Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HomerJaySimpson13 02-01-07, 03:43 PM	Has anyone banned a list of Wotc books from thier game. do you limit books that your players can use? is it OK to limit players to the 3 core books PHB, DMG, MM1 and the Complete and Races series? What are your thoughts on this? What do you do?
Ziggy_Stardust 02-01-07, 03:45 PM	I don't ban book, but more certain combinations.
Tarus 02-01-07, 03:48 PM	I ban any books I don't have, plus I ban most non-core material right out unless a player can explain their reasoning. Of course, when players make characters I work with them closely so its seldom a problem.
IdleAltruism 02-01-07, 04:03 PM	First off as a DM it is your right to ban anything you don't want used. I don't outright ban books. If a player wants base class from outside the PHB they have to ask me, most of the time I'll approve just about anything. In certain situations some classes may not be appropriate so I do not allow them. When a player in my game wants a prestige class, core or not, I must approve it first. I take time to look over feats and spells, usualy I don't have a problem allowing most of them. Generaly I like to have everyone close to or the same race if I go out of the core or use level adjustments. Alot of what I allow players to use is based on the campaign.
drake_vampiel_d 02-01-07, 04:13 PM	My personal rule for books is if I have it you can use it and that includes anything I have PDF or hardcopy of because sometimes I will not have access to all my hardback books but it's always easy to carry my laptop.
Olskool 02-01-07, 04:16 PM	It's totally normal to ban optional books. They're OPTIONAL . Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise has an ulterior motive.
ZombieDragon 02-01-07, 04:19 PM	I usually have a set group of books I primarily use for a given campaign. Anything out of those books are fine. On top of that I will allow other material with the prior approval. I do ban Dragon magazine stuff though.
The ShapeLess One 02-01-07, 04:26 PM	Like Tarus said, I ban anybook that I don't have. Unless the player allows me a few days to read it. Not that all of my players do it, but one of them is huge cheater/ power gamer/ metagamer. All in one. He is a great guy but I have to pay close attention to him or the game will shatter under him. In every single game he playes in that I don't DM he selects the vow of poverty. That is something I have banned from my games. Whats worse about that is he does not use the standard formate for writing his character. (Sometimes we run out of sheets so we use lined paper.) His is all jumbled dark writing. That way he can smear it. Seems he can read it. Sorry about that. Anyhow I ban BoED.
HomerJaySimpson13 02-01-07, 04:38 PM	WOW, that was quick! I plan on letting them play from other sources too as long as it fits the campaign and they get my approval first. Here is what I think I am going to allow: Complete Adventurer Complete Arcane Complete Divine Complete Mage Complete Psionic Complete Scoundrel Complete Warrior Dungeon Master's Guide Expanded Psionics Handbook Monster Manual Player's Handbook Player's Handbook II Races of Destiny Races of Stone Races of the Dragon Races of the Wild Spell Compendium Does this look like a nice variety?
ZombieDragon 02-01-07, 04:53 PM	That should keep them quite happy. It's more books than I usually start with (five of those I don't even own yet:weep:)
lancean 02-01-07, 04:53 PM	Our current campaign uses only the 3 core books and the first 4 Complete Books. Core plus four has worked pretty well for keeping a cap on the truly sick combinations. Next campaign, coming up in a few months, will add the newest Complete Books, the Races books, and the Eberron material (being as the campaign will be set in Eberron). Other books won't be allowed. Really, it's up to what the DM wants to deal with and what they're comfortable with. The players can still play pretty much any concept they can imagine... they just can't use any RULES they want to. A lot of people are confused on that concept. For example... one can have a pious and good character without using the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Archangel_James 02-01-07, 05:06 PM	Anything non-core has to be approved by me first, but I don't outright ban any books (except the BoEF).
LCD2YOU 02-01-07, 05:06 PM	One of the few books I ban everything from is "Unearthed Arcana". I have'nt been calling it "Unearthed Erata" since 1st Edition for nothing. I have yet to see anything useful in that book. As for banning other books, if I don't have it I generally won't let the player use it. Of course things like items, a feat that seems reasonable, spells and other one-off devices that I believe can fit the world I created are allowed, after I've read and re-read it several times.
Kursk 02-01-07, 05:11 PM	Has anyone banned a list of Wotc books from thier game. do you limit books that your players can use? is it OK to limit players to the 3 core books PHB, DMG, MM1 and the Complete and Races series? What are your thoughts on this? What do you do? Core is ALL they can use unless prior permission is obtained to use ANY material from other sources. The reason is that the other material doesn't always mesh well and is hardly playtested as it is.
Necrosis 02-01-07, 05:15 PM	Core only for me-but PC's can take ideas from books for inspiration and or feats if they arn't a game breaker.
High Octane 02-01-07, 05:26 PM	Core, Complete, PHB2, And the Races Of books to me are almost always open. I dont allow the spiked chain and Beguiler, and I dont allow the Warlock or Hexblade in non-evil campaigns. As of now I have yet to DM an evil campaign. Generally I ban things that I find to be more campaign specific. Thus I ban outright the Faerun and Eberron books, as well as Dragonlance, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle (until specified otherwise), Anything Psionics related, The Book of Exalted Deeds, and The Book of Vile Darkness.
LCD2YOU 02-01-07, 05:29 PM	To be honest here, I have banned 3rd party and even WoC books from PLAYER use. The same rule does not apply to very specific and very unique items, villians and or places. I will use what I feel is a good addition to my world and the rules that are with it if I feel it adds to the game. Still, that does not mean the players will have the opportunity to use it.
ornitholestes 02-01-07, 05:45 PM	It depends upon the campaign. I sometimes run general casual games where I allow any material that I or the players happen to have. That said, I also sometimes like to run games with a very specific theme or narrow focus where I only allow certain books. I might do this for "flavor" reasons, but more often it is done to create a particularly strategic environment where different kinds of characters and tactics or used. For example, I really want to start a campaign where there is no magic and the only classes allowed are the fighter, barbarian, rogue, scout, ninja, monk and classes from the Expanded Psionics Handbook and the Book of Nine Swords. There would be very few monsters (or playable races) and the players would fight mostly other humans. Obviously this is an extreme example, but such a setting would play differently then a standard D&D game. I believe that, as DM, balance is my job (not WoTCs). If there is a class/race/build that fits into the setting but is "broken" I would prefer to fix it with house rules then ban it outright. Edit: I agree with LCD2YOU - For my play groups there is nothing wrong with letting the villains have access to material the players don't! I look at this as more of an issue of scenario building over balance.
Some_call_me_Tim 02-01-07, 05:46 PM	It's totally normal to ban optional books. They're OPTIONAL . Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise has an ulterior motive.Yeah, I was going to say I don't ban anything, I just don't allow non-core material. ;) I think its a lot better to allow stuff in as needed/desired rather than including a huge laundry list of things that might not fit in your campaign or play style.
Aryxbez 02-01-07, 05:48 PM	I banned all psionic books since I plainly just don't like it I don't allow any campaign setting books then again noone owns any campaign specific books the only campaign book I would allow would be dragonlance. I ban oriental adventures, since my campaign has no Asian culture. I doubt I would ever allow spell compendium, since I think there is enough spells in D&D already.
Sphyre 02-01-07, 05:57 PM	I have a rule number 1: Don't be a douche. I encourage making effective characters, but otherwise don't try to break the game. In addition, work with the other players so you're all happy with your roles, and there won't be complaining of anyone stealing the spotlight. That said, I allow all 3.5 books that I own or have access to that are not campaign setting specific. I do not allow the environment books (Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack) without DM approval, as most of that stuff is also campaign specific in power. Certain things don't exist, such as Wraithstrike, Thoughtbottles, Power Word Pain, Shivering Touch(Yes, I know it's an environment book, but people don't need to ask, it's a no), and Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell. I would prefer having mature gamers who don't break my rule number 1, rather than restrict my players because I can't trust them not to break the game. When my players are in doubt, I tell them to ask. I like to know what my players characters are so I can challenge them accordingly (as opposed to TPKing them right off the bat because they suck, or them throwing out some stupid combo that destroys the world, and breaks my rule number 1)
ssvegeta555 02-01-07, 06:18 PM	I tend to ban books for the sake of simplicity. I have about 50 books and it's a pain to search through all of them for something to use. So I allow certain books for the campaign and ban the rest. There are exceptions however. I'll allow stuff from banned books on a case-by-case basis.
OravennasBrother 02-01-07, 06:25 PM	I run Core only - meaning everything else is effectively "Banned"
HomerJaySimpson13 02-01-07, 06:31 PM	I tend to ban books for the sake of simplicity. I have about 50 books and it's a pain to search through all of them for something to use. So I allow certain books for the campaign and ban the rest. There are exceptions however. I'll allow stuff from banned books on a case-by-case basis. This is what I was wondering I guess. between me and my players we have about every wotc book out there. and it has become harder and harder to keep track of what all the players are doing. I was wanting to ban some of them for the sake of simplicity but handle special cases by them selves.
Dunsel 02-01-07, 06:47 PM	I allow the core books, all the MMs, and the Dark Sun 3.5 book. All others are not allowed unless the player has a really good good reason. I have allowed this twice in a year.
Solik 02-01-07, 06:50 PM	I generally ban campaign-specific stuff that doesn't fit, but I'm open to argument if a player finds something pretty neutral that they want to make use of or reflavor. I frown on psionics, but I've never had anyone want to use it, so it hasn't been an issue. I don't have munchkin players that force me to ban material, so I normally allow in everything possible. The complexity generally isn't an issue as long as they keep track of their own capabilities. Sometimes we run into problems with specific spells, but never something that really messed up the game. My opinion on the topic is that banning is generally mean-spirited. It shows distrust between a DM and players, and that mistrust is going to lead to other problems anyways. This doesn't apply to bannings due to reasons like "I don't have time to see if your book that I don't have has material that doesn't fit in my campaign" or "our time is limited / you guys are new, so let's just run with Core this time" and such, of course.
tharivol266 02-01-07, 06:54 PM	all core is open as is anything directly tied in with the setting i am in. anything else is ask first and ill tell.
aotrscommander 02-01-07, 06:55 PM	I don't ban whole books usually. My original background is Rolemaster 2nd Ed, where it was literally impossible to use use everything from the expansons at once. So it's always been drilled into my mindset to pick and choose what I will use in a given game. In general, I automatically allow feats and spells (and powers etc). Base classes are often allowed (save for a very few that I am with holding for the moment on the basis of setting - specifically Wu Jen, Shujenja and Samurai from the completes). Prestidge Class are an ask-first in any case, though there is a relatively short list of what's allowed of those and most of the resticted ones are so because I simply find them world-specific or just plain silly. I flat-out disallow any of the non-core races, however. I don't if I'd allow much from books I don't have access to personally (though as I am the one with more rulebooks than most of the rest of both groups combined, that's not been a problem before!) Unless, again it was pretty world unspecific. All that said, I don't have any campaign-specific rulebooks (except for Magic of Faerun and Relics & Rituals (by Sword & Sorcery) both of which I got when 3.0 expansions were limited), nor any of the Races of, nor any of the environment books. for what I have seen, a lot of the information therein is to world-specific for it to be of use to me, so out it goes.
Drohem 02-01-07, 07:06 PM	Basically, I compile my House Rules for a campaign; in which, I pick and choose things that I will allow and not allow. I am open to suggestions from players if they want for their characters, but I have to check it out first.
Gandrel 02-01-07, 07:16 PM	I allow any wotc material that is not especificaly related to any setting. Like I will not alow a warfoged in Forgotten realms campaign.
Novabomb 02-01-07, 07:17 PM	I would like to point out that according to WOTC psionics are CORE. That said, its perfectly reasonable to ban certain core material. To be honest here, I have banned 3rd party and even WoC books from PLAYER use. The same rule does not apply to very specific and very unique items, villians and or places. I will use what I feel is a good addition to my world and the rules that are with it if I feel it adds to the game. Still, that does not mean the players will have the opportunity to use it. This is a bad bad practice. There few things more frustrating to a player than giving villians powers than NPC's could never obtain. Additionally it does not make sense. If you are going to ban something you do so for the following reasons: (item X is to be banned) X is broken X unbalances the game X does not fit the campaign setting I don't want to have to deal with the book X is in If you give X to the NPC's, then obviously none of the previous is applicable. You are pretty much just going "nyah nyah, I can do something you can't EVER...sucker!". Thats the kind of stuff that ruins the suspence of disbelief, and shows a power tripping DM. The only cure that I could see for such a person is the Hammer gun.
Radijs 02-01-07, 07:53 PM	I've out right banned all 3rd party books (mongoose) and dragon magazine. But I'm flexible enough that if a player really want something from one of those sources they've got to admit it for approval prior to taking the feat/prc/weapon/whatever.
High Octane 02-01-07, 07:56 PM	I would like to point out that according to WOTC psionics are CORE. Let it also be noted that WOTC also made the spiked chain core.
Cold Napalm 02-01-07, 08:07 PM	Let it also be noted that WOTC also made the spiked chain core. don't forget the druid... As soon as a DM goes well so and so is banned because it's broken, I ask if the druid is too then. Honestly I allow any books I own (if I just recently bought a book, I reserve the right to spend a few weeks to actually read the damn book before we use it...and figure out the house rules need).
LCD2YOU 02-01-07, 08:08 PM	I would like to point out that according to WOTC psionics are CORE.High Octane handled that one. Still, for most, CORE = DMG(1), MM(1) and PHB(1).That said, its perfectly reasonable to ban certain core material.Yup.This is a bad bad practice. There few things more frustrating to a player than giving villians powers than NPC's could never obtain. Additionally it does not make sense. If you are going to ban something you do so for the following reasons: (item X is to be banned)If one were going to have every other NPC have the power, skill, etc., you'd be correct. What I am talking about here are unique individauls or places that have a power the PCs don't understand and can never possess.X is broken X unbalances the game X does not fit the campaign setting I don't want to have to deal with the book X is in If you give X to the NPC's, then obviously none of the previous is applicable.Correct if one were to give them all to a bunch of NPCs. If one were going to have special NPC bad guys scattered about who have different powers that the PCs can't have then that adds to the flavor of the game by making the villians truly unique.You are pretty much just going "nyah nyah, I can do something you can't EVER...sucker!".Maybe to get it you have to sell your soul to a corrupt nd evil power. Things like that remove the PC from the game and make them a NPC.Thats the kind of stuff that ruins the suspence of disbelief, and shows a power tripping DM. The only cure that I could see for such a person is the Hammer gun.Yup, if every third guard has the Mettle feat and none of the PC fighters can get it, you'd be right. If I give, oh I can't think of anything right now, let's say Corruption Powers, something the PCs will never have, to a singular bad guy, that bad guy becomes very unique. The PCs will always remember, "Hey, remember that mage dude who called himself a Fell Necromancer and had that Cyst thing....?" When done correctly, adds to the flavor of the game as well as the wonder in almost every case.
Kursk 02-01-07, 08:16 PM	High Octane handled that one. Still, for most, CORE = DMG(1), MM(1) and PHB(1).Yup.If one were going to have every other NPC have the power, skill, etc., you'd be correct. What I am talking about here are unique individauls or places that have a power the PCs don't understand and can never possess.Correct if one were to give them all to a bunch of NPCs. If one were going to have special NPC bad guys scattered about who have different powers that the PCs can't have then that adds to the flavor of the game by making the villians truly unique.Maybe to get it you have to sell your soul to a corrupt nd evil power. Things like that remove the PC from the game and make them a NPC.Yup, if every third guard has the Mettle feat and none of the PC fighters can get it, you'd be right. If I give, oh I can't think of anything right now, let's say Corruption Powers, something the PCs will never have, to a singular bad guy, that bad guy becomes very unique. The PCs will always remember, "Hey, remember that mage dude who called himself a Fell Necromancer and had that Cyst thing....?" When done correctly, adds to the flavor of the game as well as the wonder in almost every case. Well said and correct.
Greg K 02-01-07, 08:19 PM	Off the top of my head, for my current campaign: Banned: Book of Exalted Deeds Epic Level Handbook XPH Psionics & Complete Psionics: We use Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook Magic of Incarnum Weapons of Legacy Races of the Dragon Frostburn Races of Stone Manual of the Planes Deities and Demigods any Eberron or FR material Oriental Adventures Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords Tome of Magic DM Only: Book of Vile Darkness Monster Manuals, Fiend Folio Limited content Complete Books: allowed are the Swashbuckler, a handful of Prcs, some spells, some feats, and a few items (from complete Warrior) PHB2: beguiler, druid wild shape variant, fighter variant abilities, some feats and spells are allowed Races of the Wild: expanded skills and some spells allowed Races of Destiny: a few spells are allowed Savage Species: half ogre and some spells are allowed Stormwrack Sandstorm
Sphyre 02-01-07, 08:23 PM	DM Only: Book of Vile Darkness Monster Manuals, Fiend Folio I assume you let wizards, sorcerers, druids and clerics use their summoning spells, correct? They kind of require the MM for that, unless you want to use the headache of adjucating those summons.
Jepeddo 02-01-07, 08:23 PM	I automatically allow anything from PHB, DMG, MM, XPH, the first four Completes, and the EberronCS. My players can use other books, but anything out of these and I'll have no idea what they do, and I need to approve it. We've been playing for a while, and most of the players don't dip into anything other than core for the base classes now.
Magrus 02-01-07, 08:24 PM	The only official books I ban outright are Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. To me, if I wanted to learn new systems of magic, I would pick up Rifts or White Wolf and try out a new system altogether. Stupid move on Wizards part IMO. I do restrict certain things on an ask they show up basis. I smack down hard on crazy multiclassing, and I have houserules to correct things that I think are just stupid to mix into this as well.
Burgundy Lotus 02-01-07, 08:26 PM	I don't outright ban things *cough*Paladin*cough*, ...okay other then the Paladin, but there are a lot of things I just don't buy or use.
Jepeddo 02-01-07, 08:26 PM	The only official books I ban outright are Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. To me, if I wanted to learn new systems of magic, I would pick up Rifts or White Wolf and try out a new system altogether. Stupid move on Wizards part IMO. I do restrict certain things on a ask they show up basis. I smack down hard on crazy multiclassing, and I have houserules to correct things that I think are just stupid to mix into this as well. Those two books are definitely ones that I would just shake my head at. I flipped through them and told my players that they probably wouldn't be using them if they bought them.
High Octane 02-01-07, 08:28 PM	I assume you let wizards, sorcerers, druids and clerics use their summoning spells, correct? They kind of require the MM for that, unless you want to use the headache of adjucating those summons. Yes but I try my best to limit their viewing of it. After all, having an MM right there is kind of tempting to flip through and see the stats of all the things you are fighting. Ideally the druid should have a list or even a printout of all the monsters he is going to summon. As a druid I tried to have a pattern to the animals I summoned, since a druid would.
HamHam 02-01-07, 08:30 PM	Banning books is not a DM call. It's a decision for the entire group to make in as democratic a way as possible.
Sphyre 02-01-07, 09:00 PM	Yes but I try my best to limit their viewing of it. After all, having an MM right there is kind of tempting to flip through and see the stats of all the things you are fighting. Ideally the druid should have a list or even a printout of all the monsters he is going to summon. As a druid I tried to have a pattern to the animals I summoned, since a druid would. Someone once linked a bunch of word files for all the summons on the forum. I have them on my laptop, so when I'm gaming, I just open up the correct file for the spell. I DM my own campaign, along with having an exceptional memory. Often, I'll be able to tell what I'm fighting in the games I play because I've looked through it in the past or used it as a DM. I don't like metagaming so it isn't a problem though. Just because a monster is there, doesn't mean it's not a challenge to face it, esspecially in the hands of a competent DM.
Greg K 02-01-07, 09:15 PM	Banning books is not a DM call. It's a decision for the entire group to make in as democratic a way as possible. As far as I am concerned it is only a group call by individual members agreeing to participate or not participate in campaign.
STAT 02-01-07, 09:44 PM	My general rule is to allow a core group of books who's content I am fairly comfortable with and everything else on a case by case basis. In my current campaign it's something like: - Core - The first 4 complete books - FR campaign setting - Player's handbook 2 Aside from that you have to ask but as of yet I have never denied someone material they wanted to bring in for their charater. I do have a small selection of things I explicitly ban: - Any new rules system such as Tome of Battle, Psionics and Incarnum (although I have to say the good things I've heard about ToB are making me curious) - Any spell outside of the PHB (I have enough trouble remembering what all of the ones in there do) I personally don't get in a tizzy about players drawing from a lot of sources because the fact of the matter is that a player is only going to use enough material to build one character. Most of the time that means 1 or 2 base classes, a prestige or two and seven or so feats. By not worrying about whether a book is allowed or not I just let the player do all the leg work and then decide if there's a problem.
ornitholestes 02-01-07, 10:02 PM	I would like to point out that according to WOTC psionics are CORE. That said, its perfectly reasonable to ban certain core material. This is a bad bad practice. There few things more frustrating to a player than giving villians powers than NPC's could never obtain. Additionally it does not make sense. If you are going to ban something you do so for the following reasons: (item X is to be banned) X is broken X unbalances the game X does not fit the campaign setting I don't want to have to deal with the book X is in If you give X to the NPC's, then obviously none of the previous is applicable. You are pretty much just going "nyah nyah, I can do something you can't EVER...sucker!". Thats the kind of stuff that ruins the suspence of disbelief, and shows a power tripping DM. The only cure that I could see for such a person is the Hammer gun. I must respectfully disagree - though I realize this is a matter of play style. After, all letting the villains have powers that are unique to them is a staple of good story telling. If my villain is a Yugoloth, do I have to make fiends a playable race? Story telling is full of unique and special bad guys with rare and wonderful powers, even entire evil organizations with special powers. I might place ninjas in my campaign and make them a secret order of assassins, if that order is not willing to recruit the players then the players can never learn their secrets. Bilbo Baggins could never fly and breath fire like Smaug, the Ghost Buster's couldn't transform into a marshmallow man and stomp the city, and the Pevensies couldn't turn people to stone. I really think this doesn't make the game less believable or "real". I was not born into the English monarchy so I will never be the king of England. I am human so I will never fly by my own power, does that mean birds stretch my suspension of disbelief. As long as the players have equal (or at least balanced) access to game options I feel no need to let them access Everything in the game world. I do understand and respect the everyone or no one play style, but I have to disagree its the only legitimate one. So if I need a "hammer gun" bring it on.
Ramses III 02-01-07, 10:11 PM	The only book I've ever banned outright is BoED. Anything else is on a case-by-case basis, but I don't allow material from books I don't own. Heck, I ban Core material if I think it's broken or just ridiculous (Natural Spell, wild armor, PAO).
Greg K 02-02-07, 12:03 AM	I would like to point out that according to WOTC psionics are CORE. Can you point me to where WOTC has stated that psionics are core?
Novabomb 02-02-07, 12:19 AM	Firstly, I owe LCD2YOU an apology. I forgot that you were big on the good only campaigns. I run under the assumption that one can play any alignment in a given world (My Bad). It is a preconceived notion that I have that I should have considered the possiblity of being invalid. The only official books I ban outright are Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. To me, if I wanted to learn new systems of magic, I would pick up Rifts or White Wolf and try out a new system altogether. Stupid move on Wizards part IMO. I do restrict certain things on an ask they show up basis. I smack down hard on crazy multiclassing, and I have houserules to correct things that I think are just stupid to mix into this as well. <Sarcasm> Yeah stupid wizards for trying to close the chasm in power between casters and everyone else with ToB. We should burn them at the stake for trying to balance the system. </Sarcasm> To be fair Complete Mage does have a cosiderable amount of broken stuff. Banning books is not a DM call. It's a decision for the entire group to make in as democratic a way as possible. Wrong. The DM is the one who has to run the game, so it is his/her call. The DM is in charge of rules abjucation which means that he/she may decide the types of effects that he/she is willing to deal with. Additionally the DM is often the world builder. So the DM is totally within its rights to limit material based on flavor, poor mechanics. DND is not a damn democracy. It is a representative republic; the players give power to the DM, but the DM makes the rules.
John Paul Stoddard 02-02-07, 12:25 AM	I use PHB, MM, DMG Only
Magrus 02-02-07, 12:29 AM	<Sarcasm> Yeah stupid wizards for trying to close the chasm in power between casters and everyone else with ToB. We should burn them at the stake for trying to balance the system. </Sarcasm> To be fair Complete Mage does have a cosiderable amount of broken stuff. Stupid wizards for not balancing things properly in the first place, or just fixing the classes. Instead, they come out with new stuff you have to PAY for in order to fix their mistakes. New rules to learn and absorb in order to cope with their insufficiencies. :rolleyes: That would be like a restuarant charging you for the new meal you just got because they burned everything in the first one so badly you couldn't eat it. To be fair, most of the suppliments have broken stuff. I'll agree with you there. I don't allow just anything from any book.
ssvegeta555 02-02-07, 12:31 AM	Can you point me to where WOTC has stated that psionics are core? The back of Complete Psionics. :P
LCD2YOU 02-02-07, 09:18 AM	Firstly, I owe LCD2YOU an apology. I forgot that you were big on the good only campaigns. I run under the assumption that one can play any alignment in a given world (My Bad). It is a preconceived notion that I have that I should have considered the possiblity of being invalid. (snip)Thanks but none needed as I have also restricted "good" or "neutral" feats and powers from PCs on a very limited and on unique circumstances. Like I restricted a feat, I think it was Mettle from people who did not live in a certain valley. They had to live there for at least 90% of their time. Travel by magical means automatically broke their connection to the land. That meant they lost the feat. It took a full year to get it back. It was why a certain valley was nearly unconquerable by magical forces as the entire area had not only a slight anti-magic feel, but the people were highly resistant to magical influence or forces.Wrong. The DM is the one who has to run the game, so it is his/her call. The DM is in charge of rules abjucation which means that he/she may decide the types of effects that he/she is willing to deal with. Additionally the DM is often the world builder. So the DM is totally within its rights to limit material based on flavor, poor mechanics. DND is not a damn democracy. It is a representative republic; the players give power to the DM, but the DM makes the rules.Yup.
OravennasBrother 02-02-07, 10:41 AM	Banning books is not a DM call. It's a decision for the entire group to make in as democratic a way as possible. OK YOU DM, and then YOU can pick the banned books however you like. Where I live, DM's are rare and players are a dime a dozen. Anyone who can't stand the restriction to core is WELCOME to run and admit whatever they want. VERY democratic, if you ask me.
Solik 02-02-07, 10:50 AM	Funny enough, that's exactly how it's happened around here. No one has ever had the guts to suggest running a Core-only game (or otherwise boringly limited), given that I or a couple others are perfectly happy to run Almost Everything games. I prefer playing to DMing, but that doesn't mean I'll subject myself to that.
Sereno 02-02-07, 11:04 AM	No one has ever had the guts to suggest running a Core-only game (or otherwise boringly limited) Does this preclude that a Core-only game might not be boring? Personally, I run a Core + Eberron campaign; meaning anything in Core (including Psionics, which I do believe is Core) or an Eberron supplement is already pre-approved, but I don't want other campaign-specific stuff in my game (no FR organization PrCs or specialized regional feats). I don't own any of the Complete books, but would allow something in on a case-by-case basis.
Solik 02-02-07, 11:07 AM	It depends on what you enjoy. I enjoy implementing my character using a wide array of options. That's half the fun for me. Being stuck with Core means I either have to shoehorn or pick from a smaller set of concepts.
Greg K 02-02-07, 11:20 AM	Funny enough, that's exactly how it's happened around here. No one has ever had the guts to suggest running a Core-only game (or otherwise boringly limited), given that I or a couple others are perfectly happy to run Almost Everything games. I prefer playing to DMing, but that doesn't mean I'll subject myself to that. Definitely funny to see different tastes, playstyles, and experiences. I find Everything or Almost Everything to be the most unfun games-right after being in a game where the players are tied to the rails of the DMs preplanned plot). I'd rather not play in such a game and definitely wouldn't have fun running one. And, having played in a group with multiple good GMs, it was interesting that I ran the most limited (albeit not core only game) and, yet, I could never get a long break from DMing. People were so embroiled in the characters, the setting and what was happening that, regardless of who else was DMing, the other players would ask me when I would be ready to start back up as they wanted to get back to the game I ran. Oh, and over the past year while taking a break from DND to play M&M, the players still mention that the desire to pick up my DND campaign once the current M&M campaign ends.
kyeudo 02-02-07, 12:44 PM	Personaly, I run with the base idea that if I read over it first, I'll allow it. I own more stuff than any of my players, so it hasn't become a problem yet, although the spell compendium will propably have more than a few surprises in it.
TwistedPuppy 02-02-07, 01:09 PM	A common misconception on the boards is that a DM that allows just about anything is always going to be better than a more restrictive DM. That is not true. Of course, I'm sure WotC appreciates the sentiment, as it keeps the D&D arms race going. Personally, I'd rather be in a core only game with a competent DM than an almost-anything game with a poor one.
Toloran 02-02-07, 01:18 PM	I allow all core and the complete series, anything beyond that then either A) I have to own it or B) they have to let me borrow it for a week. Beyond that, I generally allow everything but ban certain material (items, feats, etc).
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-02-07, 01:19 PM	Anything that I don't have my own copy of is pretty much automatically banned. I tried to allow a book that I didn't have once, but the player repeatedly wouldn't let me borrow it so I could familiarize myself with how the options he was using for his character worked, so I ended up asking him to make a new character. If I don't own it but a player really wants to use it, I'll let him under the condition that I can borrow it for a period of one week prior to the first session of the game. That said, the only books I actually ban outright are Unearthed Arcana and Magic of Incarnum.
John Paul Stoddard 02-02-07, 01:22 PM	The back of Complete Psionics. :P Wow so now every Suppliment will state that you will need the Following Books to Play: PHB, MM, DMG, CP. If It ain't in the PHB (for Player) or the MM, DMG ( for DM) I don't care what it says in the back of CP...its not core. Those are the Only Books our group uses. and Unless WOTC starts giving our group free books, thats all we will ever use.. Unless We like the Magic Item Compendium..then we will adopt it.
wonlee76 02-02-07, 02:03 PM	If It ain't in the PHB (for Player) or the MM, DMG ( for DM) I don't care what it says in the back of CP...its not core. Those are the Only Books our group uses. and Unless WOTC starts giving our group free books, thats all we will ever use.. Unless We like the Magic Item Compendium..then we will adopt it. Ummm, since the Expanded Psionics Handbook is part of the SRD, doesn't that mean its free...
Novabomb 02-02-07, 03:39 PM	Wow so now every Suppliment will state that you will need the Following Books to Play: PHB, MM, DMG, CP. If It ain't in the PHB (for Player) or the MM, DMG ( for DM) I don't care what it says in the back of CP...its not core. Those are the Only Books our group uses. and Unless WOTC starts giving our group free books, thats all we will ever use.. Unless We like the Magic Item Compendium..then we will adopt it. Dude, the back of the CP says EPH is core (it doesn't say the CP is core). WOTC has in fact given you free books, it is call the SRD. Additionally, the EPH is incorporated into the SRD. Consider your argument shot.
Imban 02-02-07, 04:44 PM	Uh, for the (aborted due to RL problems) campaign I ran last summer and plan on revisiting later this year, I allowed pretty much any D&D or D&D-compatible book with few limitations. As far as I can remember, the limitations included that I had to own or have access to the book (not usually a meaningful limitation - Cityscape and Fiendish Codex II are the only WotC splatbooks currently out there that fall into this category), that the Epic Level Handbook (and related sections of the SRD)'s core rules were likely to be thrown out if they ever mattered, and a prohibition against third-party books that change the rules of the game in ways that bother me - see the Book of Erotic Fantasy and adding a seventh statistic to the game. There were a few other restrictions that didn't apply on a per-book basis, such as a few story restrictions (against material that was too strongly tied to another campaign setting, or (required) planar travel or planar gates of any sort) and rules-based restrictions (abilities which cause no-save instant death are strictly prohibited, executing engines or loops is strictly prohibited) that kept the game from going too far off into crazy land. Stuff found on a forum or someone's website was hardcore banned. I have an irrational dislike of it, sorry. Everything you chose did need to be approved, however - with my allowing as much stuff as I did, there wasn't really any option but to do this, especially since third-party books frequently have crazy stuff in them that I don't just know by name. --- As far as the "XPH is Core" thing, it is most emphatically not considered such by most people who are referring to it in the sense of core-only games. However, at least in my point of view, the "core" of D&D is pretty well what's on the SRD, because it's what's freely available and most developed for in other WotC books and third-party books. So the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, the Monster Manual, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, the Epic Level Handbook, and the first section of Deities and Demigods.
WayneTheGame 02-02-07, 04:58 PM	My suggestion is to always LIMIT, never BAN. What I mean is explicitly say that Core is allowed, and that you are open to things from other books (the Complete XXX series, for example) on a case-by-case basis. DMs who ban are far too often on some kind of powertrip and/or just ignorant (you would not believe the number of people I have spoken to who erroneously believe that anything non-Core is broken/overpowered/for munchkins/etc.); yes I realize that there are perfectly valid reasons for sticking to the Core rules (online games, for instance, since everyone can access the SRD), but any decent DM should at least consider non-Core material if there is a good reason for it.
John Paul Stoddard 02-02-07, 05:10 PM	Dude, the back of the CP says EPH is core (it doesn't say the CP is core). WOTC has in fact given you free books, it is call the SRD. Additionally, the EPH is incorporated into the SRD. Consider your argument shot. Thats not a Book...A SRD is Not a Free Hardbound Book....If they really want to Impress with free stuff..Give away free PDFs of Hardbound books. SRD is only useful if you are willing to print it out at your own expense or have a computer at game side..Same thing with PDFs. Hardbound books don't reguire printing nor a computer to use.
nimrodii 02-02-07, 05:40 PM	I allow nearly everything even 3rd party as long as it fits into a setting, and I have yet to have anything not fit into a setting.
Radijs 02-02-07, 06:09 PM	I considered running a core-only game but there's so much fun stuff I tend to get from splatbooks to use in my campaign that I'd feel rather limited if I use only the basic books.
Tony Vargas 02-02-07, 06:36 PM	Has anyone banned a list of Wotc books from thier game.Yes. You see it quite often, in fact. do you limit books that your players can use?After a fashion. I have no objection to players using any books they like for inspiration, for instance, and I don't generally ban or OK whole books... is it OK to limit players to the 3 core books PHB, DMG, MM1 and the Complete and Races series? Yes. In fact, it's even OK to limit them to the PH (if you're starting them at 1st level). What are your thoughts on this?I honestly think the game works better if you stick mostly to core rules and introduce only what really fits your campaign. I also think there are some core rules that could use modification, but that's not something I'd advocate for most DMs. What do you do?I usually put together a set of house rules for a given campaign that may incoporate non-core material selectively or change material from non-core or even core sources, either for balance or to suit the feel of the campaign I'm going for.
Jell_Moo 02-02-07, 07:59 PM	I tend to go on a campiagn by campaign basis, and when I hand out my prepared campaign package, it will list what is available by default. That being said, if somebody realy wants to use somethig from another source, I have no prolem with that. If I set out a list of classes and then one of the players says that he really wants to play, say a Beguiler, I'm fine with that. It may have certain campaign remifications (such as members of that class are exceptionally rare), but I see no reason to ban anything. I'm never worried about balance (my group is not interested in breaking the game) and I have found very few things that are flat out way more powerful than anything already found in Core like the Cleric ir Druid (loophole builkds like PunPun excluded of course). Ultimately, I agree with the notion that the players and the DM should come to a group decision as to what's allowed. The game is all about having fun, and if somebody would have a better time playing a Warlock or whatever, why stop him? Of course, this works with my group because we have a rotating DM system, and actually get along well.
angel_raziel 02-02-07, 08:36 PM	I ban books I don't have, and then I sometimes ban things from certain books, like in my game, clerics are banned.
Type2Demon 02-02-07, 08:59 PM	There is nothing wrong with banning things that do not fit in your particular campaign... For instance, If I'm running a Norse style campaign set in the frozen north, You are not going to be allowed to run a Drow Samurai and use feats from Oriental Adventures. I call that a campaign "Flavor Breaker" and its not good. IMC spells from other splat books will be introduced by me as special rewards or training for joining a special organization. You don't just suddenly have access to them when you level up.
OneWinged4ngel 02-02-07, 11:24 PM	I don't ban books. I disallow various things FROM books. Anything that isn't core (and some things in core are not allowed, I might add) will *potentially* be allowed, but it has to be run by me first. Basically, I have to approve every noncore feat, spell, etc the players want to use. However, I see little point to banning whole books just because some things in them are bad.
LCD2YOU 02-03-07, 07:42 AM	I don't ban books. I disallow various things FROM books. Anything that isn't core (and some things in core are not allowed, I might add) will *potentially* be allowed, but it has to be run by me first. Basically, I have to approve every noncore feat, spell, etc the players want to use. However, I see little point to banning whole books just because some things in them are bad.In my personal opinion, some books shouldn't be. Now this might be predjudice from past releases, but books like the awful "Unearthed Erata" should never be bought to make TSR and now WoC work harder than release crap like that.
Lethanic 02-03-07, 08:12 AM	Funny enough, that's exactly how it's happened around here. No one has ever had the guts to suggest running a Core-only game (or otherwise boringly limited), given that I or a couple others are perfectly happy to run Almost Everything games. I prefer playing to DMing, but that doesn't mean I'll subject myself to that. I have run a core only game before. It works fine. truly creative players are able to come up with interesting concepts without the use of 15 books. Well. Core only plus homebrew material that fits into the campaign specifically.
dungeonmasterblog 02-03-07, 01:52 PM	I have somewhat of an advantage (if you can call it that). My players are cheap so they rely on me to buy the books (although my playing has been very limited). I then introduce what I want. If a player reads something that they want to implement, we talk about it putting it in but I reserve final say as to what goes into the game. Dungeon Master http://www.dungeonsdragonsblog.com