on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Schpungus 08-21-05, 08:53 PM	Most WoTC published material enhances my game greatly. I wouldn't play without it. I allow everything (but Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds) and even allow both Eberron and Forgotten Realms material in my homebrew setting. Yay for options! Options enhance!
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 08-21-05, 09:54 PM	I'm in the same boat....Up with WotC, down with Mongoose. :P
olshanski_home 08-21-05, 10:12 PM	I play with the 3 core rulebooks. I feel that the additional material, including WOTC has a number of problems: ranging from poorly concieved rules (damage for thrown objects), to one-trick-pony character design, not thoroughly playtested, etc... I think a small number of DM house-rules can make almost any supplemental book unnecessary from a rules perspective... the supplemental fluff material, however, usually has some aesthetic value. Finally, the plethora of prestige classes and core classes seems to be more of a crutch for roleplaying than serving any actual mechanical purpose. If you want to be a Pyromancer, just talk to the DM about changing the color description of your spells rather than creating a new class. If you want to be a whip master, just take a few levels of fighter and take weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.. with the whip. If you want to be respectable multi-class spellcaster, the DM need only tweak a few rules to make the class reasonable (use character level instead of class level for overcoming resistance and for determining spell effects). In general, the 3 core books make for an entertaining and balanced game... If you feel that the 3 core books are boring, that says a lot about your ability to roleplay and your DMs ability to create engaging adventures. More rules does not equal more fun.
Lord Schpungus 08-22-05, 12:36 AM	You're entitled your opinion. But don't shove it down our gullets as Truth. Too many militant Core Only freaks have made me jumpy about this. Don't tell me how to roleplay, and I won't make you buy supplements.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 08-22-05, 12:45 AM	The XPH is one of the most thoroughly playtested books released since the 3.5 PHB. That said, Psionic feats are quite powerful... but they have limited in-game utility. They allow for amazing abilties but require that you expend psionic focus to use them (most of the time). Psions themselves are mechanically EXTREMELY different from Wizards, and a Wilder is most deffinitely different from a Sorcerror. Added material from trusted books means less work spent by the DM tweaking the mechanics here and there. Note, however, the use of the word "trusted". I give XP penalties for my players even MENTIONING the use of Book of Exalted Deeds for their character. On the flipside of the coin, however, Libris Mortis is one of the best DM-only books I've ever seen... The sheer evilness of it would make any sane player quickly exempt from being able to be legitimately named "sane". In short, extra books mean LESS work for the DM in tweaking game mechanics when the DM is familiar with their contents... Meaning more energy to put towards challenging the players and giving them a delicious, filling plotline.
Rathje 08-22-05, 01:08 AM	As both a DM and a player, I love the extra books. I like both the role-playing aspect and the mechanics aspect. If I'm bored of playing a Wizard the same way every time, I won't play a Wizard. Same goes for every other class. Eventually, mechanics get boring and repetitive. Splat books help prevent such problems by giving more variety. Yes, it can be a "crutch for role-playing." On the other hand, it can give inspiration. "Okay, you want to be a Hunter of the Dead? Why?" "I don't like Undead." "Why?" "Uh...hmm...they're against nature...and junk?" "Why is that bad?" "...uh...my deity says so?" I'm not saying it works every time, but it's helped some of my newer players come up with interesting designs, like the Druid who wanted eternal life. We worked out a pretty good reason for it, too. EDIT: Just so you know, I meant for that example conversation to be between a DM and a less RP-oriented character, as it's similar to conversations I've had (only it continued and got more in-depth and developed the character). RP-based players would probably not need such a conversation. I don't mean to say it's the greatest thing in the world, but at least it's the beginning of justification for a character, which is important. It's no longer "I'm a Hunter of the Dead because my character sheet says so," but rather "I'm a Hunter of the Dead because I worship a just deity who thinks their presence goes against nature." For newer or less-RP-based players, that can be pretty good.
Pax 08-22-05, 01:32 AM	I think a small number of DM house-rules can make almost any supplemental book unnecessary from a rules perspective... Really? So, you can easily an simply house-rule, oh ... the Artificer class? Or the Cannith Wan Aept (a class in S:COT which specialises in the use of wands)? Or the Pale Master? Or any of the various (an IMO fun) optional Specialist Wizard variations in Unearthed Arcana (the main benefit of which is "not all specialists are made equal - even within the same school!") ...? Or the Effigy Master (CA)? Or the Master alchemist (MaFR)? Or the tempest (CV)? Finally, the plethora of prestige classes and core classes seems to be more of a crutch for roleplaying than serving any actual mechanical purpose. If you want to play a Golem-obsesse Wizard, it stans to reason you would want to become a golem, in a sense. The Green Star Aept allows you to o exactly that. An no amount of flavor-tweaking is going to let you pursue that process, either. If you want to be respectable multi-class spellcaster, the DM need only tweak a few rules to make the class reasonable (use character level instead of class level for overcoming resistance and for determining spell effects). Of course, that oesn't help whenyou want ot be a Sorceror-Barbarian; can't cast spells, even touch-attack spells, while raging. Well, unless you have levels of Rage Mage, anyway. Then, you can actually cast combat spells while raging. In general, the 3 core books make for an entertaining and balanced game... If you feel that the 3 core books are boring, that says a lot about your ability to roleplay and your DMs ability to create engaging adventures. Yeah, well, (censored) you, too. :rolleyes: I got a little something for you to poner: what you enoy oes not have to be enoye by everyone else. There is no One True Way; there's no wrong way to play the game, excepting one "wroing" thing: playing in a way that actively detracts from the enoyment of others around you. Everything else? Nothing more (nor less) than indiviual preference. Even when I make a bog-standard character, with little or no non-Core sources used ... when it comes to actually making a character for a new game, it excites me to have all those non-core options ... many of which, no, are not builable with the core rules an some flavor tweaking (e.g. the Warlock (CA), Spellthief (CV), Hexblae(CW), and Spirit Shaman(CD)). More rules does not equal more fun. Conversely, less rules ALSO o not invariably equate to more fun. Tomayto, tomahto.
weasel fierce 08-22-05, 01:33 AM	You're entitled your opinion. But don't shove it down our gullets as Truth. Too many militant Core Only freaks have made me jumpy about this. Don't tell me how to roleplay, and I won't make you buy supplements. Taking this interwebs thing pretty serious, are we ?
Pax 08-22-05, 01:37 AM	I give XP penalties for my players even MENTIONING the use of Book of Exalted Deeds for their character. Er, that's a shame. while some things mightbe problematic, yes - some things aren't. Exalte Familiar (for the lantern archon) is oneof my favorite feats ... ust for the sheer giggly-wrongness of having a mote of sentient light for a familiar. ^_^ On the flipside of the coin, however, Libris Mortis is one of the best DM-only books I've ever seen... Libris Mortis is not DM-only, even if most of the contents will only ever be useful to a DM; there's a goodly amount of anti-undead material in there, too (e.g. the PrC "Master of Radiance", the feat "Energise Spell", an the spell "Spark of Life").
Pax 08-22-05, 01:44 AM	Taking this interwebs thing pretty serious, are we ? No, he made a perfectly good point. I, too, have been "jumped" by people whose motto seems to be "core rules only, or you're a talentless hack of a munchkin". Some people are meat-and-potatoes gamers; for them, the Core Rules is all they will ever need or even want. Some of us, however, are "International Food Court" gamers; the very variety and range of possibilities that supplements can add to the core rules excites us. We're not satisfie with the same game, month after month an year after year ... we like to shake things up a little (or a lot) every so often. Noone forces the meat-and-potatoes gamers to try the Manarin Orange Chicken, or the haggis, or whatever. But some (not all) of the meat-an-potatoes folks WOUL like to try and imply that liking anything BUT meat an potatoes makes you somehow not as goo a gamer as they are. And that's just plain wrong.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 08-22-05, 02:00 AM	Er, that's a shame. while some things mightbe problematic, yes - some things aren't. Exalte Familiar (for the lantern archon) is oneof my favorite feats ... ust for the sheer giggly-wrongness of having a mote of sentient light for a familiar. ^_^ Libris Mortis is not DM-only, even if most of the contents will only ever be useful to a DM; there's a goodly amount of anti-undead material in there, too (e.g. the PrC "Master of Radiance", the feat "Energise Spell", an the spell "Spark of Life"). True, the BoED may well have some decent points in it... the problem is that when you get books to make your DM'ing job easier that purpose isn't exactly served when the list of things DISallowed from a book is longer than the book's Table of Contents. And yes, Libris Mortis does have some handy-dandy player spells and PrC's in it... Which, if they're interrested, I will write out for their reference. The book itself has far too much DM goodliness to let it be seen by their unworthy eyes... And besides, if any of my players ever saw the True Necromancer, they'd wonder WHY exactly a person would ever bother becoming a Mystic Theurge. :P
Kalanth 08-22-05, 02:07 AM	Let me tell you, I love the splat books. Just like all the others have said, variety is the spice of life. I use the splat books for NPCs, bad guys, and to pitch ideas to DM's/PC's. I encourage looking in these books, discovering new ways to play that character, and will happily accept and idea from a none WoTC source (as long I read it inside and out first). Some of the greatest characters that I have had the privalege of playing with or hearing tales about came from the splat books, and less stories are told of the core book characters (so I have noticed), such as a friends Bladesinger (2nd ed), and my Cleric / War Priest. Sure, some can look at the idea of a PrC as a crutch, and I guess it is, but to me its an extension of the RP. I can get so much more from the PrC and what I want the character to do. In most cases the special abilities contained within help me get that grand idea that I had out, and showcase the character as I envision them, instead of how some rule tweaks forces me to dumb down the imagry. As it is, the only House Rules I use in regards to books are that anything goes if I read it, and Ghost Sounds and Presditigitation are unlimited use spells (because a wizards LOOKS more intimidating when doing something cool than when just standing there).
AntiDjinn 08-22-05, 03:02 AM	Just in case people missed it: The OP was asking about Psychic Feats, not Psionic Feats. Psionic Feats are in the XPH, a WotC D&D product. The Expanded Psionics Handbook is not the topic at hand. Psychic Feats are in The Advanced Players Manual, by Skip Williams (aka, The Sage) a d20 game book from Green Ronin Publishing. This is not a WotC product but is compliant with the OGL. The author is one of the core developers and is considered an authority on D&D. The Psychic class is considered optional even within that book and makes use of Green Ronin's skills and feats psychic system. There are no powers, instead you take psychic ability feats that give you access to skills. The skills presented are way way beyond the power level of standard D&D skills -- there is a Domination skill, another for Mindswitch, another for Telekinesis, Teleportation, etc. So you can kill someone with a skill roll that unleashes a blast of pychokinetic energy. Of course, since the skills are closed until you have the appropriate feat, it is really the feat that gives you the ability, with skill ranks purchased determining how good you are with it.
AntiDjinn 08-22-05, 03:14 AM	And people who are stuck on Core Rules Only should look at their home computers (assuming the poor wretches are using Windows) and ask why they have programs from companies other than Microsoft. Do you use Acrobat? Photoshop? Quark Express? Bryce? What are you doing with non-core programs? Do you want a computing experience to be composed 100% of the products of one company? Are microsoft products inherrently superior (to anything)?? If you are running Windows you probably have programs loaded from companies other than Microsoft because they are better in some respect than a comparable MS product or because they are unique. You pick and choose what to load because you are interested in best computing functionality, not brand loyalty. And Microsoft wouldn't have it any other way, which has made them the platform upon which other software campanies are built. The same applies to gaming. Hyperconscious is from Malhavoc Press rather than WotC, but its author is Bruce Cordell, the guy who wrote the XPH. How is the publishing house alone enough to detemine the product is inferior if the author is the same. WotC has turned out some pretty lame products, do you use those in place of 3rd party equivalents that are better written and balanced?
vezina 08-22-05, 03:47 AM	Aept...Golem-obsesse...stans...Green Star Aept....o...oesn't ... poner...oes...enoye...enoyment...indiviu al preference... builable...Hexblae(CW)...o Dude...check your J and D keys....all meant in good fun, of course. :D
Dragonsblood 08-22-05, 03:50 AM	Suppliments tend to have a power creep effect. Every suppliment enables PCs to be more and more powerful than before at a given level. This makes balance more difficult. Suppliments also add new rules, which makes the game more complicated.
vezina 08-22-05, 03:52 AM	But, so as not to detract from the OP's question, I see no problem with supplement books. It adds new rules and options to a game that truly has limitless opportunity for options. People that believe that the best roleplayers stick with the Cores are simply jaded by all the rollplayers out there. They are still wonderful RP opportunities!
Kalanth 08-22-05, 04:30 AM	Suppliments tend to have a power creep effect. Every suppliment enables PCs to be more and more powerful than before at a given level. This makes balance more difficult. Suppliments also add new rules, which makes the game more complicated. Yes, but the rules they add are optional. I have used psionics as a PC and DM, but the optional rule of the Swift action has yet to enter in any game played (no one makes them nor have I thought about it). I have yet to add any of the complex environmental rules of the environment books, sticking to the fluff in those books and the DMG for guidance. Its all in how one uses what is provided. Just because a book has 200 pages of stuff does not mean you have to use all 200 pages. As for powercreep, this is very true, but some people enjoy that creep, they like to powergame and play those types of characters. Some DM's encourage that as well, they like that kind of game as well. Get into a group with a bunch of people with no interest in making their character the equivalent to Thor at 5th level and you will notice one key thing. The group checks themselves, the power creep is there, but it is reduced in intensity because the players do not want that uber character.
Smiley 08-22-05, 04:38 AM	I don't have a good eye for recognising power-played characters unless they're in play. So I only allow books which I know or own myself, and which I gladly lend to people.
Lord Gwydion 08-22-05, 08:26 AM	Well, I've noticed over the years that a good roleplayer is a good roleplayer regardless of the number of rulebooks in play. Players that like to really get into character and go with it are just as willing to do so whether they have access to the basic rules only, or every supplement for the game they're playing. People who aren't so good at roleplaying, however, tend to become better roleplayers if the system they are using is rules light. They come to use roleplaying to fill in the gaps where there are no established rules after a while. If these not-so-good-at-roleplaying-yet players are given lots of options and supplements, though, the tone the DM sets tends to be the real deciding factor. If the DM just hands the players all of the books and says "go!" then the players will be more likely to use the mechanics as a crutch. If the DM gets ideas for character concepts first, then suggests possible mechanics to help realize the concept, then the player is more likely to roleplay the character better, because the idea of the character came before the mechanics. Of course, these are just trends I've noticed, and are not universal truths. Anyway, when I'm playing, if a particular DM is comfortable using lots of supplements, that's fine. More options are always good. If a DM is not comfortable using lots of supplements--or any at all--that's fine, too. There are plenty of options in the PHB alone, and I can fill in the blanks with creativity. When I DM, I use the supplements (or parts of those supplements) and optional rules that I feel make the setting come to life and don't seem likely to cause problems.
Ut-Napishtim 08-22-05, 08:54 AM	I don't have anything from Green Ronin, but the description of the psychic feats AntiDjinn offered sounds strikingly familiar to the way force powers are handled in d20 Star Wars. Normally I approve supplemental stuff on a case-by-case basis. I have a handful of supplements myself, and am usually pretty lenient. The problem I've found with third-party stuff is a lot of the time players are using it to stack effects with the same thing from WOTC books to break the system, so I'm usually pretty leery of it. There are some things even from WOTC books that I'm not really fond of and don't allow, but not a whole lot.
olshanski_home 08-22-05, 10:15 AM	Yeah, well, (censored) you, too. :rolleyes: I got a little something for you to poner: what you enoy oes not have to be enoye by everyone else. There is no One True Way; there's no wrong way to play the game, excepting one "wroing" thing: playing in a way that actively detracts from the enoyment of others around you.The OP asked "If you use the core rules only, what are your reasons." Since I was the target audience for the question, I felt that it was reasonable for me to answer it to the best of my ability. I trust that the OP can look at my reasoning and decide if I am making sense or if I am a militant short-sighted curmudgeon. Conversely, less rules ALSO o not invariably equate to more fun. Tomayto, tomahto.now this is a resonable statement: even though the OP didn't ask "Why do you like to use supplemental books" you could pipe in with saying that you think having more rules and more optional classes is more fun. There is no need to take my opinions as some kind of personal attack on you. You mention a number of prestige classes that cannot be done with the core rules:Artificer class? Or the Cannith Wan Aept (a class in S:COT which specialises in the use of wands)? Or the Pale Master? Or the Effigy Master (CA)? Or the Master alchemist (MaFR)? Or the tempest (CV)? Yes, if you purchased all of those additional books, and you wanted to be one of those prestige classes, then I think buying the supplements would satisfy all of your needs. What if you wanted to be an assassin/ningja that specialized in carrying a sack of poisonous vermin and you wanted to attack by throwing scorpions or spiders at your opponent? What if you wanted to be a troll that specialized in cooking stew made from your own body parts, and the stew was so satisfying that any creature that ate it became charmed by you? What if you wanted to be a druid that harvested allergy-inducing pollens from the wildflowers, and used them to attack opponents? What if you wanted to be a philosopher who could speak in tounges, communicate with animals, and argue your opponents into submission? What if you wanted to be a multiple personality character, in which each personality had different alignment and different class abilities? I propose that you still will not be satisfied even when you purchase all of those supplements. If you come up with a strange an original idea, you could make a house-rule to cover it, or else you could purchase 5-10 splatbooks and hope that one of them has your unique idea... Or perhaps, it is the fact that you already purchased a splatbook, and during the course of reading the splatbook you decided that the "Cannith Wan Aept" or "Effigy Master" sounded like a cool idea... and the actual need for the supplement was created by reading it? You know the saying "Build it and they will come"? I mean really, how many thousands of players across the country were agonizing over the fact that they could not play a construct/robot man before Eberron came out with the warforged? It is the marketing strategy of WOTC... just the fact that they've put the book on the market, means that someone will feel a need for it. I have no idea what most of the prestige classes you talk about actually do, but I can see some easy things for a DM to "invent". Barbarian/sorcerer? Create a feat "Raging Spell" that allows spellcasting while raging. Wand-Master? Create a metamagic feat to charge wand, create another feat that allows a wizard to sacrifice a memorized spell to power-up a spell cast from a wand. Look, it isn't that hard, and it doesn't require me to learn new rules or purchase supplemental books.
DogOnWheels 08-22-05, 10:36 AM	You're entitled your opinion. But don't shove it down our gullets as Truth. Too many militant Core Only freaks have made me jumpy about this. Don't tell me how to roleplay, and I won't make you buy supplements. Oooh, a bit testy, aren't you? Did you see the "I feel" in olshanskis' post? I believe, roughly translated, it means, "in my opinion" or as we say on the big bad internet IMO...some of my best games have been the core 3 only, although I've had some good ones with a more liberal allowance of books, it's the exception. "I feel", the DM should require copies of PrCs or variants for consideration, if he allows extra stuff...
Serielle 08-22-05, 11:17 AM	I tend to have problems with party cohesion in my campaigns, and I've found that using supplements tends to aggravate the problem. Somehow it's more believable that an orc, halfling, elve, dwarf and human adventure together than a half-celestial, half-dragon, warforged, half-elemental adventure together. Regardless, I hate to restrict material so I've gotten to the point where before I run a game I force all the PCs to come up with reasons they're adventuring together. That seemed to do the trick. There's value, IMO, in having more rules simply for the sake of having more variety. After you've ran a wizard the same way forever, it's nice to be able to take an alternative like a spellpoint system and see how that effects gameplay.
babysamurai 08-22-05, 11:28 AM	What I'm getting from all this, is that too many DM's out there are ego-tripping out. I feel a lot of DM's on these boards, like to DM, just so they can be control freaks, and crush other peoples dreams.
Board_Rider 08-22-05, 12:05 PM	BabySam I have played with DMs like those before...easy to spot now. They suck. I would also just like to add more narrative. While I agree that people certainly can get by without additional stuff, why would you? Just as there have been arguments in the past, even which Olshanski touched upon, against splatbooks you can make arguments for them just the same. The same argument I always see is either houserule it or "the DM isn't creative enough/ brave enough" to say no to non-core material. Thats just bull. I allow everything and I think of myself as at least fairly creative. I allow the stuff because it enhances the game for the people playing it. I don't want to houserule something if I can find it in text. Why? Well because text is playtested impartiality instead of me saying,"mmmm, I don't think so because I don't like it." I love when players come up with new stories for these out there characters. I am really not a fan of players who ALWAYS play the same thing because they are more or less comfortable with only the fighter out of the core classes. DOes this still happen with all the extra material. Yep. But not as often and I can always say, "Hey bro I know you like the Fighter but have you checked this out? It is the Hexblade and you'll......". You get the picture. As I am sure it has already been said before, powergaming players make powergaming come to life....not material.
babysamurai 08-22-05, 12:12 PM	BabySam I have played with DMs like those before...easy to spot now. They suck. Yes, I think it's down to a lack of control in their own lives (insecurities etc), so the only way they can appease their ego is to tell someone else "No, no, you can't take that feat, wah wah!".
rbrt_Spade 08-22-05, 01:03 PM	well ive never had this problem. i just allow one supplement for each player of thier choice-they can use anything from it
rbrt_Spade 08-22-05, 01:05 PM	a dm can make any combat = in power higher crs for example
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-22-05, 01:36 PM	On the topic of 3rd party supplements: Green Ronin is gold. If one of my players wanted to use something from one of their books and it fits, I'd most likely allow it in a heartbeat. They beat many other publishers in what they put out, including WotC. Malhavoc Press is pretty good, too. Same with Mongoose Publishing, but they (used to?) put out too many splatbooks. I don't like splatbooks. On the other hand, I'm currently ripping out OGLed stuff and ideas from various supplements and putting it in my custom SRD/Game Setting, so I'm not sure if I am an average DM. On the topic of the Psychic skill/feat-system: I keep wanting to playtest that with a player of mine, but she keeps stalling the character creation. :weep: If the playtest goes okay, I'm considering replacing the core psionic system with the psychic system. As we are playing FR (which I try to keep closer to Ed Greenwood's FR), it would make sense and add flavor.
olshanski_home 08-22-05, 02:36 PM	Just so that I don't come off as a militant core-only DM with my head in the sand... Definitions: Core-only = just the 3 books, PHB, MM, DMG. WOTC Only: = anything published by WOTC, including the complete series, races of x series, environment, good & evil books, eberron & forgotten realms. 3rd party: = anything else, by Malhavoc, Kenzer and Co, Fiery Dragon, Green Ronin, etc. I've looked at a number of supplements, and I've had players request inclusion of a number of non-core materials. One of the first things I did was discard the mechanic for "toughness" and replaced it with the mechanic for "improved toughnes". I also got rid of all of the "dwarven toughness" "Dragon toughness", etc... and just allow "toughness" to be stackable. I liked the rules for advancment of monstrous races, and usually allow them. I like the rules for gestalt characters, and if I ever was in a position where I had only 1-2 players, I'd use them. I saw some of the attempts to fix the fighter/wizard build, to make it more palatable, but I think my own house rules are better than the stuff published by WOTC. I frankly haven't been all that impressed with the splatbooks. I liked the fluff for warforged, but I think that the mechanics are lacking. Finally, I've seen some very good products from Non WOTC sources, and think that anyone who ignores Malhavoc is missing out. I haven't read the Mongoose or Green Ronin books, so I can't say much about them. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a number of old-school players, and players with not a lot of free cash... I also have a few players that buy every supplement that WOTC puts out, and most of the 3rd party books as well. When I've allowed supplemental books, there is always the moment when one player says "I'm a Changling Cleric/Justified Ancient of Mu-Mu"... and one other player nods his head and everyone else at the table goes "huh?" Its a little bit distracting. I used to allow almost everything, subject to my personal review. But those "huh?" moments were bringing the non-splatbook characters down... when one person was a warforged and another was a warlock, and three other players had no clue what either of them were... it was too distracting for the players that did not own the splatbooks. The game is just an excuse to socialize, really. If all of your friends have the same supplements, then great, use them all. My friends have a mixed group, some have only the PHB, some have everything. I think it is better for the group dynamics if we are all on the same page. If you play competitive bridge, it is the same as using conventions... there is nothing wrong with using Puppet Stayman, Inverted Minors, or Roman Key-Card Blackwood... (In D&D terms, it is the equivalent of using all of the splatbooks). It makes the game more enjoyable if all players are using the same conventions.
Board_Rider 08-22-05, 04:15 PM	The game is just an excuse to socialize, really. If all of your friends have the same supplements, then great, use them all. Well said Mr. Militant. ;) Justified Ancient of Mu-Mu??? Classic. ON Topic. I LOVE Psychic feats....balanced.
Lord Schpungus 08-22-05, 04:21 PM	the "I feel" in olshanskis' post? I probably did see the "I feel" in his post, but too many times, posters put that in and then proceed to be obnoxious jerks who refuse to see that there might be another way. I'm always wary of The One Truth, wherever that fallacy shows up.
Arrowhen 08-22-05, 04:48 PM	Yes, I think it's down to a lack of control in their own lives (insecurities etc), so the only way they can appease their ego is to tell someone else "No, no, you can't take that feat, wah wah!". One could just as easily argue that "anything goes" DMs lack the self-confidence necessary to set reasonable limits on their players' choices, use supplements to compensate for their own lack of creativity, are sheep-like WotC fanboys incapable of exercising critical judgement, etc., etc. It's all rubbish. Different people enjoy the game in different ways. There are good DMs and bad DMs in either camp and much more goes into determining the success of a campaign than just the number of books allowed at the table.
tiercel 08-22-05, 09:24 PM	I think that running a Core-only, "I will not consider anything not in the Holy Trinity because only munchkins want supplements and I'm not secure enough to trust in my own DM abilities or your interest as a player to not break the game" campaign is a mistake. That doesn't mean Core-only = bad, but Core-only for that sort of reason is. I think that running a campaign everything-goes, "sure, use any supplement you want, as long as it's in print your character has access to it" is also a mistake. I don't mean that allowing lots of options and supplements = bad, but throwing the gates wide open without discrimination is. One of the problems with supplements is while they present options for most characters (i.e. a character can now take a new nifty feat or PrC), those options come at some price for the PC (they can't take another feat or PrC in its place). Most divine casters (e.g. clerics, druids) know every spell on their spell list, though, so every new supplement that expands the spell list gives them extra spells "for free" -- these characters can cast new, different, and sometimes more powerful spells without any expenditure of character resources (unlike, say, a wizard or sorcerer). Another problem with supplements is that it forces DMs to take real-life ranks in Knowledge (Powergaming). More options means more combinations of options means more combos that can create powergaming, or even game-breaking, abilities. Powergaming in and of itself can be fine, as long as everyone at the table is happy with the level present -- the problem arises when one or more players powergame and the DM doesn't (or vice versa), or when some players powergame much more than others, and the non-powergamers feel outshone because they didn't want to spend as much time optimizing their character stats. (And, of course, regardless of how high or low the level of powergaming quotient is in your game, you don't want to allow abilities that will literally break the game, i.e. make it essentially unplayable.) The payoff for supplements is that, when used well, they give players (and the DM!) a way to mainfest a roleplaying idea in stats, so that when you say "I'm a hunter of the dead" you aren't just a fighter with an undead bane weapon, you actually have some special abilities tied to your specialization. When you can DO instead of just SAY what your character is, it can feel more satisfying. As a DM, having access to a host of weird abilities and spells keeps your PCs on their toes, since they can never predict exactly what a new, DM-customized foe will be able to throw at them. Yeah, it takes a little extra work, but the work can be worth it. Figuring out what's broken for your game and what's not means you have to really dig into the material, which can often spawn campaign ideas. (That, and it's a good idea to be able to detect broken material anyway -- personally, I hardly think that Core material is immune from having anything broken.) Personally, in my campaign, my rule is that everything outside of Core is optional. If a player wants to use something non-Core, they need to ask me before building it into their character. If it is a WotC source, then my default answer is "maybe" (most of the time I allow it, but I want to have a read-through and think about the consequences before I say yes). If it is a 3rd party source, then my default answer is "no" (though I have allowed some material in, I consider the burden of proof to be on the 3rd party material as to why I should allow it, rather than the burden on proof be on me to disallow WotC material).
Sergikins 08-22-05, 09:51 PM	Wow. thanks for all the feed back. NOw, I have a quick question One of my players has been bugging me to play a Warmage for some time. unfortunatly, He tends to power game. I have so far stalled on saying no, he does roleplay well,But after whatching him decimate four dire rats, two orcs and a white dragon wyrmling at FIRST LEVEL, I hesitated. Is the Warmage / Complete Arcane broken? I know he has good intentinons, but the warmage is a pretty good class If it is broken, does anyone have a way to tone it down? And the last question. How often do you disagree with WoTC material? So far, I have disagreed with all the supplements....that is, to put them in my campaign
Arrowhen 08-22-05, 10:22 PM	The Warmage isn't broken, exactly, but it strongly overshadows the Sorcerer. This isn't a problem, if you consider the Sorcerer underpowered, but it's something to be aware of.
olshanski_home 08-22-05, 10:33 PM	As you can see from my previous posts, I am in the more militant side. I don't own any non-core books, (except the few free review copies), but I've read plenty of "loaner" splatbooks as my players have attempted to convert me. I would say that 10% of the time I look at a rule and say "no freaking way"... the damage rules for hurled objects is a prime example of this. The mechanics for the Mournlands in Ebberon fall into this category. Elminster falls into this category. the 3.0 version of "spellcasting prodigy" falls into this category (This feat was equivalent to granting a free spell AND giving spell focus in ALL schools) I would say that about 40% of the time something sort of looks good, but I feel it has a fatal flaw in it somewhere. An example of this is the warforged... The fluff sounds great, but the huge number of immunities can ruin most of the basic DM challenges. The non eating-non-breathing immune to disease etc causes a lot of the more fun low-level challenges to go away. Also, the warforged can have DR at a very low level... I saw a level 1 warforged take out a room filled with cockatrice (CR3)... it was supposed to have been an overwhelming encounter, but the warforged had something like DR 3/- which meant that the cockatrice could only damage him on a critical hit, and thus there was no danger of getting stoned. (same thing happens with the smaller poisonous vermin). Then, with a specific prestige class, a warforged can become a true construct... with all of the construct immunities, however, the warforged KEEPS his CON score... It seems to me that if someone is a construct, and gains construct immunities, they should likewise lose thier CON score... thats what happens when a wizard becomes a lich. Other things that I consider to have fatal flaws are the "Exalted" traits. A character who wants to become exaulted presumably has invested a lot of thier character into those traits, yet in order to balance the exaulted feats a DM has to be vigilant to see that the player is not abusing the rules. The moment the player abuses the rules, the DM is obligated to point it out, and if the player tries to weasel a way past the DMs objection, then the DM must strip the exalted status from the character... basically, gutting the player's build with no chance of a fix... The best option for the player at this point is usually to jettison the character and re-roll a new one. In my opinion, that is a crappy way to run a game. About 40% of the time some idea or mechanic in a splatbook looks good, but it doesn't appeal to my idea of what I want in a fantasy game. I don't go for artificers, tinkers, or gunfighters in my homebrew world... (and all Psionics are NPCs) so even though I might like the looks and build and/or mechanics, I would not allow them in my campaign world. This also goes for the many feats or prestige classes that I think look good, but I've already created something equivalent or better. About 10% of the time I've thought something in a splatbook was well-written, well concieved, and well balanced... and I even go so far as to steal it for my game. An example of this is "improved toughness", "everburning lantern", staggered HD advancement in order to begin a high LA race at low level and earn it... and the idea of converting a clerics turning attempt into a blast of pure positive energy to do limited damage to undead. (so that when a 6th level cleric is facing a CR6 20HD skeleton, his turning ability isn't worthless). I agree that the warmage is overpowered when compared to the closest comparable class, the sorcerer. The deal is this: If your sorcerer was going to take a variety of spells, charm person, glitterdust, comprehend languages, etc... then you really cannot compare the two. If you were going to make an artillary sorcerer with all evocation/ranged damage spells, then it is far weaker than the warmage. I think I also didn't like the "Orb" spells, thinking that they were overpowered at thier level.
xvthreetwoonevx 08-22-05, 11:03 PM	IMO the warmage isn't even a very good class. Complete Arcane has mostly pretty balanced stuff, no hulking hurlers or frenzied berserkers, but I would take careful consideration of somebody wanting to go into sublime chord. As to the Warmage, i'm not sure how he managed to do all that at first level, with their relatively low HD i'm sure something woulda kicked his can there. But, if you want to tone down the warmage, put him in a situation where a well-placed fireball won't do any good. Warmages are good at combat, and pretty much nothing else. They can cast fireball/orb of etc./Scorching Ray pretty good, however, if you have a non-combat situation, even something as simple as a cliff face he needs to scale, I doubt he'll come in so handy.
a_psh 08-23-05, 01:07 AM	Here's the main problem I see with how people use splatbooks (well, prestige classes in particular)... Every PrC actually has *two* parts to it: fluff and crunch. With some exceptions (mechanics for doing things that are setting-specific), the crunch can be used as-is. It has been my experience that this is not the case for the fluff: many prestige classes require an almost total fluff rewrite to be actually applicable to a setting. And, at least from what I can tell on the boards, a lot of people don't actually do that part. And you don't just have to modify the prestige class, you also have to modify your campaign just a little bit to accomodate its presence. Is it bad that you have to do that to really effectively integrate a PrC into your game? No. When you need to do it and you don't, however, you get things like a catfolk kensai / weapon master, a warforged alienist, and a half-celestial cloud giant annointed knight marching through a world that substantively includes no other catfolk, warforged, alienists, or "Exalted" characters. Squeezing the catfolk, warforged, alienists, and "Exalted" characters into one world while maintaining any sort of cohesion can be kind of tricky, too. While a knee-jerk "no" reaction is a bit overzealous and hasty, I think, a knee-jerk "yes" is far worse. Both for the players and DM, adding something to the game world should involve a little bit of analysis and consideration. I think the group (note that I don't just say DM here - this is a collaborative process, I thnk) is fully within its rights to reject a large chunk of the splatbook content because they deem it mechanically unsound (i.e. broken) or because it just doesn't *fit*. Let's face it, playing core-only can get pretty boring for some, and not everyone wants to design their own super-special homebrew classes from scratch (and most of the homebrew classes designed from scratch need extensive playtesting and review before they're actually usable). But let's also face that, sometimes, you just don't get to be a Red Wizard or Sacred Fist or a something-or-other of Bahamut, simply because, in that particular game, it would be dumb. When I DM, I like to have a small list of material that's all in. Stuff that I've thoroughly looked-over and have built into the campaign. Everything else is out by default, but players can point out a particular section and say "I want this to be included," and the group works out whether that's a good idea and how best to use the new material. Using absolutely nothing is overly restrictive, I think. Throwing everything in willy-nilly leads to chaos and inconsistent, incomprehensible worlds.
FreeTheSlaves 08-23-05, 02:10 AM	Yes, I think it's down to a lack of control in their own lives (insecurities etc), so the only way they can appease their ego is to tell someone else "No, no, you can't take that feat, wah wah!". But why on earth would any friend treat their friends like this? We are talking friends eh? We're not talking about the masochist players that take all manner of BS from d!ckhe@d strangers "because s/he's the only dm in my area."
FreeTheSlaves 08-23-05, 02:58 AM	I am a core rules dm, but not as a player because I obviously don't run that campaign. My reasons for choosing the core rules only are: 1. Cost, I don't want to buy supplements. 2. Piracy, I'm not happy with the pirated copies my friends would use. 3. Rules mastery, my friends have repeatedly demonstrated that they have not mastered the core rules (after X years :weep: ). 4. Clutter, I don't want scattered sources for reference. 5. Power creep, yes it is not as bad as 2nd ed. but power creep does exist; gaining levels is supposed to be the way to increase power, not getting more books. 6. Exceptional Specialness, when a rule-set is allowed it is more remarkable. 7. Thematic violation, related to powercreep this is where an existing standardized rule-set is undermined by a new option; in short the supplement takes the rules in a direction I feel it should not go. 8. Default expectation, the core rules only are to the baseline assumption for everyone; you can make assumptions & strategies with some certainty. 9. Core class modification, forget waiting 6 levels for a PrC, if the character concept requires something at 1st level I modify it to have it at 1st level. 10. Faith in playtesting, the core rules beat any supplement in this regard. I'm just stopping at 10 because the other reasons tend to be sub-reasons or don't spring to mind right now, rather than declaring some "holy commandments". [Edit: 11. Campaign clarity, similar default expectation this is where I have actually mapped where every allowed class fits within my world & allowing more may create problems] **** I have little idea what psychic feats are, but I treat arcane magic as a psychic magic as is compared to the spiritual divine, & so I would not have any use for this option unless I started a campaign from scratch.
AntiDjinn 08-23-05, 06:00 AM	I feel a lot of DM's on these boards, like to DM, just so they can be control freaks, and crush other peoples dreams. Anyone whose dreams are crushed by something that happens in a D&D game should strongly consider an alternative to their continued consumption of food and oxygen and leave the resources to people more able to cope. You may not like a particular DM's style, and you may want to talk with the DM about it, or seek another play group, or offer to DM yourself. But if content of a game is crushing your dreams then those dreams must have been too fragile to be realized anyway.
Arquinsiel 08-23-05, 06:42 AM	Personally I allow a few different suppliments here and there. Usually this isn't a problem, but I have had one particular player who abuses any system he comes across so I now read everything over a few times before allowing it. On the subject of balance: Is the world balanced? No, it is very much unfair and biased. Is it unbalanced in your favour? Hell no. Deal with it.
babysamurai 08-23-05, 07:23 AM	Anyone whose dreams are crushed by something that happens in a D&D game should strongly consider an alternative to their continued consumption of food and oxygen and leave the resources to people more able to cope. You may not like a particular DM's style, and you may want to talk with the DM about it, or seek another play group, or offer to DM yourself. But if content of a game is crushing your dreams then those dreams must have been too fragile to be realized anyway. Don't worry about it, kid.
Board_Rider 08-23-05, 12:15 PM	One last thing.. I just do NOT see how "balance" is disrupted in a game that is supposed to be done with a group of friends. Who cares if the Players tromp through everything? It is just a game. What your "story" or "world" is getting screwed? Oh please....roll with it. Isn't THAT what being a good DM is? If allowing supplements allows people who want to use them to have a better time in their hobby than I am fine with that. Thats what makes me a good DM, I can adapt. I can think outside some pre-defined box that I have set up. I'll back up Baby Samurai. While I won't go so far to say all "core only" are militant or controlling, many are. Telling your players that they cannot use supplement X does not make you a better DM. In fact, you may have hurt that players gaming experience. Play however you want but remember everyone this is a group hobby. Everyone should be having fun. I'm done. This was fun.
Gilean 08-23-05, 01:32 PM	The need of supplements is a sign of weakness in the system, it is far too rigid to allow mechanical implementations of many concepts without additional rules.
weasel fierce 08-23-05, 01:36 PM	Im tempted to agree with Gilean. However, I do think that many concepts are quite doable with plain D&D. Those that arent, often fall so far from what D&D is, that it shouldnt be an issue (i.e. I want to play a half-angel mindflayer made of adamantite)
Arrowhen 08-23-05, 01:56 PM	Supplements are what keeps a roleplaying game in print. They're a business necessity, not a game necessity.
Pax 08-23-05, 05:21 PM	Dude...check your J and D keys....all meant in good fun, of course. :D Yeah, I know. The old KB was having problems, and I was simply waiting on my better half to get home with the replacement (which I am now struggling to get used to, it's relatively TINY by comparison ...). :)
Pax 08-23-05, 05:56 PM	The OP asked "If you use the core rules only, what are your reasons." Since I was the target audience for the question, I felt that it was reasonable for me to answer it to the best of my ability. I trust that the OP can look at my reasoning and decide if I am making sense or if I am a militant short-sighted curmudgeon. Hey, choose to use Core Only all you like - you make the choices that are best for you[/o], and your game. What I have a problem with in your original post, however, is the clear atttitude that your choice is somehow morally superior to any other possible choice; that playing with more than the core rules makes one an inferior gamer. I found - and still find - that to be personally offensive. What right, indeed, did you have to sit in judgement of those who do like and use supplemental materials ...? There is no need to take my opinions as some kind of personal attack on you. Well, qhen you said: If you feel that the 3 core books are boring, that says a lot about your ability to roleplay and your DMs ability to create engaging adventures. ... yeah, that was pretty much an impersonal attack. Or, to put it differently, "them's fightin' words, son." What if [...] What if [...] What if [...] What if [...] What if [...] I propose that you still will not be satisfied even when you purchase all of those supplements. Just because there are concepts that do not require mechanical support from other sources, does not invalidate those concepts which DO benefit - or even depend - on mechanics support form supplemental material. (Although, at least for the first two? EMechanical support could be had in the form of the Ninja base class from CV for the first, and the Master Alchemist Prestige Class from MaFR for the second). If you come up with a strange an original idea, you could make a house-rule to cover it, or else you could purchase 5-10 splatbooks and hope that one of them has your unique idea... Or you could simply come to a message board like this one, and say "Hey guys, I want to play ________ ... what would you suggest as being a good way to represent that sort of character", and using the responses as a guide to what sort of supplements to consider buying. Or perhaps, it is the fact that you [I]already purchased a splatbook, and during the course of reading the splatbook you decided that the "Cannith Wan Aept" or "Effigy Master" sounded like a cool idea... and the actual need for the supplement was created by reading it? I've wanted to make a "golem-mancer" for years. Since 3.0, in fact. Yet the Effigy Master - certainly one way to reflect such a character - didn't appear until well after 3.5 had been released. I've always enjoyed the idea of a Lawful-neutral Necromancer - indeed, my second-ever 3.0e character was exactly that. Imagine my horror and disapointment to discover that Wizards, even specialists, made horrible necromancers. Now, along comes 3.5e (with skeletons and zombies as templates, not absolute creature entries) ... and Libris Mortis. Wow, look at that ... Corpsecrafter (and it's subsequent chain of feats). Gee whillicker, now I can make a decent wizard-necromancer, just using skeletons - not overpowered, but not UNDERpowered anymore, either. I have no idea what most of the prestige classes you talk about actually do, And this statement, I must say, is the most telling (and damning) one you've made. You judge things without even having examined them ...?!? Wow, being an omniscient god must be REALLY handy, eh? but I can see some easy things for a DM to "invent". Barbarian/sorcerer? Create a feat "Raging Spell" that allows spellcasting while raging. Rage Mage is more than only that, however. Spell Rage is a limited number of times per day, and the class is Arcane Trickster-like in that it gives half-progression for spells, and a slowed progression for normal Rages, too. Wand-Master? Create a metamagic feat to charge wand, create another feat that allows a wizard to sacrifice a memorized spell to power-up a spell cast from a wand. That, however, is nothing like the Cannith Wand Adept. Wands in a CWA's hands have a higher caster level than they normally do, the DC goes up, and they can dual-wield their wands (at a remarkable cost in additional charges). Added with the Artificer's ability to add a metamagic effect to an eisting wand (at an extraordinary cost in extra charges), and an Artificer/CWA can spend charges like water, with an impressive effect. They won't NORMALLY want to do so (too darned expensive), but on those occasions when it's "Gandalf against hte Balrog" ... it's nice to be CAPABLE, n'est-ce pas? (For reference, I've tried a CWA, and was able to burn nineteen charges in one round, from a pair of wands - OUCHIE). Look, it isn't that hard, and it doesn't require me to learn new rules or purchase supplemental books. But in many cases, it requires you to take time and creative energy AWAY from storyline and related affairs, and spend them on things that have already been made. Ever hear the phrase, "why re-invent the wheel" ...? [...] That doesn't mean Core-only = bad, but Core-only for that sort of reason is. [...] I don't mean that allowing lots of options and supplements = bad, but throwing the gates wide open without discrimination is. Those both reflect exactly my own opinions on that issue. For purposes purely related to personal preference, I dislike core-only games; they're not what I want to play. OTOH, I neither run, nor happily play in, "anythign at all goes" games. Anything beyond Core-and-stuff-for-our-current-setting, I consider to be "ask the GM, and don't assume the answer will be yes". Most divine casters (e.g. clerics, druids) know every spell on their spell list, though, so every new supplement that expands the spell list gives them extra spells "for free" FWIW, I'm going to be imposing a Wizard Spellbook sort of thing on divine casters in my next campaign. That should fix things in that direction rather nicely, IMO. ^_^
olshanski_home 08-24-05, 12:18 AM	Well, qhen you said:If you feel that the 3 core books are boring, that says a lot about your ability to roleplay and your DMs ability to create engaging adventures.... yeah, that was pretty much an impersonal attack. Or, to put it differently, "them's fightin' words, son." Hmm, I didn't realize that you were bored with the game provided by the core rulebooks. Let me say this: Some people enjoy spending money in support of thier hobbies, I respect that. Some people buy splatbooks that they may never intend to use, but that make for a few evenings of fun reading... I can respect that. Some people buy splatbooks, and then become inspired to play a class that they've read about or use a rule they've just read about because they think it sounded fun or cool. I can respect that. Some people might even have to resort to a white lie of telling thier DM that "they are bored with the current game and that they'd like the excitement of using the new supplemental material", and I can respect that as well. But if you truly believe that the game as printed in the 3 core books is so boring that you need supplements to make it worth your time to play, then I stand by my original statement. Take it personally if you want. There are a lot of reasons that I can understand for wanting to play with supplements, but if your reason for wanting supplements is boredom, I think that you need to replace your DM. Using splatbooks as a cure for boredom is a short-term fix, you are treating the symptom (boredom) instead of treating the disease (a crappy DM). Now, along comes 3.5e (with skeletons and zombies as templates, not absolute creature entries) ... and Libris Mortis. Wow, look at that ... Corpsecrafter (and it's subsequent chain of feats). Gee whillicker, now I can make a decent wizard-necromancer, just using skeletons - not overpowered, but not UNDERpowered anymore, either." ...it requires you to take time and creative energy AWAY from storyline and related affairs, and spend them on things that have already been made. You need supplements because you couldn't spare the time or creative energy on things that have already been made... You say that you wanted to play a golem-mancer for years, since before 3.0 even... I propose that based on your posts you do have plenty of creative ability, and you have an understanding of how the rules operate. I think that if your desire to play a golem-mancer was really as strong as you claim, you would have taken a little time to create a decently balanced custom golem-mancer class, rather than having to suffer for years until someone else could publish the supplement for you. I think that it is exactly how I described it, that the demand for the supplement was created by the supplement being published... if you had really wanted it so bad before, you would have done it on your own. I totally agree with:Supplements are what keeps a roleplaying game in print. They're a business necessity, not a game necessity. I concede that I am not familiar with all of the alternate classes you've mentioned. I've read Unearthed Arcana, Eberron, Savage Species, Complete Warrior, Manual of the Planes, Psionics Handbook, Song and Silence. I've read excerpts from Miniatures handbook, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, sword and fist, tome and blood, defenders of the faith, and a few others. I've read reviews of all of the splatbooks, and while this certainly does not make me an expert on them by any means, I think it has informed my opinion on them... much the way that I have not seen the movie Gigli, but I can have an opinion of the movie based on the reviews and the actors. I have never claimed to be an omnicient god, but I do believe that I can form opinions on my need for splatbooks based on word-of-mouth, excerpts, and published reviews of those splatbooks. I have never read a single review that said "You simply cannot play the game without this book." or "If you don't buy this splatbook, your gaming experience is lacking."
Pax 08-24-05, 03:23 AM	Hmm, I didn't realize that you were bored with the game provided by the core rulebooks. Yes, because for most of it, it's "been there, done that, what's next?" But if you truly believe that the game as printed in the 3 core books is so boring that you need supplements to make it worth your time to play, then I stand by my original statement. Take it personally if you want. Need? Heck, no. WAnt? Absolutely. And yeah, I guess I'll be taking it personally then. You appear to have even less tact and inclination to couch things in more diplomatic terms, than even I do - and that says a lot, because I admit, freely, that I can be an abrasive and obnoxious git, at times. There are a lot of reasons that I can understand for wanting to play with supplements, but if your reason for wanting supplements is boredom, I think that you need to replace your DM. Using splatbooks as a cure for boredom is a short-term fix, you are treating the symptom (boredom) instead of treating the disease (a crappy DM). Well, gee, I'll be sure to tell my GMs that you feel they're all crappy. Nevermind the fact that they're running games that're just fine, and nevermind the fact that my current character in one of them is neither more nor less than ... a Rogue. With some non-Core stuff yes, but at his heart, he's a Rogue - sneaky, stealthy, lock-and-trap oriented archetypal Rogue, no less. Just because I feel constrained, and yes a little bored, in a game that allows ONLY the core rules, doesn't mean I actually have to use those supplements. I merely like having the option of using things from supplements if they prove to be appropriate. I also like the ideas that some of them spark in me - ideas that might not otherwise have occurred ot me, and which are in addition to the plethora of ideas I already have, myself. You need supplements because you couldn't spare the time or creative energy on things that have already been made... No. I desire supplements because they permit me to direct my creativity into areas that are in fact "virgin territory" - to invent NEW things, instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel. Efficiency and expediency as relates to allocation of resources. You say that you wanted to play a golem-mancer for years, since before 3.0 even... I propose that based on your posts you do have plenty of creative ability, and you have an understanding of how the rules operate. I think that if your desire to play a golem-mancer was really as strong as you claim, you would have taken a little time to create a decently balanced custom golem-mancer class, rather than having to suffer for years until someone else could publish the supplement for you. See, I love how you try tomake it out as if I "had to wait". Clue-by-four time: I have had enough ideas - some of them being mostly, if not WHOLLY, Core Rules based - that I haven't missed playing a golem-crafting character. Indeed, the one time I sought to do so, the concept was not meshing well with the campaign it was being designed for, so it had to be shelved. And that was post-CA, mind you. However, it is a concept I would like to play, someday; knowing that there is an easy, pre-fabricated means to that end, in a WOTC-published supplement, means that when that day comes, I can focus more of my energy on establishing character, and less on negotiating mechanics with a possibly-skeptical game master. I think that it is exactly how I described it, that the demand for the supplement was created by the supplement being published... if you had really wanted it so bad before, you would have done it on your own. Nope. If I had wanted to play that concept out, to the exclusion of all other concepts ... yes, I'd've managed something on my own, rather than waiting. However, there has always been an alternative (or five), there has always been something else that I'd like to play equally as much, and so the need was never pressing enough to warrant putting something together myself. And yes, there is always the possibility that, in fact, I may come to the point of making that concept ... and deciding that Effigy Master just doesn't fit quite right, and I'll have to negotiate with the GM after all. But if a PrC in an existing supplement DOES fit ... why re-invent the wheel ...? I concede that I am not familiar with all of the alternate classes you've mentioned. ... which, IMO, rather lessens the weight of your opinion when you assert that the concepts they engender could "easily" have been accomplished with "a few simple houserules". I have never claimed to be an omnicient god, but I do believe that I can form opinions on my need for splatbooks based on word-of-mouth, excerpts, and published reviews of those splatbooks. And that's all fine and dandy. What you should not be trying to do, however, is form an opinion on MY need (or simple want) for supplements - nor on what my need/desire for same "means" in relation to my skill as either a gamer, or a GM. Note, I have never once disparaged your abilities as a GM or player, based on your obstinate insistance on "core only, or bust". I could wax uncomplimentary about the sort of pedantic, limiting, control-freak vanilla blandness one might (incorrectly, in most cases) infer from such an apparently pathological aversion for non-core material. I could even try my hand at casting aspersions on the supposedly-limited imaginations, or even intellectual capabilities, of someone who would so vehemently espouse the exclusion of non-Core sources. But I haven't, because while I know which sort of gaming is right for me ... unlike you, I don't intend to entertain, even for a moment, the ludicrous fantasy that my way of gaming is the One True Way for all gamers, and thus, that anyone who does not adhere to the One True Way must, perforce, somehow be intrinsicly inferior in skills, talent, or even simple style. I have never read a single review that said "You simply cannot play the game without this book." or "If you don't buy this splatbook, your gaming experience is lacking." But, on the other hand, I'm quite sure you've read at least a few that have said something along the lines of "the material in this product can really enrich your gaming experience." If not something more-glowing even than that!
Ut-Napishtim 08-24-05, 08:32 AM	What I'm getting from all this, is that too many DM's out there are ego-tripping out. I feel a lot of DM's on these boards, like to DM, just so they can be control freaks, and crush other peoples dreams. Just so we're on the same page, could you be more specific? For example, let's say a player wanted to play a Hobgoblin but wanted to use the no-LA version from Mongoose that actually offers more than the MM version. With this he'd like to take a special Feat from FFE that gives him say... +2 Dex and +2 Move Silently. To this he'd like to add a template from Green Ronin (just an example, I'm not familiar with their stuff) that gives say... a +4 Dex (among other things) with a +1 LA. Of course with that he combines Stealthy from the PHB, or what have you, with an end result of a 26 Dexterity and +16 to Move Silently before any skill ranks are even spent. The I say: Well, you're going to have to settle for using the Hobgoblin from the MM and taking Stealthy because I'm not really comfortable with stacking from third-party publishers. then I'm on a power trip? As another example - that actually happened to me, a Paladin player took Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Then he took an option from Mongoose's Paladin Book that allowed him to convert his own xp directly into the weapon for powers (the weapon gained 'levels'). The end result? By the time he hit 6th level with stacking both the effects he had a net +5 Corrosive sword that could shoot a Fireball and a [/i]Lightning Bolt[/i] both 1x/day, and granted him a permanent +2 to AC from it's aura of protection or some such. Yeah, I'm a bit more strict these days. Power tripping or not, the other players were glad I tightened the reins on what was allowed in. <shakes head> You know, dude - a DM is what's supposed to keep the players from making potions or magic items to get an 8,678 Strength like on Morrowind by exploiting a glitch in the system. Power tripping? More like not interested in being a computer that simply churns out random enemies.
babysamurai 08-24-05, 09:02 AM	Just so we're on the same page, could you be more specific? For example, let's say a player wanted to play a Hobgoblin but wanted to use the no-LA version from Mongoose that actually offers more than the MM version. With this he'd like to take a special Feat from FFE that gives him say... +2 Dex and +2 Move Silently. To this he'd like to add a template from Green Ronin (just an example, I'm not familiar with their stuff) that gives say... a +4 Dex (among other things) with a +1 LA. Of course with that he combines Stealthy from the PHB, or what have you, with an end result of a 26 Dexterity and +16 to Move Silently before any skill ranks are even spent. The I say: Well, you're going to have to settle for using the Hobgoblin from the MM and taking Stealthy because I'm not really comfortable with stacking from third-party publishers. then I'm on a power trip? As another example - that actually happened to me, a Paladin player took Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Then he took an option from Mongoose's Paladin Book that allowed him to convert his own xp directly into the weapon for powers (the weapon gained 'levels'). The end result? By the time he hit 6th level with stacking both the effects he had a net +5 Corrosive sword that could shoot a Fireball and a [/i]Lightning Bolt[/i] both 1x/day, and granted him a permanent +2 to AC from it's aura of protection or some such. Yeah, I'm a bit more strict these days. Power tripping or not, the other players were glad I tightened the reins on what was allowed in. <shakes head> You know, dude - a DM is what's supposed to keep the players from making potions or magic items to get an 8,678 Strength like on Morrowind by exploiting a glitch in the system. Power tripping? More like not interested in being a computer that simply churns out random enemies. It will all be okay. I forgot to mention; I never use 3rd party products.
Lord Schpungus 08-24-05, 10:46 AM	Just so we're on the same page, could you be more specific? For example, let's say a player wanted to play a Hobgoblin but wanted to use the no-LA version from Mongoose that actually offers more than the MM version...stuff... No, he's saying "a player wanted to play a Hobgoblin from the MM. Then his DM screamed at him for half an hour about the player Rollplaying and then burned his own copy of the Monster Manual so his players couldn't be inspired by it."
babysamurai 08-24-05, 11:03 AM	No, he's saying "a player wanted to play a Hobgoblin from the MM. Then his DM screamed at him for half an hour about the player Rollplaying and then burned his own copy of the Monster Manual so his players couldn't be inspired by it." We're definitely on the same page. I like the way you think, I'm gonna keep my eye on you. And yes, Mongoose Publishing sucks large amounts of donkey schlong.
Sergikins 08-24-05, 08:59 PM	Thanks once again for all the feedback. I think I have arranged a good synopisis for this entire post 1) 3rd party books are good for inspiration, not usage. 2) All supplements add variety to the game. 3) variety is good, but not nesscary. A good DM can deal with using the three core books, and all the supplements (non 3rd party, of course) 4) When all else fails, house rules come out golden. Now, once again, to fuel this post, when using a supplement such as complete Arcane, do you require that Complete warrior, Lutes and loots, complete divine, ect. be required as to not make certain classes/aspects more attractive than others? This is my theroy, and wanted your opinion Currently, I have a paladin, barabarian/sorcerer, druid, rogue, and monk in my party. As I said before, I say, RP for supplements. My rogue has RPed enough for the supplement, but I'm afraid to give him Complete Arcane because it may unbalance the game. Thanks
Arrowhen 08-24-05, 09:31 PM	Now, once again, to fuel this post, when using a supplement such as complete Arcane, do you require that Complete warrior, Lutes and loots, complete divine, ect. be required as to not make certain classes/aspects more attractive than others? No. New options for a class don't necessarily make that class "more attractive" to all players. An individual player might find a certain class more appealing if certain options are made available, but another player might find that the core version fits her character concept perfectly. If something in a supplement makes a particular class substantially "better", to the point where no one would ever want to choose the core version over the optional one, then that material is unbalanced and should not be allowed--except in the rare instances where the campaign would somehow benefit from overpowering that class.
olshanski_home 08-24-05, 11:30 PM	I also like the ideas that some of them spark in me - ideas that might not otherwise have occurred ot me, and which are in addition to the plethora of ideas I already have, myself.That's a good reason for using supplements. I don't disagree at all. I desire supplements because they permit me to direct my creativity into areas that are in fact "virgin territory" - to invent NEW things, instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel.That's another very good reson for using supplements. Note, I have never once disparaged your abilities as a GM or player, based on your obstinate insistance on "core only, or bust".Ad-Homenem attacks are hardly a way to win arguments. There are a large number of reasons that are acceptable for using supplements. I feel that "boredom with the game" should not be one of them. Your counter to the argument seems to be "Been there, done that." You've played the core game so much that there is just no thrill in it any more. That is a fair argument, and I am sure a lot of people agree with you. I personally find that most of the "thrill" in the game comes from socializing with my friends. The rules are there to provide a framework for the socialization. A character is a character and a class is a class... extra feats and extra classes don't make the game more fun for me. The fun part is just hanging out with friends. I could wax uncomplimentary about the sort of pedantic, limiting, control-freak vanilla blandness one might (incorrectly, in most cases) infer from such an apparently pathological aversion for non-core material.If someone reading this had a pathological averson for non-core material, you can feel free to speak up about it. I've listed several good reasons for playing with supplements through my posts. I agree that there is a certain thrill to adding to my collection of books. I like getting inspired by ideas in the supplements. I've also given reasons why I don't play with them, from Power creep to the fact that not all of my players can afford all of the supplements, and it it uncomfortable when we are not all playing with the same sets of rules. If two players have some supplements and two others do not, and the DM allows them in the game, it is somewhat unfair to the players who do not have the extra books. I've previously said that if everyone at the table has all of the same supplments, then they should go ahead and use them. I'm quite sure you've read at least a few [reviews of non-core material] that have said something along the lines of "the material in this product can really enrich your gaming experience."Absolutely right, and that is another good reason to purchase those particular supplements. After reading all of your posts, I am still standing by my opinion that if you are bored with the core rules game, then the problem is rooted in the player (or players) or the DM... that the problem is social in nature and the use of splatbooks is only a temporary fix that doesn't solve the real problem. It is fine if the whole group decides that they want to expand the set of available classes and they want to introduce the Complete series to thier game, or if the DM and players are interested in exploring whole good/evil thing and they want to add the two mature supplements... that is fine. There is a difference between a group wanting to expand thier options together, and someone who personally is bored with the core rules. A few people [PAX] seem to be shaking thier fists at the militant core-only DMs... Those DMs who denying players the use of thier supplements. I submit that for each an every time a DM has denied a supplemental rule... there was ALWAYS a player trying to get a supplemental rule added to the game that the DM was not comfortable with. It is a two-way street. I'll also submit that there are probably a few times that a militant player has bullied the DM into allowing a supplmental rule that the DM was not prepared to have in his game. The last two paragraphs are my own opinions based on my own observations. Since I have only met about 50 D&D players, this is the smallest segment of players and says more about my limited circle of friends than it does about any sort of generalization about all D&D players... so please don't take offense. Some of the best roleplayers I've had in my group enjoy using lots of supplements. One runs an "anything goes" game, and another runs a "psionics+eberron+Complete series" game (that player is considering running Diamond Throne if he finds enough players). Another player runs his own Chtulu games. All of those players do a great job with the supplements, but they are also outstanding players with the core-only game. None of them have expressed boredom with core-only games. I've also met some people who prefer quoting rules, finding odd combinations of feats and classes, and rules-lawyering... they are better at examining the minutia of prestige classes than they are at socializing. Those people are addicted to playing the game as a set of numbers... they are usually the worst roleplayers, though they make excellent tactical decisions in combat. They also have the toughest time with the core-only games.
woozygremlin 08-25-05, 12:52 AM	WARNING - Mini-Rant My personal position on this volatile issue is strongly anti-supplement. The primary reason for this is that they move the game in a direction that is not conductive to my gaming needs. It is a common thread that "WotC is turning D&D into a videogame!" I strongly disagree with this comment: It is becoming a CCG. A good game has a certain timeless quality to it - when was the last time you saw a Bridge booster pack?, or a new set of Backgammon rules? Of course D&D is far more complex than either of those games, but the same elements of simplicity and flexibility are central to gaming process. New races, classes and prestige classes are the worst offenders - the races are suddenly tossed half-formed into a world they were previously alien to (often they aren't even written-up as monsters!) The new classes and PrCs are worst though, they are more than simply useless supplemental material, they are counter-productive! These abominations exist for two reasons (I'm not sure which is intentional and which is incidental) 1) $$$, 2) to cover for the weakness of the existing class system - the classes in D&D are too narrow and specialized to account for many character concepts, so what does WotC do? Why introduce even MORE specialized classes of course! I know many people will disagree, but I find these to be a futile waste of time. The opinions expressed in the preceding post were those of woozygremlin at 11:52 AM and do not necceessarily reflect those of woozygremlin at 11:53.
weasel fierce 08-25-05, 12:56 AM	The CCG analogy is quite apt, and I recall an interview with Cook stating that while they didnt follow that exact structure, they wanted some of the same elements, particular rewarding system mastery. D&D isnt quite unique in that regard, Exalted, in particular, has the same element.
Nomad4life 08-25-05, 09:37 AM	I’m a definite core-only GM. I’ve just never seen anything outside of the core books that would be of any use to our campaigns. Of course, this is probably because I focus on low-powered games without PrCs or crazy race/class combos. That’s just the style of game that I have the most fun with, and thus I write better adventures within those parameters. I guess you could say that I’m an “origami” kind of GM; the interesting part is seeing how creative you can be by folding the same piece of paper in new ways without the need to cut it up or use different material. The thrill of the game for my group has to do with the struggles of the normal people in abnormal circumstances, interesting fleshed-out characters, memorable NPCs, mystery, elements of horror, etc… In other words, factors that you don’t need to go beyond the core books to work with. The players have simply not asked for anything beyond this. For years.
Arrowhen 08-25-05, 12:03 PM	D&D isnt quite unique in that regard, Exalted, in particular, has the same element. Isn't Exalted just D&D for people who think they're too hip for D&D?
mhr74 08-25-05, 12:41 PM	Personally, I will allow just about anything on one condition. I have to personally review it and approve of it. If it looks unbalanced or just ridiculous, I won't allow it. If it looks balanced, I'll let it slide. Whether it's a WOTC thing or not. I DM w/ Core-Rules and review new suggested rule inclusions (anything outside of core) on a case by case basis and discuss it with the other players before it passes. My players do a good job of making sure nothing 'unbalanced' in their opinion slides in since it is in their own best interest to prevent that and I let them have a stake in it. The classic PC doubletake aforementioned of "I'm a dwarven figther and your a half-ilithid warmage/ thrall of 'insert demon here'/ assassin/ templar of pimp justice?" is it's own best preventative measure.
mhr74 08-25-05, 12:54 PM	What I'm getting from all this, is that too many DM's out there are ego-tripping out. I feel a lot of DM's on these boards, like to DM, just so they can be control freaks, and crush other peoples dreams. Conversely, you get the same effect from PCs power creeping past their player buddies w/ extra rules. "I want! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" is the PC equivalent of "No, no, you can't take that feat, wah wah!". I guess it's all about DM & PCs controlling their power-gaming lust for... ...UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!! :evillaugh
Illion the Red 08-25-05, 01:25 PM	I run purely with supplemental material. No Core Material is allowed whatsoever! OK...so that probably sounded funnier in my head than on-screen. Oh well. Over the past two to three years I have built up an irrational fear of supplemental material. I say irrational because I have not personally seen anything supplemental that was exploited to the point that it broke the game. That said, I do allow supplemental material into the game, but only after I have a chance to review it. What kills me though, is the growing wave of "templated characters." I have grown tired of saying things like, "No, you can't play a half-fiend drow." This is especially so, since such a statement is almost responded to with a whine "Why not?" I have to then respond, "Because such a creature has no place in my campaign world." The conversation inevitably deteriorates from there. I am ever-so-thankful that my current group of players haven't gone down this road, but I fear it...and fear it often.
Lord Schpungus 08-25-05, 01:46 PM	If it hasn't happened, why fear it? I think you read a little bit of the CO boards and are too scared to sleep. Man. Let loose your tenuous grip on control. The illusion of control has got too many people in trouble.
Illion the Red 08-25-05, 01:57 PM	If it hasn't happened, why fear it? I think you read a little bit of the CO boards and are too scared to sleep. Man. Let loose your tenuous grip on control. The illusion of control has got too many people in trouble. The CO boards are a bit nuts, but that's what they're there for. I DO allow stuff into the game, but I HATE being blindsided. The last thing I want to have happen is have things go south on me because a character had an ability that I had never even heard of.
mhr74 08-25-05, 02:05 PM	What kills me though, is the growing wave of "templated characters." I have grown tired of saying things like, "No, you can't play a half-fiend drow." This is especially so, since such a statement is almost responded to with a whine "Why not?" I have to then respond, "Because such a creature has no place in my campaign world." The conversation inevitably deteriorates from there. I am ever-so-thankful that my current group of players haven't gone down this road, but I fear it...and fear it often. That's why I let the PCs help adjudicate these matters w/ me (the DM) as a veto. One of the guys wanted a Troll PC, then an Ilithid PC. Both templated monster PCs (per Savage Species as the DMG core rules were deemed way too powerful) were shot down as is by the PCs as too powerful. W/ the option of reworking those SS rules or going Core, the player chose Core.
Illion the Red 08-25-05, 02:10 PM	That's why I let the PCs help adjudicate these matters w/ me (the DM) as a veto. One of the guys wanted a Troll PC, then an Ilithid PC. Both templated monster PCs (per Savage Species as the DMG core rules were deemed way too powerful) were shot down as is by the PCs as too powerful. W/ the option of reworking those SS rules or going Core, the player chose Core. That sounds like a good way of handling it. What would you have done if the rest of the players said "go for it?"
mhr74 08-25-05, 02:26 PM	That sounds like a good way of handling it. What would you have done if the rest of the players said "go for it?" Generally, I give 'em what they want, majority rules. I'll use ultimate veto if I feel the need, but I have not had to. In this case it seemed so unbalanced to me I asked them (the players) for their take on it. They saw it as pretty unbalanced/ whack/ etc., as well so that was that. I'll use ultimate veto since it I'm running the campaign. But they are playing it. It is not "my campaign" it is "our campaign" and I believe everyone needs to be mostly happy. If they can't be happy with the rules the DM and other players want maybe they should find another group since.... "...the need of the many outweigh the need of the few or the one!" :P :P :P
Lord Schpungus 08-25-05, 05:47 PM	That's why I let the PCs help adjudicate these matters w/ me (the DM) as a veto. One of the guys wanted a Troll PC, then an Ilithid PC. Both templated monster PCs (per Savage Species as the DMG core rules were deemed way too powerful) were shot down as is by the PCs as too powerful. W/ the option of reworking those SS rules or going Core, the player chose Core. Wait. They thought the Monster Classes were too powerful? Keep in mind, that's all you get. The progression IS your class until you finish. No base classes, no other special class abilities, just you and your monster hit dice, having a party.
mhr74 08-25-05, 05:53 PM	Wait. They thought the Monster Classes were too powerful? Keep in mind, that's all you get. The progression IS your class until you finish. No base classes, no other special class abilities, just you and your monster hit dice, having a party. We rolled PCs for a high level campaign, so the monsters were almost fully developed, if not 100% with class levels already. The Ilithid got jacked because of Mind Blast and the Troll got jacked 'cause of Damage Reduction. That's what the majority wanted. The other player didn't feel like hashing out a variation on the rules. End of debate.
Sergikins 08-27-05, 10:08 AM	One of the reasons I never let my players play odd races (basically none other than basic six) Is that I like the idea of normal people rising to face a problem and coming out on top because of their skill, not their heritage/racial powers. At most, I sometimes allow the variations on elves (gray elves, slyvan elves, wild elves, drow) gnomes, (not zifneblim), and very, very rarely, a half dwarf or half drow, or half gnome, or half halflings(lol). I'm sure the exact rules for those are somewhere, but I basically got rid of the stat modifier, and gave them a few skills and one predetermined feat, so they are like a human, except the four skill points are spent predetermined, the feat is predetermined, and they might have darkvision. I won't even start with a half drow, though. For this, I suppose a supplement would work better, but I find it is easier just to restrict everything to the core rulebooks. Thank you everyone. I now have a reason to tell that freaking player why he can't play a psychic monk.
Pax 08-27-05, 12:19 PM	Ad-Homenem attacks are hardly a way to win arguments. Yet, your first post includes a (broadly-aimed) Ad Hominem ... ain implication that people who find core-only to be a bit on tbe boring side, and want/need the spice of supplemental material, are somehow lacking, or inferior. There are a large number of reasons that are acceptable for using supplements. I feel that "boredom with the game" should not be one of them. Bully for you. However, there is no One True Way when it comes to gaming. I personally find that most of the "thrill" in the game comes from socializing with my friends. The rules are there to provide a framework for the socialization. If all I wanted was an excuse to socialise ... I'd pay a social visit. Or we'd go see a movie together. Or break out a copy of Trivial Pursuit, or risk, or (for a marathon-length game) I'd dust off my copy of Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilisation. A character is a character and a class is a class... extra feats and extra classes don't make the game more fun for me. The fun part is just hanging out with friends. The extra feats and extra classes don't make the time spent with friends more fun for ME, either. However, it does make the time I spend role-playing with them (as opposed to other activities - see above) more fun. [...] to the fact that not all of my players can afford all of the supplements, and it it uncomfortable when we are not all playing with the same sets of rules. Um. You and your players don't share your rulebooks at the table ...? WTH? If two players have some supplements and two others do not, and the DM allows them in the game, it is somewhat unfair to the players who do not have the extra books. No, not really - unless the "have's" are too interested in zealously staking out and defending their rules-advantage to say "sure, here you go" when one of the "have-not's" says "say, can I look through that for a few minutes?" After reading all of your posts, I am still standing by my opinion that if you are bored with the core rules game, then the problem is rooted in the player (or players) or the DM... that the problem is social in nature and the use of splatbooks is only a temporary fix that doesn't solve the real problem. The only problem here is that you are assuming there is some significant problem in the first place. There is no problem with the rules; there is no problem with the GM; there is no problem with the Players. There is simply a different style of play. Repeat after me: there is no One True Way ... A few people [PAX] seem to be shaking thier fists at the militant core-only DMs... No. I'm shaking my fist at the militant "if you can't be satisfied with core-only, there's something wrong with you" crowd. Meaning, for the moment ... you. Note that I have never said "Core-only games suck" ... no, I've only said "core only games aren't for me." That's hardly "shaking [my] fist at [...] core-only DMs".
Lord Schpungus 08-27-05, 01:46 PM	No. I'm shaking my fist at the militant "if you can't be satisfied with core-only, there's something wrong with you" crowd. So should we all.
Amene 08-27-05, 03:14 PM	I think that it's a matter of taste, if you like core rules only soviet, if you like non-core material soviet too. in the other hand everytime i start a campaign (10 years playing so far) i do allow certain books because of the flavor i want to give to the campaign, if i want a campaign in the underdark i get those supplements then add some stuff of my own and done! i save a lot of time doing that. Also when designing NPC Evildoers it's cooler to make them different everytime in a RP sense and mechanically, makes easier to remember them, sometimes me and my players reunite just to remember stuff :-p it's kinda fun to think about the campaign that happened 4 years ago. I think that the mechanics must fit the RP component so the mechanics mesh well with the flavor of the campaign. Right now I'm in a 2 months downtime and I'm designing a new aerial combat rules to allow fast combat in the air (simultaneous combat, action points) and since i don't think about undead to be a mayor factor in this campaign i just won't use Libris Mortis, I'll use undead but not as heavily, so no one in my game will really care about undead hunters. I believe that flavor + Mechanics than enchance the flavor = Cool Game (in fact i don't play political intrigue with D&D rules, I use White Wolf for that, different mechanics + different flavor= Different Kind of Game) Another thing i think is that not ALL 3rd party stuff is crap, stuff by Monte Cook is cool almost all the time, check the book "Beyond Countless Doorways" but in the other hand Mongoose Publishing sucks... maybe they use Mongooses as editors
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 04:42 PM	I'm WotC only, and when players use something from WotC that I don't feel like I'm completely familiar with, I'll usually check over their character sheet. I laugh at dms who are core only by choice for a variety of reasons. I feel that the additional material, including WOTC has a number of problems: ranging from poorly concieved rules (damage for thrown objects), to one-trick-pony character design, not thoroughly playtested, etc... Are you saying this about all additional material? If so, I laugh in your face. The 3.5 psionics system is great. It's balanced, and it is arguably better than the current spell system. There are many good things to be found in supplemental books. If you see something unbalanced or that you don't like, then don't use it. No problems. I think a small number of DM house-rules can make almost any supplemental book unnecessary from a rules perspective... the supplemental fluff material, however, usually has some aesthetic value. I agree with Pax on this one. This is the stupidest comment I've seen in a while. As a note about these questions: Obviously WotC can't cover every single conceivable character idea that a player has. That should be a given. What if you wanted to be an assassin/ninja that specialized in carrying a sack of poisonous vermin and you wanted to attack by throwing scorpions or spiders at your opponent? Complete Adventurer and Monster Manual, maybe somehting else for adding templates to the spiders and scorpions to make them more dangerous. What if you wanted to be a troll that specialized in cooking stew made from your own body parts, and the stew was so satisfying that any creature that ate it became charmed by you? This would be way to awkward to put into a rulebook, and there would be many questions as to who made the stew, such as "What if another troll provided the parts, but I made the stew?" and stuff like that. Anyway, Savage Species and poisions would have pretty much the same effect, SS giving rules, feats, etc for playing trolls and poisons from the DMG to screw over their will save. A couple levels in wizard or telepath (XPH) and voila. What if you wanted to be a druid that harvested allergy-inducing pollens from the wildflowers, and used them to attack opponents? All you need is the core books. Druid and poison rules. What if you wanted to be a philosopher who could speak in tounges, communicate with animals, and argue your opponents into submission?? Core books as well. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate with levels in druid or ranger and speak language or the spell tongues. What if you wanted to be a multiple personality character, in which each personality had different alignment and different class abilities? Sounds like core as well except for the issue of switching personalities. But then again, I doubt WotC will come out with "Complete Mental Issues" anytime soon, so that sounds like you can do that with a pretty simple house rule. You fail. You know the saying "Build it and they will come"? I mean really, how many thousands of players across the country were agonizing over the fact that they could not play a construct/robot man before Eberron came out with the warforged? First of all, they could play as a walking construct. Savage Species. Know your stuff. Anyways, people probably didn't think about it, or if they did, they dismissed it as a stupid idea (honestly, I think that letting warforged run around like they do in Eberron in any other setting is kind of dumb myself). Honestly, when people found out about Eberron, there was much whining about robot-men and dino-riding halflings. Then the ECS came out and people saw how great it was. Warforged look like robot men. Good for them. The Warforged psychology and their outlook on life is interesting though, probably a lot more interesting than you'd think. Not all warforged are the same either, they're not like robots which are mass-produced, yet they were. They're mysterious. Noone can say for certain whether or not they have souls. They can be ressurected, but House Cannith can't make souls. They're quite interesting, and offer many roleplaying opportunities that you couldn't use with any other race out there currently afaik.
Amene 08-27-05, 05:29 PM	I'm not a talented writer, so I'll try to explain my point more clearly one more time :-) The Rules must/may fit the flavor: if you've got a campaign with motorcicles, you need rules to cover the new issues not found in the core material but, if you like motorcicles but don't want to focus on them, you can forget about maintenance, specific damage to them (what happens when you have a flat tire?) and just RP it. If you wan't fast combat, avoid maneuvers from Iron Heroes (great Monte Cook book), but if you want flashy combat use them. You can (and may like) reinvent the wheel everytime you bring/want new elements to play around, but supplements are a nice help, or if you want you can just stick to them and do no work :-) (I like the approach of reading them, take what I like, twist a bit, and playtest with my Co-DM) it depends on the campaign
olshanski_home 08-27-05, 09:22 PM	You've convinced me Pax and Amene. More supplements are better. They make for a more interesting game, they give you more options. They let you roleplay better by means of realizing your character build through more accurate game mechanics. Anyone can play with more supplements and they should not have to worry about what grognards think of them. I guess its time to let my players use those complete series they purchased for me but I refused to let into my game for fear of losing control or for fear that I wouldn't be able to make balanced encounters. With a bit of nervous excitement I am stepping into the world of accepting supplemental material.
Majorafire77 08-28-05, 12:39 AM	You've convinced me Pax and Amene. More supplements are better. They make for a more interesting game, they give you more options. They let you roleplay better by means of realizing your character build through more accurate game mechanics. Anyone can play with more supplements and they should not have to worry about what grognards think of them. I guess its time to let my players use those complete series they purchased for me but I refused to let into my game for fear of losing control or for fear that I wouldn't be able to make balanced encounters. With a bit of nervous excitement I am stepping into the world of accepting supplemental material. :) Heads up for that Hulking Hurler though (CW). Don't ban it just yet, but make sure that this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=142565&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) doesn't happen to you.
Pax 08-28-05, 01:10 AM	I think that it's a matter of taste, if you like core rules only soviet, if you like non-core material soviet too. *Applause* My salutations, sir or madame, are yours. :) The only thing as regards a style or manner of play that even comes within spitting distance of "the One True Way" is just the atttitude Amene displays here: tolerance of all ways, and pursuit of whichever one9s) give you themost personal enjoyment. :) Another thing i think is that not ALL 3rd party stuff is crap, stuff by Monte Cook is cool almost all the time, check the book "Beyond Countless Doorways" Or much of the Bopok of Eldritch Might, which I recently got in PDF form as a freeebie from DriveThruRPG.com - it's not all stuff I like, but then, the same is true of WOTC products too. However, I have a very good reason to limit things when I run online games, especially arenas, to WOTC-only: I have a limited budget, and if I don't own it ... it's not allowed (unlike a face-to-face game, "lending the GM your shiny new book" is a bit harder in online games. Plus I'm rabidly opposed to piracy and other forms of theft). Since I can only afford to keep up with most (nearly all!) of the WOTC books I might want ... that is why I limit things that way. ^_^ If I won the lottery? Mein gott, the flood gates would be thrown WIIIIIIIIIIIDE open! (And I'd have eye strain from reading so many new and wonderful toys ... er ... books ...! :D You've convinced me Pax and Amene. More supplements are better. Er ... *cough* ... they can make for a better game overall, but it's by no means guaranteed. :) (Though it might surprise you to hear that from me). They make for a more interesting game, they give you more options. They let you roleplay better by means of realizing your character build through more accurate game mechanics. ... so long as the supplements chosen are appropriate for the game being played; otherwise, they'll have a neutral, or even negative, impact on your game. No, seriously. For example ... let's take Eberron. Overall, I would advise against using much material from books like the Book of Exalted Deeds, or the Book of Vile Darkness, in an Eberron campaign - because matters of good and evil (and other alignment factors) are supposed to be much less clear-cut in Eberron than in a more traditional D&D setting. Being able to point to someone that has a Vile feat, and say "he's an evil bastard! kill him!" and be right ... well, that strikes against how Eberron games should be handling alignment. At the very least, most of the material therein would have to be stripped of most or all alignment considerations, and some of it would have to be outright barred from use. Anyone can play with more supplements and they should not have to worry about what grognards think of them. Er, I am a grognard, if you're using that term to mean "old-time gamer" - I started play in about 1980, when I was 8 or 9 years old. ^_^; I guess its time to let my players use those complete series they purchased for me but I refused to let into my game for fear of losing control or for fear that I wouldn't be able to make balanced encounters. Just remember: the simple fact that you allow a supplement to be used, does NOT mean you abdicate all rights to say "Well, yeah you can use stuff form books X, Y, and Z - but THAT combination ... no, sorry, that's too much. I'm afraid I'm going to have to 'just say no' to that one". IOW: just ebcause you allow your characters to use ... oh ... complete adventurer, does not mean you have to let anyone play a Ninja. The Ninja class would be very inappropriate in a game set in Republican Rome, for example. OTOH, it would be a better chocie than Rogue, if the game were set in Japan during the Tokugawa period. ^_^ With a bit of nervous excitement I am stepping into the world of accepting supplemental material. Be honest with your players, and let them know you're not sure of anything - that anything allowed from the supplements should be considered to eb permitted on a "trial basis", and if it proves to be too much, you and the player may need to sit down and un-allow that choice. For example, um ...... let's say you allow in, er .... the Book of Exalted Deeds, and the party monk promptly takes the Vow of Poverty. Since this is a trial basis affair, require the player tokeep a pre-Vow copy of their character sheet "just in case". After three or four sessions of play, and maybe a half-dozen encounters, you decide "crap, no, that was a mistake". Fine, no problem - you and the player sit down, you take the vow out ... let them pick a different feat, and based on the pre-vow sheet, give them appropriate XP and wealth (if they've already donated their share). A bit of work, yes - but better to accept that that kind of work might be needed, than to let a mistake ruin your game. Of course, any player disinclined to cooperate with that, simply doesn't get to use ANYthing you are even in the SLIGHTEST bit unsure of. And I do truly recommend you take it slowly. The Complete series should be fine for now; let yourself get used to judging extras from supplements before jumping headfirst into the deep end. ^_^ And always remember: we're always here to help ... there're plenty fo folks here on these very boards ready and willing to give you advice about X and/or Y options from supplements A, B, and/or Z. :) My point all along has never been "supplements make the game better, so it's wrong not to use them". No, it's only been "use of supplements, or non-use of them, is solely a matter of personal taste - it's good for some groups, bad for others, and doesn't matter one lick for yet others." Also known as "to each, their own." :)
DogOnWheels 08-28-05, 02:02 PM	I probably did see the "I feel" in his post, but too many times, posters put that in and then proceed to be obnoxious jerks who refuse to see that there might be another way. I'm always wary of The One Truth, wherever that fallacy shows up. "The One Truth"?? Is this a theology thread or gaming post? I'm pretty sure olhanski, wasn't being an "obnoxious jerk", & didn't come off as a zealot, as did other posters (you excepted, of course...). BTW, I would nominate Green Ronin as being as good, & ocasionally better than WOTC stuff.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 02:10 PM	If you use the basic three books only, why do you not allow the supplments in? Some people, for reasons that escape me, think the Core is balanced, the WotC is infallable in game design and that they have to use every part of a supplement they allow.
Amene 08-28-05, 03:25 PM	Some people, for reasons that escape me, think the Core is balanced, the WotC is infallable in game design and that they have to use every part of a supplement they allow. The proof of that is 3rd edition versus 3.5, but in the other hand they have the budget to playtest a lot more than other companies. When i read WOTC supplement i don't go as deep to check for unbalance than when I use a 3rd party supplement, that I usually playtest a few times with my CoDM (who is a complete rules lawyer of the worst kind, One of the few Min/Maxers that could defeat Baalor with a 1rst level bard) But I've gotten to think with the years that most stuff by WOTC (and before that TSR) was more streamline, they never pull out stuff thats too out there, but 3rd party publishers get to print less "safe" supplements with really interesting concepts (take a look at Goodman Games, those guys must eat a lot of shrooms before they write those supplements)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 05:01 PM	When i read WOTC supplement i don't go as deep to check for unbalance than when I use a 3rd party supplement You should. WotC is no better at game design than Green Ronin or Malhavoc. They just happen to own the license. And most importantly, WotC doesn't know your personal game. None of them do. But I've gotten to think with the years that most stuff by WOTC (and before that TSR) was more streamline, they never pull out stuff thats too out there ELH, BoVD, BoED, Minis Handbook. All very out there and not for every game.
DogOnWheels 08-28-05, 05:44 PM	You should. WotC is no better at game design than Green Ronin or Malhavoc. They just happen to own the license. And most importantly, WotC doesn't know your personal game. None of them do. ELH, BoVD, BoED, Minis Handbook. All very out there and not for every game. Well said. All hail Green Ronin :) . I haven't checked out Malhavoc yet, Privateer has some interesting stuff though. Slavish devotion to WoTC product is myopic, the industry & games are really infused by gamers & their imaginations, which is why Eberron, Iron Kingdoms or a homebrew all have good points. Furthermore, the so-called "core only" games can serve as a shot in the arm, to revive a game encumbered by an overload of PrCs & the inertia of one to many supplementals.
Ut-Napishtim 08-28-05, 06:26 PM	Now, once again, to fuel this post, when using a supplement such as complete Arcane, do you require that Complete warrior, Lutes and loots, complete divine, ect. be required as to not make certain classes/aspects more attractive than others? This is my theroy, and wanted your opinion I think that's a pretty bad idea. Not the part about allowing other books to compensate for allowing one, but the assumption that supplements may only be introduced as a whole. You don't have to approve supplement X and ban supplement Y, you can look at what it is from supplement X or Y that your player wants and make the decision on that one feat or class, and all others, on a case-by-case basis. At least that's what I do. Take the aforementioned Complete Arcane for example. The Wayfarer Guide is one of my favorite PrC's from that book, and I'd give a player a thumbs up on it if they wanted to try it out. Sudden Metamagics on the other hand, and ergo the Warmage, will never see use in my games. I'm sure there are other folks reading this that would disagree - but at the end of the day you have to be the judge of what your game can and can't handle based on your players' attitudes. :twocents:
Arrowhen 08-29-05, 11:55 AM	Some people, for reasons that escape me, think the Core is balanced, the WotC is infallable in game design and that they have to use every part of a supplement they allow. Core is unbalanced, like every role playing game ever, and WotC has provided more than ample proof of their fallability. Which is one of the reasons I choose not to dump more of their material into my campaign. ;)
Millennium 09-03-05, 12:44 AM	I always allow the three core rulebooks. I usually allow anything else made by WOTC, but I ask the players to check with me first. I may allow things from other sources -even the players' own ideas- but I want to review them thoroughly first.
Gilean 09-03-05, 04:03 AM	New races, classes and prestige classes are the worst offenders - the races are suddenly tossed half-formed into a world they were previously alien to (often they aren't even written-up as monsters!) The new classes and PrCs are worst though, they are more than simply useless supplemental material, they are counter-productive! These abominations exist for two reasons (I'm not sure which is intentional and which is incidental) 1) $$$, 2) to cover for the weakness of the existing class system - the classes in D&D are too narrow and specialized to account for many character concepts, so what does WotC do? Why introduce even MORE specialized classes of course! I know many people will disagree, but I find these to be a futile waste of time.The race part is oh so true. It may work for settings such as FR, which are a gathering of random D&D adventurers given geography, but for coherent setting with themes, no way. Introducing random races is always a bad thing to do.
jukar 09-03-05, 11:04 AM	What I'm getting from all this, is that too many DM's out there are ego-tripping out. I feel a lot of DM's on these boards, like to DM, just so they can be control freaks, and crush other peoples dreams. I'm going to agree. I think that a lot of "control freaks", as it were, are drawn to the DM helm. This does not mean by any means that they should be a DM. After all, you wouldn't want to go to a doctor with a medical fetish, would you? Furthermore, I wouldn't want to play with a DM who gets a kick out of being in charge. DMs should DM because they love to tell stories, because they love the game and want to teach it to others, or because they are fair and balanced judges. While supplements can get out of hand, it doesn't mean they should be refuted. I think a lot of DMs feel threatened by supplements, because every month, WotC releases a new batch of rules that could possibly supercede, contradict, or antiquate a DM's personal rules, opinions, and views of what fantasy should be. However, there are just some times when the core books do NOT cover everything. They can't be used to address every issue (that few paragraphs on cold weather environments is not enough info for running a campaign in a northern country. Frostburn, meanwhile...). A DM has enough work to do without having to houserule, wing, and adjucate EVERYTHING that conveniantly falls outside the core rules (which is a lot, considering the infinite possibilities and variables that could happen in any given story). Supplements are helpful because they allow DMs to adjust to these grey areas by using (mostly) pre-playtested material that can easily be balanced against the typical game. Also, from a player's perspective, supplements can be good, provided a player doesn't use every single supplement that is available. Truth is, the core books can only support a fixed number of character archetypes well. Sure, someone wanting to play an Asian wu jen could just play a wizard, but then they have to compromise the actual character idea. After all, Asian culture has no traditional mage like the wizard. The player then has to play a character that only resembles the character they created. Certainly, he could roleplay it as such, but the truth of the matter is that many people need aids to roleplay. It doesn't make them bad roleplayers. It just means they, like a majority of people, are not natural born character actors. Therefor, any rules that can help them flesh out a unique and interesting character is cool in my book. Of course, if a player is getting ahold of every single supplement they can and looting it for spells, feats, and classes, then power creep occurs. A DM needs to step in at that point. After all, it's D&D, not MtG. Not every new release is relevant, nor does it need to be integrated for the game to be valid. But that doesn't totally discredit the many beneficial effects a good supplement can have upon a game or concept. I also think that a lot of DMs wear their core-only status as a badge of honor. With the common distaste for Diablo 2-esque character builds made for power and little else, and the overall negative view of munchkins, a person can gain a sort of elite status among their gaming peers. Sort of a "I was playing D&D before D&D was cool" thing. Either that, or they feel threatened by the constant influx of new rules each month, or are very traditional and conservative and afraid to try anything too new or unusual because it would endanger their conception of what D&D and high fantasy should be. I think it's best not to get angry with these people, and try and force them to allow new books. It'll just make them resentful and less willing to try it out. I think it's better just to try and show them that not all supplements are broken, twink bibles, little by little.
FreeTheSlaves 09-03-05, 11:11 AM	Cute. I said it earlier but if your "dreams" are being "crushed" by a dm then you really need to broaden your horizens. There are a heck of a lot of more worthy dreams out there than a game, fun as it is.
jukar 09-03-05, 11:15 AM	Cute. I said it earlier but if your "dreams" are being "crushed" by a dm then you really need to broaden your horizens. There are a heck of a lot of more worthy dreams out there than a game, fun as it is. Said the person spending his morning on a D&D message board, trying to invalidate posts that disagree with him. Please. Don't go displaying your arrogance, it isn't pretty. Babysamurai was using hyperbole, as was I (despite the fact that I made no such claim, I merely agreed.) Don't assume to know my dreams, or even what goes on in my game. It's funny how people are so proud of how seriously they take the game, until someone else takes it seriously, but takes a different approach to it than themselves. Suddenly, that person is too devoted to something that is "just a game". Now run along.
FreeTheSlaves 09-03-05, 11:31 AM	I'm sick & can't sleep (although I'm starting to drift as I type) what is your excuse? If you spiel wasn't the epitome of arrogance that was is. Your second to last paragraph is nothing but vitriol, & I'm wasn't in a mood to let it go unchallenged. You're right I don't want to know your dreams. Toodle-loo ;)
mhr74 09-03-05, 11:32 AM	I think a lot of DMs feel threatened by supplements, because every month, WotC releases a new batch of rules that could possibly supercede, contradict, or antiquate a DM's personal rules, opinions, and views of what fantasy should be. The DM runs the campaign and game. Though I believe DMs should listen to and make the game as fun as possible for the PCs, the way the game approaches fantasy and personal rules is ultimately up to the DM. However, there are just some times when the core books do NOT cover everything. They can't be used to address every issue. A DM has enough work to do without having to houserule, wing, and adjucate EVERYTHING that conveniantly falls outside the core rules (which is a lot, considering the infinite possibilities and variables that could happen in any given story... ...Supplements are helpful because they allow DMs to adjust to these grey areas by using (mostly) pre-playtested material that can easily be balanced against the typical game. IMO, all rules are subject to scrutiny, core or supplement, by DM and PCs. Inclusion is never to be assumed unless decided otherwise. Of course, if a player is getting ahold of every single supplement they can and looting it for spells, feats, and classes, then power creep occurs. A DM needs to step in at that point. That's why everybody should step in before the "looting" occurs, putting all potential new rules under review.
jukar 09-03-05, 11:52 AM	The DM runs the campaign and game. Though I believe DMs should listen to and make the game as fun as possible for the PCs, the way the game approaches fantasy and personal rules is ultimately up to the DM. IMO, all rules are subject to scrutiny, core or supplement, by DM and PCs. Inclusion is never to be assumed unless decided otherwise. That's why everybody should step in before the "looting" occurs, putting all potential new rules under review. And I don't disagree at all. The DM does ultimately run the game, I'm just saying that is my thought on why some DMs are so against supplemental material. It is quite a lot of new stuff at any given time. I personally am somewhat overwhelmed at times at the sheer number of books on any given topic. But that doesn't mean some of them aren't just plain helpful. I work a 60 hour work week, I don't have the time, frankly, to balance and playtest a new set of rules for any unique situations. That's where supplements have proven to be great. Of course, just because a supplement exists doesn't mean you should use it. One can always, and should always, feel free to use their own rules and judgment if they want to. Supplements are just tools, after all. It may be more rewarding for some not to use them. And I agree, when it comes to player-use supplements, it is the DM's responsibility to step in before the cherry-picking begins. Of course, some people just don't. And some people are fine with that. It's about personal taste at the end of the day, I think. Core only is an entirely valid way to play. It's simplistic and elegant, and has it's charms. But not everyone wants that, and that's okay too. I just get tired of people ripping apart supplements for being unbalanced or untraditional. Not all supplements are meant to be used together. They are to be used on a case by case bias. Furthermore, canon should never limit play options. And although it may sound arrogant for me to say it, I really do think some people only play core because it's countercultural to D&D mainstream. The supplements are immensely popular, you can't deny it. And like how some people hate Top 40 radio just because it's en vogue, some people seem to hate supplements merely because everyone else likes them. Just my observations.