PDA

View Full Version : Referencing a Large Library: Why the dislike? [Any But Especially 3.P]



Endarire
2010-06-11, 11:58 PM
Certain people dislike the notion of referencing more than X sources when making a character. I understand if the group lacks access to a resource, but saying, "Pick your favorite X sources" would make me want to take the best stuff from those sources and not necessarily be gentlemanly about it.

Some argue, "Pulling from so many sources creates overpowered synergies!" Remember, Player's Guide to Faerun has Persistent Spell and Incantatrix and Races of Stone has Earth Spell and Shadowcraft Mage. I'm fairly certain people who worked on a book together didn't fully collaborate on the rules, nor know exactly what they were doing.

For a non-caster, I need non-core options to stay competitive and entertained. For a caster, I can break the game in many ways with only core material. Polymorph, teleport, contact other plane, and magic in general make the expected pseudo-medieval setting harder to swallow with this sort of power available.

Keld Denar
2010-06-12, 12:12 AM
I agree with you on all points. That is all.

Eloi
2010-06-12, 12:23 AM
Certain people dislike the notion of referencing more than X sources when making a character. I understand if the group lacks access to a resource, but saying, "Pick your favorite X sources" would make me want to take the best stuff from those sources and not necessarily be gentlemanly about it.

Some argue, "Pulling from so many sources creates overpowered synergies!" Remember, Player's Guide to Faerun has Persistent Spell and Incantatrix and Races of Stone has Earth Spell and Shadowcraft Mage. I'm fairly certain people who worked on a book together didn't fully collaborate on the rules, nor know exactly what they were doing.

For a non-caster, I need non-core options to stay competitive and entertained. For a caster, I can break the game in many ways with only core material. Polymorph, teleport, contact other plane, and magic in general make the expected pseudo-medieval setting harder to swallow with this sort of power available.

Well true, its bad to have a set number limit, but the truth is some DMs probably don't appreciate it because they might not have all of the books you reference, making it hard to understand and tune the story to your character.

Swordgleam
2010-06-12, 12:27 AM
It just gets inconvenient. Whenever you want to look something up you have to figure out which of half a dozen books it's from and then go find that book and then find the page, etc.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-12, 12:43 AM
It just gets inconvenient. Whenever you want to look something up you have to figure out which of half a dozen books it's from and then go find that book and then find the page, etc.

This can be countered just as easily by becoming familiar with all relevant material before bringing a character to the table. The only in-game book referencing I've ever had to do since my second 3.5 character was checking for verbal and somatic components of spells and, in a few (desperate, golem-fighting) cases, SR. Everything else is covered by my knowledge of the relevant material, and the occasional note on the margin of my sheet, reminding me of, say, the various sources of my bonuses to my Jump check, or the ability used to calculate specific save DCs. If you aren't confident in your own knowledge, simply make yourself a more extensive "cheat sheet," with book and page references in case something comes up that you didn't anticipate and you require the full text of an ability.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 01:01 AM
Because the DM is unfamilar or only passingly familiar with the majority of non-core sources and doesn't want to have to read 12 books per character to brush up. Seriously, I own all the books and I've read them, but with the exception of psionics and warlocks, I've use the variant power systems maybe once each.

If I were to allow people to cherry pick classes from tons of sources, I would likely have to reread 20 books instead of 5. And if you would become ungentlemanly at the table just to spite the DM for a rule you didn't like, I don't want to play with you. For that matter, if you would become notably ungentlemanly for any reason, I probably wouldn't want to play with you.

UglyPanda
2010-06-12, 01:19 AM
I typically just pick a small number of common books and say "This is what's allowed, nothing else unless you really need it."

It's not because it's less work for me (I often have access to the most books), it's that when different players have access to different amounts of books, it creates an uneven playing field and people feel left out or inadequate. There are situations in which more books and certain options should be added to make some players feel better about their characters, but those should be available to everyone.

jokey665
2010-06-12, 01:33 AM
As a DM I'm very open to just about everything. I allow all WotC 3.5 and 3.0 books in my games with a light banning sprinkled on top (mostly Incantatrix, Tainted Scholar and a handful of others).

I have a slowly-growing list of 3rd party content I allow as well; I add books as I finish reading them, basically. I also tend to allow homebrew that players find that they think they'll enjoy, as long as it isn't totally ridiculous.

I like options as a player and I realize that mindset is very common, so I try to give that to my players. Do unto others, and all that.

Ormur
2010-06-12, 01:47 AM
I think I often use at least 10 books for most mid-level NPC that I want to challenge the players. I bet my players use even more. But really most of the options are in a handful of books (PHB, Spell Compendium, Magic Item compendium, ToB and whatever book their non-core class or prestige class is from) with the rest being a single feat, like craven from Champions of Ruin or a Devotion feat from Complete Champion.

Most of us have most of the books and the rest don't have to own a copy of some obscure book to have a feat from it recommended to them.

Gralamin
2010-06-12, 01:54 AM
I play mostly 4e, and have DDI. Any given problem goes away with the ability to reference the entire 4e database. :smallcool:

With 3.5, I'll usually allow all books if I know the players are worse optimizers then I am. If I know they are better (Say, if I ever DMed for Doc Roc or something), I'd likely discuss with them which sources should be allowed to strike a balance between my DMing ability, and their fun.

So... I've never had this problem! :smallbiggrin:

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-12, 02:01 AM
I allow pretty much all books, and allow most of the material from each. I personally agree with the OP here.

However, I'm only willing to do that because I've read them all and am familiar with them. I don't think a DM should allow things from books he's never heard of unless the players can bring a copy. Even then he shouldn't be forced to accept it if he's uncomfortable with his knowledge of the book.

Thespianus
2010-06-12, 02:25 AM
If it's a feat, I really don't understand the last argument. The feat text is normally 10 lines of text, it's not like it would take a DM too long to understand the feat.

If it's a completely new system of magic (like ToM, which I personally never really understood at all, but I haven't really studied it in detail), I can understand the hesitation, but if it's feats or alternative class features, or spells from a new source... It can't be that hard to incorporate into the campaign.

I'd say "All official sources are ok, but individual combinations can be smacked down if you go crazy".

Banning a book because it contains one crazy Spell or an insane Feat seems wrong.

Cardea
2010-06-12, 02:33 AM
It takes group session time when someone has to reference something from a book that's off-hand. At my gaming table, we usually have three Player's Handbooks floating around, a Spell Compendium, Complete Arcane, Complete Adventurer and Complete Warrior. Anything else, someone specifically must have the book on hand, and has to pull out an infamous "Let me look up the..." because they usually don't have the on-hand knowledge of whatever it is they are using.

That's the argument my DM has, and thus us players have reached a compromise.

We have to have the book on hand, and we have to have each thing we use sticky noted by page, or be able to say whatever it is we're using off the top of our hat. (Example: Monkey Grip. Use one size larger weapon, -2 Penalty when we do.) If we don't have it sticky noted, or we misquote what the feat does, all monsters in the room got tougher. We must also reference it in less than fifteen seconds.

Terazul
2010-06-12, 02:43 AM
It takes group session time when someone has to reference something from a book that's off-hand. At my gaming table, we usually have three Player's Handbooks floating around, a Spell Compendium, Complete Arcane, Complete Adventurer and Complete Warrior. Anything else, someone specifically must have the book on hand, and has to pull out an infamous "Let me look up the..." because they usually don't have the on-hand knowledge of whatever it is they are using.


...What is with people and like, not writing down what your abilities do. Am I the only person that uses note cards with all their important stuff on it that they show to the DM before the session starts so there won't be any "surprises" as to what does what to whom?

Cardea
2010-06-12, 02:47 AM
...What is with people and like, not writing down what your abilities do. Am I the only person that uses note cards with all their important stuff on it that they show to the DM before the session starts so there won't be any "surprises" as to what does what to whom?
Not the slightest clue. I do it, because I like running Variants as a Wizard or a Sorcerer, and occasionally it gets too confusing to memorize all of where it comes from.

Yora
2010-06-12, 02:59 AM
I usually play core only. The game is not about optimizing character builds. You can make it about builds, but you don't have to.
And almost all additional classes, feats, items, (and to a lesser extend spells), don't add to the story at all. I'd say at least 3/4 of all prestige classes are completely useless and of the rest almost every character concept can be played with a combination of core classes.
Also, I play mostly with people who don't own a single book and we usually play at low levels, so characters rarely have more than 4 to 6 feats or qualify for prestige classes. It mostly makes it harder to keep track of things and decide on which of the thousands of options you pick.

Saph
2010-06-12, 04:21 AM
Because the more sources a character uses, and the more obscure the sources are, the more effort it is to check the character. You're requiring the DM to do more work.

Now speaking as a DM here, the amount of work I'm willing to do depends a lot on the player's motivations. If Prestige Class X is really important to your character concept, then I don't mind doing the work to track down the book to learn it. However, if the reasoning is just "It makes me do 20% more damage" then I'm a lot less likely to care.

This brings us to the other reason many people are dubious about allowing too many books:


For a non-caster, I need non-core options to stay competitive and entertained. For a caster, I can break the game in many ways with only core material. Polymorph, teleport, contact other plane, and magic in general make the expected pseudo-medieval setting harder to swallow with this sort of power available.

This sort of thing is a major red flag for many DMs. You "need to stay competitive"? What do you think this is, the NFL? As a general rule of thumb, the players who are most bothered about "staying competitive" are exactly the ones who need to be monitored most carefully.

Now that said, I allow pretty much all books for my games, but that's because I'm familiar with a very wide variety of stuff. In turn it's understood that the players are expected not to abuse this, and build their characters sensibly. But if I'm playing in a game with a less experienced DM who only owns the 3 core books and doesn't even have all that great a grip on the basic rules, I'm not going to insist that I should be able to play my character which draws from 15 sourcebooks, because that's just being a jerk.

Amphetryon
2010-06-12, 05:05 AM
While I agree in principle with the OP, another consideration has to do with simply juggling that large number of sources. It's my experience that the DM is usually the one with the most source books. It's not my experience that the game is always played at the DM's house. Asking the DM to schlep 16 books to and from the game every week so that you have all the necessary materials to play your Necropolitan Hexblade/Shooting Star Ranger/Suel Arcanamach/Fleshwarper or whatever is significant, particularly in cases like mine where the DM doesn't drive.

hamishspence
2010-06-12, 05:27 AM
Printing out the bit with the rules you need might do it.

If the DM has inspected the relevant rules, and passed them, then it should be ok- as long as the player keeps a copy of the rules close to hand. So, when he uses a feat, or spell, or PRC, he can show the other players or the DM that it works as is described.

Comet
2010-06-12, 07:09 AM
I find that D&D books are pretty dry when it comes to the writing itself, so I'm not really interested in reading any more books about it than I have to.
Hence, we play core only and it seems to be working fine for us. I've been interested in trying out Psionics, mind, but we shall see.

For other systems... I have a whole shelf full of New World of Darkness material, for example. The books are full of non-mechanical text, flavour and stories that are fun to read even if you're not going to be using them in a game. They're just more enjoyable, since long lists of rules and mechanics don't really excite me.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 07:20 AM
3.5

This is the AstralFire core:
d20srd
Tome of Battle
Complete Warrior
Complete Scoundrel
Complete Adventurer

If you are pulling from more than three books outside of this, you are likely too concerned with your performance for my tastes, as I do not like high powered games and I would rather deal with Tome of Battle than your charger build that's one trick riding a winged pony. Also, it requires me to look up more stuff. This is a very rough rule of thumb, as this is where my 'dislike' kicks in, and not a 'disallow.'

Star Wars Saga

Star Wars Saga Edition Core Rulebook
Scum & Villainy
Starships of the Galaxy
Jedi Academy Training Manual

That's my core. Pull from more than this and that's fine, as long as I know long enough beforehand to be able to reference and check the material.

4E

Yay DDI.

Coidzor
2010-06-12, 07:43 AM
It just seems like common courtesy to provide the relevant excerpts of the texts if the DM doesn't possess the books himself to reference them. It's mostly done for feats anyway, isn't it? Or a different class variant...

And unless you're introducing the DM to a new helping of mechanics like Psionics or ToB or Incarnum or maybe even skill tricks, it's not that much to take a look at the feats and class of the character as a whole and say, "ok, this is fine," or "no, I'm not comfortable with this or that character ability, especially since I've removed teleportation-related spells."

Curmudgeon
2010-06-12, 08:45 AM
I typically just pick a small number of common books and say "This is what's allowed, nothing else unless you really need it."
Some classes really need lots of books; Rogues in particular. I typically use more than 20 books by the time the character level gets into the teens.

The restrictive approach isn't going to hurt the most powerful characters much, if at all. The core books + Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, and Spell Compendium are plenty to make a very powerful Wizard. But a Monk without access to diverse sources (at least including Arms and Equipment Guide, Exemplars of Evil, and Tome of Battle) is just laughably ineffective.

Restricting books in an attempt at reducing PC power creates more powerful characters. Do that to me and I'll go all-core: a Druid with Natural Spell, which is a much stronger character than the Rogues I typically play.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-12, 09:02 AM
Some argue, "Pulling from so many sources creates overpowered synergies!" Remember, Player's Guide to Faerun has Persistent Spell and Incantatrix and Races of Stone has Earth Spell and Shadowcraft Mage. I'm fairly certain people who worked on a book together didn't fully collaborate on the rules, nor know exactly what they were doing.

Persistent spell is an exceptional example of why people don't like pulling from a lot of sources. That feat is not broken. There's nothing wrong with sacking a 9th level spell to have a 3rd level effect last all day in my book. By the time you could cast that persistent haste spell your CL and spell slots would probably be sufficient anyways. It only becomes broken in combinations that subvert the sacrifice required letting you create a 9th level (or greater) effect at much lower levels.

Now Incantatrix in the same book, obviously a way there but that's from poor design of a lower level ability. The Incantatrix final ability of improved metamagic is hardly a dent, one less metamagic level is nice but still demands other sources before it becomes true cheese. And some of the worst from that class is entirely interpretive munchkin-ing (negative spell levels, my arse) anyways. Though yes there are still books that create a great deal of cheese from just one source.

However this it is a false dichotomy to suppose that the potential of core plus one book is the same potential as core plus every book, therefore the numbers don't matter.

The true Divine Metacheese for example needs one common book for the metamagic and then a fairly uncommon one for the nightsticks, combined with another source for Persistent to make Divine Power more then a short duration buff. That's three sources for a DM to consider and weigh what part (if any) he wants to counter.


For a non-caster, I need non-core options to stay competitive and entertained. For a caster, I can break the game in many ways with only core material. Polymorph, teleport, contact other plane, and magic in general make the expected pseudo-medieval setting harder to swallow with this sort of power available.

If you have a DM that is allowing abusive polymorphing or the things you actually have to do to make the other game breaking... then they probably don't care enough to ban multiple sources in the first place.

Breaking the game, is breaking the game, is breaking the game.

Coidzor
2010-06-12, 09:31 AM
Persistent spell is an exceptional example of why people don't like pulling from a lot of sources. That feat is not broken. There's nothing wrong with sacking a 9th level spell to have a 3rd level effect last all day in my book. By the time you could cast that persistent haste spell your CL and spell slots would probably be sufficient anyways. It only becomes broken in combinations that subvert the sacrifice required letting you create a 9th level (or greater) effect at much lower levels.

...So by using it with the PHB then? Two books isn't pulling from a lot of sources, especially when one of the sources is the basic rulebook of the game. It becomes fun times broken with more spells and nightsticks, but, hey, there's broken and then there's more broken. And, well, eliminating the reason/need/role of one of the basic classes is technically breaking the system. Sure, they made it easy to axe the fighter, but, there you go.


However this it is a false dichotomy to suppose that the potential of core plus one book is the same potential as core plus every book, therefore the numbers don't matter.

I've not seen that argued. I've seen, "Ok, the game can be broken in 1 book, someone who wants to break the game has all the tools they need to do so. A player is unlikely to break the game accidentally, especially if they're deliberately planning their character's development. Therefore it only hurts those who have legitimate reasons to want to however many books counts as 'a large library' or 'lots of sources,' as those who wish to break the game are not stymied by banning sources, but rather by banning builds and/or spells."

mint
2010-06-12, 09:38 AM
Because its more work for the DM.
A bunch of different reasons.
Here are some of mine:

The DM is sort of the captain of world-building even if its collaborative. I think its important to be able to feel like you have a grip on the world and feel like you want to tell stories within it. Powers and classes and concepts, if you cant fit them into the slice of the world you want to tell stories in at the moment, when is it right to compromise?

Challenging the PCs. Say that the characters draw from a different set of sources and powers and additionally, your NPCs draw from another set. If I want to challenge the PCs and know what they are capable of, it may quickly become unreasonable.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 09:53 AM
Restricting books in an attempt at reducing PC power creates more powerful characters. Do that to me and I'll go all-core: a Druid with Natural Spell, which is a much stronger character than the Rogues I typically play.

Not with banlists. I knock everything out of Tier 1.

Generally speaking, as a DM, I much prefer working out houserules for an organic feel to character growth rather than nurturing unnatural feeling, byzantine builds with herky-jerky progression just for lower tier classes to pick up. For ex., sneak attack (and critical hits) work on everything by default, and you can full attack or charge as a standard action.

If you start working with a lot of books beyond my primary sources, after all of this homebrew, I worry that as a player you're overconcerned with your relative performance. As a DM, I feel the onus of balance is on me.

Natael
2010-06-12, 10:10 AM
For D&D, especially the group I'm going to be DMing for in the next couple weeks, I know I'm a far better optimizer than the rest of the players. I leave everything open and let them know what I'll be using (running RHoD and will be turning fighters into warblades, monks into swordsages, paladins, if any, either to a variant or crusaders. I'll also be making builds effective, but not cheese, using a variety of sources ). Only things I'm not allowing really are alternate caster systems (MoI, ToM, Psi), because I don't know them well and definitely would not be using them myself. It leaves a crapton of books to sort through, but I guess it is something we're used to doing.

For GURPS, I'm going to have to say it is quite wonderful that we only need three books for character building (Base set characters, martial arts, and powers), though for many games, only need one. Which is one thing I appreciate about the system, instead of browsing through mounds of books to find what you need, you get some simple rules for building whatever it is you want.

2xMachina
2010-06-12, 10:14 AM
MoI is NOT caster btw. All the class in there can't cast worth a damn.

It's more of an item system.

Nero24200
2010-06-12, 10:23 AM
Referencing a large library of books can become a problem very quickly if it gets out of hand. I'm one of those people who beleives that the DM should heavily tailor their games to suit the PC's, and I practise what I preach.

This means that, while DMing, I need to know the characters quite well. Having to search through several different books at a time is quite frustrating, especially if you have to do it for several characters. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind a character having feats or spells from 4 or 5 different books, but I've also seen some really out-there builds that require about 20+ books.

Not to mention that some content in the books don't take into account other books. Remember that the three names on the PHB, DMG and MM1 aren't the same names on every other book.

Quite frankly, if a player decides that being limited to X sources means they should take the best out of it, they're [censored]s. Being limited in choice isn't justification for only taking the most powerful options.

PId6
2010-06-12, 11:07 AM
DM limiting material to certain books is understandable; they may only own those books, and they know those specific books well enough to understand what you're doing. Fair enough.

It's when they give an additional limitation of "Each character may only use X or less sources" in addition to those book limitations that I have a problem with. If they have those books and know what's in them, why do they have to further limit how many sources you use within the books? Character power != number of sources used. Limiting how many sources you use without regard for what you're using doesn't make sense, in the same way that limiting multiclassing doesn't make sense, and are usually caused by false ideas of sources = power or multiclassing = power. The main advantage of multiple sources is that they make underpowered classes viable. Druid 20 takes three sources to make work, and is arguably doable even without DMG. Paladin... not so much.

balistafreak
2010-06-12, 11:15 AM
It's kind of like cooking.

So we have this dish. Let's call it... fettucine alfredo. In it's creation, you can throw in every possible condiment, herb, and spice and create the worst. Dish. Ever. (Truth through experience.)

OR

You can simply shop around for the best butter, milk, cream and Parmesan cheese available. A few simple ingredients, two of which you probably have already. And it's delicious.

The best way to stop a Codzilla is not to ban splats - that's like not putting in herbs. No, stop the problem at the core, pun intended.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-12, 11:54 AM
DM limiting material to certain books is understandable; they may only own those books, and they know those specific books well enough to understand what you're doing. Fair enough.

It's when they give an additional limitation of "Each character may only use X or less sources" in addition to those book limitations that I have a problem with. If they have those books and know what's in them, why do they have to further limit how many sources you use within the books? Character power != number of sources used. Limiting how many sources you use without regard for what you're using doesn't make sense, in the same way that limiting multiclassing doesn't make sense, and are usually caused by false ideas of sources = power or multiclassing = power. The main advantage of multiple sources is that they make underpowered classes viable. Druid 20 takes three sources to make work, and is arguably doable even without DMG. Paladin... not so much.

Plus, it throws the whole 'Dm doesn't want to dig through over nine thousand splatbooks to find all the feats and spells' arguement out the window, because a simple numerical limit doesn't stop the players from, say, each choosing 2 different 'bonus' sources and ending up with the full gamut of 3.5 anyways.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 11:56 AM
Plus, it throws the whole 'Dm doesn't want to dig through over nine thousand splatbooks to find all the feats and spells' arguement out the window, because a simple numerical limit doesn't stop the players from, say, each choosing 2 different 'bonus' sources and ending up with the full gamut of 3.5 anyways.

Not really, when you consider clustering (a book may be largely worthless but for one item), and the fact that you typically only have 3-6 players and not, y'know, 40.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-12, 12:04 PM
Not really, when you consider clustering (a book may be largely worthless but for one item), and the fact that you typically only have 3-6 players and not, y'know, 40.

But if they're doing different roles? Let's go with the archtypical 4-man party, each allowed 3 sources.

the Cleric might take Complete Divine, Spell Compendium, and Libris Mortis, he wants to be a Persist spammer.
the Wizard will probably take Complete Arcane, and Spell Compendium, and Complete Mage.
the Rogue doesn't need those, so he takes Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel, and Heroes of Horror/Champions of Ruin (whichever has Craven).
the Fighter takes Tome of Battle so he can be a Warblade and actually matter, Complete Warrior, and also goes for Complete Champion.

That's 4 people, and only overlapped books once, for 11 different sources that are all logically appropriate for their classes. Or, say, we added a Druid to the party who decided to be a Wildshapemonkey and take Complete Adventurer, MMIII, and MMIV. 12 sources over 5 people, two of which are monster books.

Yora
2010-06-12, 12:05 PM
In my games, everything that exist within the setting is available to PCs. IF they can find a source that can train or supply them.
When I create a setting and have clear roles for rock gnomes, forest gnomes, and deep gnomes and have detailed histories and relations for them, it just doesn't fit my style of play when one player insists on playing a whisper gnome warlock, even though warlocks don't appear anywhere in the system how magic works in the world.
Yes, you can handwave it and say "there has been a secretive group of gnomes in hiding that was never found by any other people who would have reported their existance to the rest of the world, and they have discovered and developed a new type of magic, which they never shared with anyone.

It's probably rarely that bad. But when you allow anything or even just 10 additional books, you end up with a world that could possibly include 40 player races, 30 base classes, and 200 prestige classes that are always hiding just behind the next corner. It may be fun and okay for Eberron, but very few portrayals of fantasy settings work that way. I rather have my 3 or 4 types of magic and 6 player races and find a place in the world for each of them.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 12:09 PM
But if they're doing different roles? Let's go with the archtypical 4-man party, each allowed 3 sources.

the Cleric might take Complete Divine, Spell Compendium, and Libris Mortis, he wants to be a Persist spammer.

Persist DMM is banned, so not likely to come up.


the Wizard will probably take Complete Arcane, and Spell Compendium, and Complete Mage.

Should be fine.


the Rogue doesn't need those, so he takes Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel, and Heroes of Horror/Champions of Ruin (whichever has Craven).

Two of those are in my core.


the Fighter takes Tome of Battle so he can be a Warblade and actually matter, Complete Warrior, and also goes for Complete Champion.

Another two in my core.


That's 4 people, and only overlapped books once, for 11 different sources that are all logically appropriate for their classes. Or, say, we added a Druid to the party who decided to be a Wildshapemonkey and take Complete Adventurer, MMIII, and MMIV. 12 sources over 5 people, two of which are monster books.

Wild Shape banned in my games, C. Adv is in my core. :V

Works out well for me!

The Glyphstone
2010-06-12, 12:12 PM
Persist DMM is banned, so not likely to come up.



Should be fine.



Two of those are in my core.



Another two in my core.



Wild Shape banned in my games, C. Adv is in my core. :V

Works out well for me!


:smallconfused:What?:smallconfused: When did this switch to discussing your personal banlist/houserules? The topic at hand was the phenomenon of DM's in general limiting players to X sources to 'cut down on having to pour over a ton of books', when all it actually did was limit them to pouring over X*Y sources at maximum, where X sources per player and Y players, which could easily account for a vast chunk of 3.5's disparate books.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 12:13 PM
:smallconfused:What?:smallconfused: When did this switch to discussing your personal banlist/houserules? The topic at hand was the phenomenon of DM's in general limiting players to X sources to 'cut down on having to pour over a ton of books', when all it actually did was limit them to pouring over X*Y sources at maximum, where X sources per player and Y players, which could easily account for a vast chunk of 3.5's disparate books.

I'm one of the people who's doing that, so I'm saying how it works out for me. YMMV.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-12, 12:16 PM
I'm one of the people who's doing that, so I'm saying how it works out for me. YMMV.

Eh, I was just addressing the phenomenon in general. Based on previous comments, you're already significantly different than average (banning all T1, and greatly altering what counts as 'core'), so it's hard to use that as a baseline.

Pluto
2010-06-12, 01:20 PM
It's easy to see that the writers didn't have a full grasp of each others' work in the system. It's easy to make a functional Monk by cherrypicking from all available sources; it's easy to make a charger with damage in the thousands when perusing a dozen splats. But when you can use one or two books - which typically have at least been given a cursory screening for balance within themselves - your build has a bit more elegance, flair. This was part of what made the killer gnomes so damned appealing (both 1&2).

And in a practical sense, I don't have every book. I don't have the money to buy them or the inclination to steal them. I don't really want to make the DM familiarize himself with MoI, when I know he's juggling a heavy class load and a job and his other hobbies, and when I could just play a Cleric.

And it's often just not sensible to dig through other sources. If I'm playing a Wizard and I want a way to cast in armor, I could spend an evening sifting through a pile of increasingly-obscure splatbooks or I could just ask "Hey, could I take a feat that lets me cast in armor?" Same end result (in this case, a more elegant end result), but without the homework. The notion that WotC's stamp of approval means anything is ridiculous. Just look at the Incantatrix beside the Tempest.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 01:30 PM
Sort of my same thoughts as well. I don't have to have the same highly specialized houserules as everyone else; I do think it's easier to work out houserules with the DM than using in the area of 20 different books.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-12, 01:36 PM
Because the more sources a character uses, and the more obscure the sources are, the more effort it is to check the character. You're requiring the DM to do more work.

Maybe this is some sort of playing-with-friends vs. playing-with-randoms thing, but I have never had a game where the DM actively checked stuff out. As a DM and player, I might check something out which seems crazy powerful, if only because I might want to use it in the future, but its rarely out of distrust.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 02:02 PM
Maybe this is some sort of playing-with-friends vs. playing-with-randoms thing, but I have never had a game where the DM actively checked stuff out. As a DM and player, I might check something out which seems crazy powerful, if only because I might want to use it in the future, but its rarely out of distrust.

I need to know everything my players can do, so I can fine tune encounters, run PCs that aren't there, negotiate potential rules conflicts, negotiate potential houserule issues neither of us had considered. Makes the session move faster. As far as just cheating or not, I trust my players not to cheat.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 02:31 PM
Is it really that much harder to look up X different things in 1 book versus looking up X different things in X different books? Assuming you have them, that is.

I can understand not wishing to grapple with a new ruleset with which you're unfamiliar (Incarnum, Binding, whatever), but it seems to me to be a very marginal increase in effort to have to look up feats from all over the place versus one source.

What if a player offered to scan each of the relevant feats, spells, and what have you, put them all on a series of pages, and gave them to you? No looking up anything, don't even need to page through the one book. Would that eliminate the need for such a rule?

PId6
2010-06-12, 02:31 PM
It's easy to see that the writers didn't have a full grasp of each others' work in the system. It's easy to make a functional Monk by cherrypicking from all available sources; it's easy to make a charger with damage in the thousands when perusing a dozen splats. But when you can use one or two books - which typically have at least been given a cursory screening for balance within themselves - your build has a bit more elegance, flair. This was part of what made the killer gnomes so damned appealing (both 1&2).

And in a practical sense, I don't have every book. I don't have the money to buy them or the inclination to steal them. I don't really want to make the DM familiarize himself with MoI, when I know he's juggling a heavy class load and a job and his other hobbies, and when I could just play a Cleric.

And it's often just not sensible to dig through other sources. If I'm playing a Wizard and I want a way to cast in armor, I could dig through a pile of increasingly-obscure splatbooks or I could just ask "Hey, could I take a feat that lets me cast in armor?" Same end result (in this case, a more elegant end result), but without the homework. The notion that WotC's stamp of approval means anything is ridiculous. Just look at the Incantatrix beside the Tempest.
An ubercharger can deal more than enough damage with only two sources: PHB and CW. Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker with Power Attack and Shock Trooper can take the heads of most enemies in a single charge. Everything else is just icing.

And many DMs aren't willing to work with players to homebrew solutions, or when they hear a player say "I want to cast spells in armor," they have their munchkin alarms immediately go off. It's unfair and doesn't particularly make sense, but it's still there, and I'd much rather have official ways to play the character I want than no ways at all.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-12, 07:55 PM
...So by using it with the PHB then? Two books isn't pulling from a lot of sources, especially when one of the sources is the basic rulebook of the game. It becomes fun times broken with more spells and nightsticks, but, hey, there's broken and then there's more broken. And, well, eliminating the reason/need/role of one of the basic classes is technically breaking the system. Sure, they made it easy to axe the fighter, but, there you go.

This confuses me because what exactly are you suggesting to combine the feat with from the PHB?

You seem to be jokingly referring to the persistent divine power combo but that doesn't work in core. So I'm assuming I'm misreading that. I'm really not sure what spells in core are below 3rd level that making them last all day is particularly worse then the 6/7/8/9th level spell you could have cast instead.


I've not seen that argued. I've seen, "Ok, the game can be broken in 1 book, someone who wants to break the game has all the tools they need to do so. A player is unlikely to break the game accidentally, especially if they're deliberately planning their character's development. Therefore it only hurts those who have legitimate reasons to want to however many books counts as 'a large library' or 'lots of sources,' as those who wish to break the game are not stymied by banning sources, but rather by banning builds and/or spells."

Would you care to point to a legitimate reason for using lots of source? This is a bit subjective but if your build is needs a PrC from one book, feats from two others, and spells from another (all non-core mind) then to me its being overly precise in approach. Because its building a character around a few specific tricks, possibly even a one trick pony. You may not even mean it to be that broken, but the DM thinks it is. DMs after all are not omnipotent IRL and may not trawl broads like these to know how Pun-pun or even Divine Metacheese works. Maybe those freaks on the internet (that's us) thought of something new since they last checked. They are within their rights to be leery of people going for tricky or complex builds.

And if it isn't merely performance driven then there's explaining they why of that to said DM, or sitting on the build for another time.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 08:11 PM
Would you care to point to a legitimate reason for using lots of source? This is a bit subjective but if your build is needs a PrC from one book, feats from two others, and spells from another (all non-core mind) then to me its being overly precise in approach.
I want to kill someone in one blow while they're expecting it least (Death Attack, Assassin). I want to actually be able to use my hide skill (Hide in Plain Sight, Shadow Dancer). I want to summon fiends to use against other fiends (Unrestricted Conjuration et al., Malconvoker). I want to fight with the guidance and strength of my ancestors (Blade Guide, Eternal Blade, or Shield Bond et al., Ironsoul Forgemaster). I want to purge away the evil with arcane fire (Turn Undead, Sacred Exorcist, and Sacred Flame et al., Silver Flame Pyromancer). I want to know the lands I have traveled, to know the ways and how to use a given terrain to the best advantage (Terrain Mastery, Horizon Walker). I want to blend the powers of light and darkness (Touch of the Shadow Sun et al., Shadow Sun Ninja).

Now, I want to do any two of those things with one character. Or maybe three. Whatever. A Swordsage/Assassin/Shadow Dancer/Shadowsun Ninja? A Conjurer/Malconvoker/Sacred Exorcist/Silver Flame Pyromancer? None of these are stretches or one-trick ponies.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-12, 08:53 PM
The exact opposite problem of too broad a character also exists and is equally valid for a DM to disallow if they so feel like it.

While less likely (perhaps) to be raise balance issues, it also can get into more aesthetic issues. Not fitting into the campaign as it were. Or smacking of Sue with character design. And still raises simple practical concerns, like does the DM have every book necessary for the character or want to rely on someone bringing it.

Call this a subjective judgment if you wish but better characters from a pure RP (and thus in-game not meta-game) standpoint should have an identifiable shtick if you will. If you summon, then any fighting or skills are comparatively mundane side shows without their own special features. Unless its summon weapons you fight with making a hybrid shtick as it were.

Now I do know a lot of people would just rewrite the fluff to fit with the synergy idea, but I've found this more an attempt to cover themselves after the fact.

At any rate its entirely on the level for a DM to restrict people to just a few books because one player wants to build some feat-combo trick wizard and another player wants to be a dragonblooded sorcerer paladin that rides a unicorn given to her by nature. Okay I'm not sure if the latter could be done, but common sense a suitable substitute.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 09:10 PM
The exact opposite problem of too broad a character also exists and is equally valid for a DM to disallow if they so feel like it.
Frankly, I'm not interested in playing for a DM who feels that it is his prerogative to nix my character because "he feels like it." The DM is in charge, but the DM is also in charge of making sure everyone has fun. He ought to include himself in that, of course, but I'd humbly suggest that a DM who cannot enjoy the game because of the diversity of mechanics in a player's build really needs to loosen up.


Not fitting into the campaign as it were.
I have no objection to the banning of individual classes that do not fit in a game world. But you cannot tell me that the Assassin, Shadow Dancer, and Shadowsun Ninja each exist in your gameworld independently, but an Assassin/Shadow Dancer/Shadowsun Ninja is impossible, at least not without a considerable backstory to this that explains why that could never happen. The PCs are by definition exceptional; they're allowed to be unusual.


Or smacking of Sue with character design.
I'm actually having trouble determining how a Mary Sue character could even be possible without homebrew. If the system is balanced, then there's no way you can get everything without any (significant) drawbacks, which is the hallmark of a Mary Sue character. If the system's imbalanced, then rectify that and Mary Sue-ism should, again, be impossible.

If you simply mean a highly customized character... in what world is that not a good thing?


And still raises simple practical concerns, like does the DM have every book necessary for the character or want to rely on someone bringing it.
We're assuming, in this discussion, that he does. No one has ever complained about a DM banning a book he doesn't have.


Call this a subjective judgment if you wish but better characters from a pure RP (and thus in-game not meta-game) standpoint should have an identifiable shtick if you will.
Sure.


If you summon, then any fighting or skills are comparatively mundane side shows without their own special features.
And the character I mentioned? Yeah, he has no martial ability whatsoever. Series of classes with d4 HDs and 1/2 BABs. He has control and power over fiends and the undead, using them to fight fire with fire. How is that not a thematic schtick?


Unless its summon weapons you fight with making a hybrid shtick as it were.
See the excellent War Summoner entry in the current GitP PrC contest for a really great way to achieve that, by the way.


Now I do know a lot of people would just rewrite the fluff to fit with the synergy idea, but I've found this more an attempt to cover themselves after the fact.
Why does it matter which came first? "Oh, this is a cool combination of mechanical abilities, what kind of character would use these?" versus "here's a cool character with a unique combination of abilities, where can I get those?" - what difference does this make? Seriously, I've done both many, many times; sometimes I start with the fluff, sometimes I start with the crunch, but, if I do say so myself, my characters are all internally consistent and have real reasons for the abilities that they have.


At any rate its entirely on the level for a DM to restrict people to just a few books because one player wants to build some feat-combo trick wizard and another player wants to be a dragonblooded sorcerer paladin that rides a unicorn given to her by nature. Okay I'm not sure if the latter could be done, but common sense a suitable substitute.
"I want to do this" and "I want to do that" is a good reason for the DM to say "No."? What? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 09:13 PM
I'm inclined to agree with DW on those points.

Roland St. Jude
2010-06-12, 09:14 PM
I have never had a DM say "use your favorite X sources." In fact, until the OP, I'd never heard of such a thing happening.

Specifying that certain sources may be used or certain sources may not be used could be justified in any number of ways, but "use any X sources you want" seems pointless.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 09:16 PM
I have never had a DM say "use your favorite X sources." In fact, until the OP, I'd never heard of such a thing happening.

Specifying that certain sources may be used or certain sources may not be used could be justified in any number of ways, but "use any X sources you want" seems pointless.

"I only want to have to browse through so many books to see what you can do." I don't use core+X as a hard and fast rule, but I wouldn't complain under a DM that did.

Roland St. Jude
2010-06-12, 09:28 PM
"I only want to have to browse through so many books to see what you can do."

That doesn't help much though if my favorite X books are different than the next players favorite X and so on. Plus, why are you doing all the work of browsing to see what they can do? Just have the player tell you what [the part of their character you don't recognize] means and provide you a copy of the relevant text.


I don't use core+X as a hard and fast rule, but I wouldn't complain under a DM that did.

I wouldn't complain either, and it probably wouldn't make me leave a game. But it seems a relatively pointless restriction, and it would make me wonder what other restrictions are waiting around the corner with this DM.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 09:31 PM
No... it does help, trust me, particularly for online games. Fumbling with a lot of books, be they PDFs or hardcopy, at the computer is a huge slow-down.

Coidzor
2010-06-12, 10:55 PM
Nevermind, Dragoon's Wrath said it all better anyway.

Roland brought up a good point though.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-12, 11:05 PM
"I only want to have to browse through so many books to see what you can do." I don't use core+X as a hard and fast rule, but I wouldn't complain under a DM that did.
Well, I certainly would. The number of feats and items a character gets is dictated by class and gp, not by book availability. If you're the DM looking up feats and gear for a character, and they're 1-2 per book in your approved book list, how is that less work than if they're 1-2 per book in a different set of books that you've also got access to?

Limiting the scope to the books the DM owns is fine and proper. Limiting the scope further than that is just being mean.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 11:41 PM
I really think people are ascribing the wrong intent to this kind of rule. I assume they're there because the DM isn't necessarily comfortable with every published source, but is willing to make an attempt to expand their knowledge for their players.

Whenever I've seen it, I interpreted it as: "Here are the books I'm comfortable with as a DM. If you like, each of you can choose 1 or 2 other books and I'll try to get comfortable enough with the parts you need to be functional."

Edit: There's also the significant possibility that if the DM views class as something other than a metagame concept, that they might need to alter the campaign world slightly to accommodate your PRC choices. Again, the DM is trying to be accommodating, within the limits of how much work they can do for one character in the time they have.

AstralFire
2010-06-13, 12:26 AM
Well, I certainly would. The number of feats and items a character gets is dictated by class and gp, not by book availability. If you're the DM looking up feats and gear for a character, and they're 1-2 per book in your approved book list, how is that less work than if they're 1-2 per book in a different set of books that you've also got access to?

Limiting the scope to the books the DM owns is fine and proper. Limiting the scope further than that is just being mean.

The pre-approved book list is books with material the DM knows back to front, usually.

Alleine
2010-06-13, 12:30 AM
The guys I play with generally tend not to be powergaming *****es, so having all sources open isn't really a problem. No one wants to become pun pun or destroy the game. Sure, we like to be powerful sometimes, but that usually means showing up and explaining this totally badass character while I(not the DM) check the stuff out(usually for my own curiosity, because I can check out anything, and we can correct any mistakes).

Of course, the games we run are never tuned to our specific characters, so its mostly our ragtag group running in, flooring a few encounters while being murdered by other encounters. I have to say it definitely brings out some interesting tactics on occasion.

Our games are pretty casual most of the time though.

Hida Reju
2010-06-18, 02:10 AM
I spent some time thinking on this one before replying.

A large amount of resources allows for a much wider background of character flexibility at the cost of power creep primarly aimed at spell casters.

Really it comes down to the players and the GM to agree not to get into an arms race for 3.5. Other games usually have less of a problem with this except for anything based in the Rifts universe where ever book is more crunchy powerful than the last usually.

Quite frankly my like of a game is now turned off more by large groups of books. If there is more than about 5 books I am going to look for something else to deal with for sanity.

Heliomance
2010-06-18, 03:17 AM
I usually play core only. The game is not about optimizing character builds. You can make it about builds, but you don't have to.
And almost all additional classes, feats, items, (and to a lesser extend spells), don't add to the story at all. I'd say at least 3/4 of all prestige classes are completely useless and of the rest almost every character concept can be played with a combination of core classes.

Archery. It is nigh-on impossible to create a competent non-sneak attack archer in Core. That's hardly an obscure character concept.

Gish is another hard concept to make in Core, though not quite to the same extent.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 09:37 AM
A large amount of resources allows for [...] power creep primarly aimed at spell casters.
False. Splatbooks helps spellcasters, but help non-casters relatively more. Melee is muuuch closer to the average caster with every book in 3.5 available, than it is with just the PHB.

The PHB is the most imbalanced book written for 3.5 by a very large margin. A distant second is probably the Monster Manual, and no splatbook comes close.

I think that fact more than any other is why I more-or-less require a larger collection of books for 3.5. Core 3.5 is hideously imbalanced.

SilveryCord
2010-06-18, 10:11 AM
Exactly. Further books might have added Nerveskitter, Celerity, and Arcane Spellsurge, but Core has Alter Self, Shapechange, Time Stop, Planar Binding and Rope Trick.

Temotei
2010-06-18, 10:13 AM
It just gets inconvenient. Whenever you want to look something up you have to figure out which of half a dozen books it's from and then go find that book and then find the page, etc.

Having players cite sources and pages helps a ton.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-18, 10:45 AM
Having players cite sources and pages helps a ton.
I'd make it a requirement. Spells prepared need to be written down, with book and page numbers. This will actually be mostly for the player's benefit, because they'll inevitably need to look something up in play. Same with spells known.

Outside of play do the same with classes, feats, and gear. Help the DM get familiar with the character well before game time, and during the game you'll know what book and page to turn to if something unexpected happens (which, of course, you can expect :smallwink:).

For a bunch of my Rogues, for whom I use 20+ books by the time their levels get into the teens, I'll photocopy book pages and print out WotC web sources for odd feats and items to save time (and my overstressed backpack).

OracleofWuffing
2010-06-18, 11:23 AM
When I use such a "Core books+X and Y others of your choice" rule, it's not so much because of mechanical or balance purposes, but more because some groups I play in make notes on their abilities such as "Sneak Attack: do 2d6 more damage on every attack," or "Magic Vestment: +1 AC." Now, it really isn't a problem with spells and abilities in the SRD because it's easy to look up, but when someone multiclasses into something from book A, gets a feat to further power it from book B, enhances it with a spell from book C, and only remembers that book A is "That one with the guy on it," book B "has a red cover," and book C he "completely forgot, but the page I got this from had a picture of someone getting blasted with magic," I'd much rather look through books X and Y than every book in the library.

Certainly, it's true, this could be easily resolved by players... referencing... the library they're referencing. We tried that, by which I mean, I told them to do it and they didn't. I tried making copies of the relevant information, at which point everyone wanted to borrow copies of other characters stuff, and I'm sorry, but I kinda live off of that ink.

Yes, I understand that I just have a small sample of players that are just being incompetent and it's completely irrational for me to treat everyone else that way as a result. At the same time, the biggest problem with my live games is looking up spell/feat/ability information, and this method has so far worked the best for me. I'd like to not use this cludge, but there's a problem that needs a solution, you see? I don't mind seeing other people who run games that let you use everything, heck, I appreciate the people that do and admire their ability to put up with it.

Gametime
2010-06-18, 11:46 AM
Archery. It is nigh-on impossible to create a competent non-sneak attack archer in Core. That's hardly an obscure character concept.

Gish is another hard concept to make in Core, though not quite to the same extent.

Gishing in Core is more palatable if you view it as giving a fighter access to those tasty spells instead of giving a wizard access to that tasty BAB. OM NOM NOM SPELLS

Gnaeus
2010-06-18, 12:00 PM
I wouldn't use Core + X in a game but it is really important in comparative optimization, and sometimes for builds.

If you are comparing 2 classes, or a class and a homebrew, more stuff will often be available than core. Still, all printed books are also not usually available, and it can lead to bogging down debates because the Rogue (for example) no longer looks like a Rogue after trading away all of its class features for ACFs and giving it a bunch of racial substitution levels and topping it off with a PRC. Rogue Core +1 or +2 lets you see the class with the key abilities that players will want without straying so far from the source material.

Also, if someone wants a build, they might be willing to go to the store and buy one or 2 books. They are unlikely to want to (be able to) drop $300 picking up every supplement for an unusual build.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-18, 12:15 PM
Here's an example of just the feat detail for a character I made for an Epic level game:

7. Feat Schedule (with important class levels noted):
{TABLE=head] Level | Feat | Prerequisites
1 | Scout 1 (Complete Adventurer 10) | |
1 | Rapid Reload (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidReload) (sling) (house rule) | sling proficiency
1 | (flaw) Improved Initiative (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedInitiative) | —
1 | (flaw) Darkstalker (Lords of Madness 179) | —
3 | Scout 2/Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm) 1 | |
3 | Craven (Champions of Ruin 17) | sneak attack (use wand of Hunter's Eye to qualify), not immune to fear
3 | (R1 granted) Track (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#track) | — |
4 | (R2 CS) Rapid Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidShot) | Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot) (waived)
5 | (R3 granted) Endurance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#endurance) | — |
6 | Weapon Finesse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFinesse) | BAB +1
6 | (R4 CotW) Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot) | —
8 | (R6 CS) Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot) | DEX 17, Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot), Rapid Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidShot), BAB +6 (waived)
9 | Greater Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot) (Expanded Psionics Handbook 47) | DEX 17, Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot), Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot), Rapid Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidShot), BAB +6
10 | (R8 CotW) Far Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#farShot) | Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot)
12 | Ranged Skirmisher (Dragon 346 87) | DEX 15, WIS 13, Far Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#farShot), Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot), skirmish
13 | (R11 CS) Improved Precise Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedPreciseShot) | DEX 19, Precise Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#preciseShot), Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot), BAB +11 (waived)
13 | (R11 CotW) Improved Rapid Shot (Complete Warrior 101) | Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot), Point Blank Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot), Rapid Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rapidShot)
15 | Ranger 12/Scout 3 | |
15 | Swift Hunter (Complete Scoundrel 81) | favored enemy (= Ranger 1), skirmish +1d6/+1 AC (= Scout 3)
17 | (R14 CotW) Blind-Fight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#blindFight) (temporary; swap out for below feat) | — |
17 | (R14 CotW) Improved Favored Enemy (Complete Warrior 101) | favored enemy (= Ranger 1), BAB +5
18 | Improved Skirmish (Complete Scoundrel 78) | skirmish +4d6/+4 AC (= Swift Hunter & Scout+Ranger 15)
20 | Scout 3/Ranger 16/Scorpion Wraith 1 (Secrets of Xen'drik 130) | BAB +4, Hide 8, Knowledge (nature) 4, Move Silently 8, Blind-Fight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#blindFight), Improved Initiative (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedInitiative)
21 | Bane of Enemies [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#baneOfEnemies) (Epic Level Handbook 51) | Survival 24, 5 favored enemies (= Scout+Ranger 20)
22 | Scout 3/Ranger 17/Scorpion Wraith 1/Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) 1 (Unearthed Arcana 50) | |
22 | (CC 1) Blind-Fight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#blindFight) (Darkness domain) | — |
22 | (CC 1) Knowledge Devotion (Complete Champion 60) (swapped from Knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#knowledgeDomain) domain) | — |
22 | (CC 1) Travel Devotion (Complete Champion 62) (swapped from Travel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#travelDomain) domain) | — | | [/TABLE]
Notes:
CS = Combat Style
CotW = Champion of the Wild ACF (Complete Champion, page 50)

Book and page number, or an online link, makes finding things pretty straightforward.

Zovc
2010-06-18, 12:58 PM
I agree with you on all points. That is all.

I agree with Keld Denar. That is all.

Chambers
2010-06-18, 01:37 PM
Yora

If you prefer a simpler version of the fantasy world, that's totally okay. Everyone does it differently. But you're implicity presenting your view of dnd and fantasy worlds as the only way to do it right. It's not.

And almost all additional classes, feats, items, (and to a lesser extend spells), don't add to the story at all.

Dreamtelling feats from Heroes of Horror. Fey heritage feats from Complete Mage. Racial Substitution Levels. These are examples of things from non-core books that add to the uniqueness of the character and adds dimension to the characters story.

I'd say at least 3/4 of all prestige classes are completely useless and of the rest almost every character concept can be played with a combination of core classes.

A dual caster, arcane and divine, could be done without Mystic Theurge. At 20th the character could be a 10th level Wizard / 10th lvl Cleric, and be far less efficient than a 16th level character who took 3 levels of Wizard, 3 levels of Cleric, and 10 levels of Mystic Theurge.

But when you allow anything or even just 10 additional books, you end up with a world that could possibly include 40 player races, 30 base classes, and 200 prestige classes that are always hiding just behind the next corner. It may be fun and okay for Eberron, but very few portrayals of fantasy settings work that way.

What's inherently wrong with that kind of world? Simply because it may not be how fantasy has been normally presented doesn't make it bad/wrong to play.

My point isn't to attack your preference of gaming styles. My point is to say that it's simply one way of playing the game, and the other ways aren't necessarily bad.

Stormwind Fallacy (seems like it may be appropriate)

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 01:58 PM
The weak-point of the Stormwind Fallacy is while there may not be automatic roleplay vs rollplay conflict, that does not say it cannot happen. Or that certain allowances do not increase the potential for that conflict to arise.

Not all forms of rollplay/roleplay are appropriate in any particular game. Playing a loud barbarian with no social tact in the middle of game around thieves, social interaction, and city politics can be inappropriate roleplay, while toned down personality could still be have the same rollplay. I think I'm drifting into something else there though.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:01 PM
That has nothing to do with the Stormwind fallacy.

The Stormwind fallacy states only that one cannot be a good roleplayer while also being a good optimizer. This is a fallacy because it simply isn't true - an optimized character can be roleplayed just as easily as a unoptimized one. The two conditions are independent.

Some people role play well. Some people optimize well. The two groups are independent - some people are members of one or the other, others are members of both, and some are members of neither. Being a member of one says nothing about your membership in the other.

That is all the Stormwind fallacy means.

erikun
2010-06-18, 02:08 PM
Two major issues I see from the DM's standpoint: Flipping through numerous books can waste time and be annoying, and it is difficult to keep track to the various interactions of several abilities that were not necessarily designed to be used together. On the other hand, it depends on the amount of content that is pulled from each source, as well.

Running a standard wizard that uses the Searing Spell metamagic feat, the Fiery Burst reserve feat, one or two spells from the Spell Compendium, and a prestige class is pulling from five different sources, but only a single class or feat from each. It is very easy to simply write down the feats and spells on a piece of paper to keep everything down to a managable level. On the other hand, a ACF Focused Specialist Wizard/ Master Specialist/ Mindbender/ Ur-Priest/ Mystic Theurge/ Incantrix is going through seven different sources, most probably requiring their own book due to having several levels in each prestige class. It can get confusing just determining what such a character is allowed to do or not, even without having four books open and cross-referencing between them.

Chambers
2010-06-18, 02:12 PM
DW

I think it's somewhat relevant given Yora's statement that the mechanical options beyond core don't add to the story of the character. I could interpret Yora's statement to mean that the mechanical elements beyond core don't add to roleplaying, which is another version of the optimization/role-playing fallacy.

I will grant that this is my interpreation of Yora's statement, and may not be what Yora intended to imply.

Optimystik
2010-06-18, 02:40 PM
4E

Yay DDI.

This has to be my favorite thing about 4e.

Also, I agree with Keld and the OP. More books does not mean more work for the DM if the player does the legwork, e.g. note cards. And if you don't trust them to write down abilities honestly, how can you trust them not to cheat in other ways? :smallconfused:

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 02:45 PM
I play with.. like... 99% of 3.5.

Is true that out of core you find far more help for meleers. Is not a matter of power, because you simply ban what does not fit your campaign, for power or other things.

Simply, there are mechanics, expecially for meleers, that core dose not help enough. Splat help.

More, I'm an addicted for new monsters :smallbiggrin: when I first saw MMII and OAdv, I said: "Yugoloth? Oni? Moar fiends? WHOOOOOO!"

Not to say that core only can't be fun. I played it a lot, too.

The only thing that is very unobjectionable for a core only game is cost. But we are 12 people.

Optimystik
2010-06-18, 02:54 PM
The only thing that is very unobjectionable for a core only game is cost. But we are 12 people.

Even outside core you can negate cost; for example, all of these are free and legal. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1109.0)

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:56 PM
I particularly like how the Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and every Maneuver (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) are available completely free. As if Wizards felt like they had to apologize to everyone for the Fighter.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 03:10 PM
Even outside core you can negate cost; for example, all of these are free and legal. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1109.0)

Yeah, I remember that link: very nice. And SRD (and PRD thereafter) are really nice boon.

I wish there were something similar when I was a kid and I didn't had the money to game. :smallsmile:

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 03:13 PM
DW

I think it's somewhat relevant given Yora's statement that the mechanical options beyond core don't add to the story of the character. I could interpret Yora's statement to mean that the mechanical elements beyond core don't add to roleplaying, which is another version of the optimization/role-playing fallacy.

I will grant that this is my interpreation of Yora's statement, and may not be what Yora intended to imply.

I'd say whether beyond core adds anything to roleplay has way to many possible specifics and subjective definitions to it. As general as I'll be though that's simply not true. Non-core vastly expands the options for both role and roll. Whether any particular part is needed for the roleplay depends on the specifics which have uncounted variations.

I'd be prepared to dispute whether this question has much to do with said fallacy.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 03:19 PM
Soras, I'm confused by your last post. By which I mean, I completely agree with it, but the rest of your posts seem confusing in light of it. So uh... huh?

And what does this have to do with the Stormwind fallacy?

Jayabalard
2010-06-18, 04:36 PM
The Stormwind fallacy states only that one cannot be a good roleplayer while also being a good optimizer. This is a fallacy because it simply isn't true - an optimized character can be roleplayed just as easily as a unoptimized one. The two conditions are independent.No, the fallacy is a specific example of a false dilemma fallacy. It shows that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, by showing the the arguments used are an example of a false dilemma

It doesn't actually show that they are totally unrelated, nor does it show that it's just as easy to roleplay an optimized character as an unoptimized one. A lot of people make the leap from "they aren't mutually exclusive" to "doing one has no effect on the other" ... but really, that is an example of fallacious logic, the same fallacy as the one pointed out by Stormwind: you're assuming that either one of the following has to be true, disproving the first by example and then claiming that is sufficient to prove 2nd, which just isn't valid logic:

Roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive
Roleplaying and optimization have no effect on each other.


The reality is that there's a 3rd possibility: that roleplaying and optimization have effects on each other, both positive and negative, but it's possible to do both. Personally, I'm convinced that this is the case.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 04:38 PM
Responding to the specific line:


which is another version of the optimization/role-playing fallacy.

I don't think saying the question of whether beyond core adds to roleplay has much to do with it, given that the fallacy only speaks to a conflict between two. I'd say there is more potential for conflict with more sources in play. Such conflict is not automatic though (the fallacy) but whatever the potential that has nothing to do with whether or not more material adds/does-not-add to one or both sides.

If I made anything clearer there.

At any rate I do view it as perfectly fine if a DM want to limit his potential headaches by only selecting a restricted library of books as available for the game. Preferably from the get go so nobody builds characters that way to begin with. Hopefully with under a "keep it simple" message so people know that even single source cheese is a no go area.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 05:02 PM
No, the fallacy is a specific example of a false dilemma fallacy. It shows that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, by showing the the arguments used are an example of a false dilemma

It doesn't actually show that they are totally unrelated, nor does it show that it's just as easy to roleplay an optimized character as an unoptimized one. A lot of people make the leap from "they aren't mutually exclusive" to "doing one has no effect on the other" ... but really, that is an example of fallacious logic, the same fallacy as the one pointed out by Stormwind: you're assuming that either one of the following has to be true, disproving the first by example and then claiming that is sufficient to prove 2nd, which just isn't valid logic:

Roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive
Roleplaying and optimization have no effect on each other.


The reality is that there's a 3rd possibility: that roleplaying and optimization have effects on each other, both positive and negative, but it's possible to do both. Personally, I'm convinced that this is the case.
Sorry, you are correct, and I should have worded it better. You are correct that the Stormwind fallacy does not show this. I am, however, saying it - optimization and roleplaying are independent, assuming a sane definition of optimization (i.e. practical optimization), as opposed to optimizing being defined (insanely) as always getting the most power possible (in which case, anyone not playing Pun-Pun is not optimizing and the entire optimization/roleplaying debate is pointless since no one actually plays Pun-Pun).

Chambers
2010-06-18, 05:35 PM
I don't think saying the question of whether beyond core adds to roleplay has much to do with it, given that the fallacy only speaks to a conflict between two. I'd say there is more potential for conflict with more sources in play. Such conflict is not automatic though (the fallacy) but whatever the potential that has nothing to do with whether or not more material adds/does-not-add to one or both sides.

If I made anything clearer there.

At any rate I do view it as perfectly fine if a DM want to limit his potential headaches by only selecting a restricted library of books as available for the game. Preferably from the get go so nobody builds characters that way to begin with. Hopefully with under a "keep it simple" message so people know that even single source cheese is a no go area.

I agree with your second paragraph. Each DM and party defines how the game is played for them.

In response to the fallacy, I should say that I meant it might be relevant in thinking about the spirit of the fallacy, RAI, as it were. While it's debatable whether it falls under the actual fallacy RAW (and I'm not particularly concerned if it is either way), it felt to me like the Intent of the fallacy was applicable. (non-core doesn't add to story -> optimization doesn't add to role-playing). That make sense? Sorry for the confusion.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-18, 06:49 PM
But when you allow anything or even just 10 additional books, you end up with a world that could possibly include 40 player races, 30 base classes, and 200 prestige classes that are always hiding just behind the next corner. It may be fun and okay for Eberron, but very few portrayals of fantasy settings work that way.

40 player races is a bad thing; it really does make the setting rather incoherent. Thankfully, I've never seen obscure races come up too often. I think it's because the DMs around here would likely get angry, and so it's avoided.

"30 base classes, and 200 prestige classes" is a useless sentiment. Classes aren't literal things to run around in a world; they're just collections of abilities. That huge mass of classes might work out to 1000 (or less) abilities, which for the entire world is a variety I can see existing.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 06:54 PM
Sorry, you are correct, and I should have worded it better. You are correct that the Stormwind fallacy does not show this. I am, however, saying it - optimization and roleplaying are independent, assuming a sane definition of optimization (i.e. practical optimization), as opposed to optimizing being defined (insanely) as always getting the most power possible (in which case, anyone not playing Pun-Pun is not optimizing and the entire optimization/roleplaying debate is pointless since no one actually plays Pun-Pun).

Well enough to say but I'm not sure there's much of a working definition we can get on the difference between the sane and the less-than-sane. One man's reasonable optimization is another's horrible cheese.


In response to the fallacy, I should say that I meant it might be relevant in thinking about the spirit of the fallacy, RAI, as it were. While it's debatable whether it falls under the actual fallacy RAW (and I'm not particularly concerned if it is either way), it felt to me like the Intent of the fallacy was applicable. (non-core doesn't add to story -> optimization doesn't add to role-playing). That make sense? Sorry for the confusion.

Ehh a nitpick but strictly speaking there is no "spirit" to a logical fallacy as logic relies on prescision, even with a made up one. Stormwind is really just the false dilemma fallacy.

Though that does not make your de facto position wrong nessecarily either. Fallacious arguments can still be accurate factually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy).

Rin_Hunter
2010-06-18, 06:57 PM
As a DM, I love a large library because I can pull things that players have never seen before, but ther can also do it to me, which is a bit bad.

I read over anything that a player wants once or twice just to check that it won't disturb things and most of the time I allow it. In times of crisis there are always page notes next to items and spells and such.

shadow_archmagi
2010-06-18, 08:57 PM
Keeping fifteen books open at the table will take up a lot of space and time.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-18, 09:42 PM
Keeping fifteen books open at the table will take up a lot of space and time.
You don't have to keep them open, you know. There's this little-known invention called the "bookmark". You should check it out. :smallwink:

dextercorvia
2010-06-18, 09:55 PM
I particularly like how the Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and every Maneuver (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) are available completely free. As if Wizards felt like they had to apologize to everyone for the Fighter.

Thank you! I knew about the Warblade, and the few Iron Heart maneuvers, but I hadn't seen the maneuver cards before. You just made my night.

For me the hardest thing about the large library is that I don't own most of it. I rely a lot on memory, and that means I canoften make boneheaded mistakes when building a character.

tiercel
2010-06-18, 10:50 PM
I think the major reason some people might dislike referencing a big library *is* the "arms race" factor: at the very least, a DM has to try and be up on everything, and ideally every source, his players want to use. And ideally every player wants to have access to the same number of cool toys to choose from to make his character, though some players are less interested in others in choosing from All Available Options.

A second reason is one is that of "divine inheritance" -- that is, many divine casters can freely memorize any spell on their entire class list from day to day. When you add more books to a campaign, these class lists expand and the characters get more play choices for *free*, unlike other characters who have to spend spells-known slots, feat choices, prestige class prereqs, etc etc in order to take advantage of new options.

This is a particularly insidious form of power creep since it can occur at the beginning of every game day (or whatever time of day the character receives new spells), not merely at level-up, and it happens without any expenditure of resources on the part of the character.