Favorite (And Less Than Favorite) 3.x Books

[Alabenson]

I'm just curious what people felt were their favorite 3.x books (most useful, best written and so on), and which ones weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

[Sacrieur]

Favorite?

ToB, Spell Compendium.

Least favorite? Everything else sans the pages that have classes and abilities tier 3+. Needless to say, we could fit everything useful into 3 books.

[Goonthegoof]

Tome of battle wins for mechanics, fiendish codex 2 and the draconomicon win for interesting and usable flavour plus some ok mechanics.

Most hated is the BoED, which contains the occasional good idea surrounded by mountains of bad ideas.

Hurr durr all poisons are evil but these things aren't poisons because we called them 'ravages'.

[Yora]

Favorite: Player's Handbook.
Other great books: Manual of the Planes, XPH, Heroes of Horror, Elder Evils, Fiendish Codex I.

Least favorite books: MM2, MM4, MM5, Power of Faerûn, Secrets of Xendrik.
There are many books for which I simply don't care. Incarnum, ToB, Races of Destiny, ... Some of them are supposed to be good at what they do, but I just don't care about them. But those listed were about stuff that would have interested me, but the execution was just awful.

[Dsurion]

Frostburn. Hands down. It's my favorite landscape type to adventure in, has lots of awesome creatures, great prestige class ideas, rules for adventuring in a frozen wasteland...

After that I enjoy Complete Scoundrel, mostly because it's actually enjoyable to read, compared to most other books. The little sidebars were kind of annoyingly placed, but I liked reading them as well.

Honorable mention for Ghostwalk. It tried to do something different, and presented an alternate place to adventure in, and allowed for some cool ideas for ghost player characters. Unfortunately most of the book is hard to use.

I was never a fan of any of the Deities and Demigods books. I'm one of those apparently strange people that don't like statted gods because I don't want players treating them as meatsacks of XP :smallsigh:

[Amnestic]

Most favoured: Cityscape. I like urban campaigns a lot, and well, Cityscape delivers. Mostly :P Dragon Compendium (does that count?) gets a mention too for containing Tibbits, the bestest of races :P

Least favourite: Probably Deities and Demigods too. Statting deities seems to paint a big "Adventurers should come kill us" target on them, and I'm not a huge fan of that sort of concept personally. Never been a huge fan of Races of Stone either.

[Curmudgeon]

Complete Scoundrel is pretty nifty. The execution of skill tricks is a bit lacking (1/encounter why?), but it deserves props for emphasizing an underutilized part of the game mechanics.

As for least favorite, that's Dungeonscape. The quality of the presentation in that book is just poor. The Penetrating Strike Rogue ACF is unclear about whether you're still dealing sneak attack damage, and there's no call for that; the Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft had already covered that, but better. (Luckily the names are slightly different, so a Rogue player can pick the clearer EtCR ACF and avoid the ambiguity.) There are way too many unaddressed issues in the Factotum class, especially with regard to stacking IP-based abilities.

[Hiro Protagonest]

My favorite are ToB and the Pathfinder advanced player's guide. ToB is just awesome and the Pathfinder one is because it's all around good, with new classes, alternate racial features, and alternate class features. And the stalwart defender is a huge upgrade on the dwarven defender.

[Yora]

I was considering D&Dgods, but that book does have some nice fluff. The whole thing about statting out deities was awful right from the beginning, but at occasions I did flip through that book for ideas for homebrew religions.

[Blisstake]

Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack.

See a pattern?

[Veyr]

Most favorites are Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Expanded Psionics Handbook. More-or-less in that order. Complete Scoundrel gets a mention for Skill Tricks, lots of nifty items, and the Malconvoker. Oh, and I should include Eberron Campaign Setting, since it is my favorite setting.

Least favorite are the Player's Handbook (at least the Class, Feat, and Spell Description chapters), Book of Exalted Deeds, and Complete Psionic.

[Amphetryon]

Favorites: Heroes of Horror, Lords of Madness, The Book of Bad Latin, er, Libris Mortis. Player's Guide to Eberron gets honorable mention for having the High Elemental Binder, which I love conceptually.

Least favorite: Savage Species. I understand that to a certain type of player, the ability to play the monster has appeal. I am not that type of player.

[McSmack]

ToB is my new favorite, mostly because I'm a melee guy at heart. Complete Arcane was my favorite of the Complete series, mostly for the intesting feat choices and the warlock. I really enjoy the Spell Compendium, even though they copy/pasted some really badly written spells into it. The artwork was really good.

ECS is one of my favorites as well, though the organization is sloppy at best.

But top of the list is the good ol' DMG.

Least favorite Complete Mage. Reserve feats alone made me throw the book down in disgust, giving casters more options when they really didn't need it.

Yeah we already have things that let casters do stuff without spending spell slots, they're called wands, scrolls and staffs.

Runner up for worst was Complete Warrior - two horrible classes, a bunch of meh PrC's and the Warmace.

[navar100]

Favorite - Tome of Battle, no question. It makes playing a warrior a lot of fun, and you can move more than 5ft to do it!

Close Second, Expanded Psionics Handbook - The only published "magic spellpoint" system I actually like. Others before it were either just Vancian disguised or punished you for the audacity of casting a spell (i.e. fatigue). Here you get flexibility along with structure. You aren't punished for the audacity of using a power, and it's self-balancing.

Least Favorite - Tome of Magic. Truenamers don't work. I'm not fond of the other classes. People like to promote Binder but mostly as a multiclassing dip. I just don't care for it.

Close Second - Magic of Incarnum. I really like the concept and the mechanics, but the numbers are too small. I accept they're not really supposed to be as powerful as spellcasters, but I find them weak on their own because you don't get enough Essentia. Feats only get you 1 Essentia which doesn't let you really do anything with it. In some cases, it just lets you spend 1 Essentia for a tempoary effect an already published feat lets you do for free at will. However, Incarnum works well as part of gestalt. I could enjoy a non-spellcaster Incarnum gestalt game.

[Tvtyrant]

Lords of Madness, Liber Mortis, Fiendish Codex 1 & 2 (I want a 3rd one!), Tome of Magic.

If I could have them make me a book it would probably be Fey based, as I feel they are undrepresented fluff wise. Like why/how they exist:smallconfused:

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm a big fan of the Binder Handbook, also known as the Tome of Magic.

Only for the Binder, though. And honestly, it's mostly due to SilverclawShift's campaign journal about the vestiges.

So. Rad.

JUST SO RAD.

[Sarco_Phage]

I got a lotta love for the Fiendish Codices, the Draconomicon, Elder Evils, and Complete Scoundrel.

Also?

I love the DMG. :smallcool:

[Hirax]

Favorites: Races of Stone, Complete Scoundrel, Frostburn, Draconomicon, Fiendish Codex 2, Magic Item and Spell Compendiums, Unearthed Arcana, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Tome of Battle

Least favorite: Book of Exalted Deeds, for its cringe worthy and hypocritical fluff. Poison that isn't poison is the most frequently mentioned offender, but it's far from the only one. Tome of Magic, because it had some great ideas that sadly weren't executed as well as they needed to be. Its poor execution is a real loss.

[faceroll]

Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack.

See a pattern?

I am a big fan of those books, too. Lots of crunch, art, and fluff. Frostburn is my favorite.

[erikun]

Races of Stone, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Frostburn are probably my favorites.

I don't really have a least favorite, although Weapons of Legacy had never impressed me with any of its content and Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness getting mentioned in every alignment discussion gets quite annoying.

[Greenish]

I am a big fan of those books, too. Lots of crunch, art, and fluff. Frostburn is my favorite.Mine is Sandstorm, but the trio is indeed awesome.

Other grand ones include ECS, ToB, ToM and MoI. Tome of Magic's non-binder crunch is not very strong, but the fluff is very cool.



Least favourite books, hmm. Many of the Monster Manuals (aside from I and III) didn't tickle my fancy. Some of Eberron's additional books suffered from either rehashing what was already known, or going straight against facts established earlier.

[Etrivar]

Favorites: Dragon Magic, Complete Arcane (sorcerer is my favorite class, with warlock coming in at a close second), Races of the Wild (Raptorans are my favorite race), Book of Exalted Deeds (I like playing goody-two-shoes)

Least Favorites: Book of Vile Darkness (my DM has thrown way too much f***ed up stuff from that book at us, for me to EVER see that book and not shudder), Races of Stone (I just don't like the feel of those races), Complete Warrior (I don't like playing melee characters, so that book wasn't spectacularly useful to me)

[Lateral]

My favorites would have to be the Tome of Battle, Expanded Psionics Handbook,and Dungeonscape. There are others that have stuff I like (Frostburn comes in at a close fourth for Primeval and Frostrager), but those are the big three. Don't really have a least favorite; Complete Psionics absolutely butchered the system, but it has some good stuff so it's nice for selective use.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

Favorites:

In the WotC/DND 3.x world:
Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel, Races of Stone, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Players Handbook II, DMG II, MM1, 5, Elder Evils, Lords of Madness, Frostbun (Frostrager FTW), Sandstorm, Stormwrack, Fiendish Codices, Tome of Battle.

Non WotC / 3rd Party:
Hyperconsious, Untapped Potential, Quintessential Fighter, Quint. Drow, Quint. Dwarf, Quint. Elf, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved

In the Paizo/3.Pathfinder world:
Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary I and II, Inner Sea World Guide (for the DM side), Psionics Unleashed.

Non-favorites; this includes all products I have read:

Anything that is mage-specific (Complete Mage, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine as examples) "Here's this really cool thing and no you can't have it because mages are awesome and melee is useless and mages can do melee better than you". :smalleek: WotC gave mages entirely too much power in the 3.5 world, and sadly, it seems that Paizo is doing the same thing with the Pathfinder world. Well, that still leaves the DM as the deciding vote. If the DM says that no mage can have spells higher than 6th level, than so be it. Hey... that's a good idea! :smallbiggrin:

Edit: I left in Arcana Evolved and the Psionics stuff because those books are well balanced and are a great alternative to the classic vancian spellcasting that WotC offers.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Oh boy, lots of favorites. I'm gonna say Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum, with Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, and Expanded Psionics following closely behind.

Lest favorites? Book of Vile Darkness and Tome of Magic. BoVD is just terrible, and ToM is lackluster, even going in knowing the binder is the only good thing.

[Malimar]

My favourite is easily Lords of Madness, for the fluff. But I'm a sucker for aberrations.

My least favourite is probably Expanded Psionics Handbook and anything else psionics-related. Psionics just rubs me the wrong way. Oriental Adventures is also fairly terrible.

[Particle_Man]

Favourites: ToB, XPH, CA (for the Warlock).

Least varies.

[arguskos]

Favorites:

Tome of Magic: Man, so many haters! You know, having played a few too many shadowcasters, they're seriously not as bad as you people think. Also, while the Truenamer is pretty abysmal, Zaq's experience shows that they're better than you think (in some ways, anyways).
Dragon Compendium: Kids, it has the D&D logo on the cover, it's legit. Why is it not on more lists here? It's got so much awesome, it should be illegal. From the Dvati to the Death Master to the Force Missile Mage to the Purple Dragon to the Bohemian Ear-Spoon, it's just packed with delicious victory and awesome. :smallcool:
Player's Handbook II: ...how did we get this far with no one listing PHB2? :smallconfused: It's got variants, it's got classes, it's got feats, it's got spells, what's not to like here?
Manuel of the Planes and Planar Handbook: These two are just cause I'm a whore for the cosmology. :smallredface: Frankly, they're underwhelming as hell. I just like 'em.
Weapons of Legacy: Again an underwhelming contender, but another one that strikes me close to the heart. I love the concept and incorporate it frequently into my games (in fact, I just gave my barbarian a legacy weapon, Young Rage, an anger-fueled halberd).


Least:

Tome of Battle: Not for mechanical reasons (in fact, it's quite nice mechanically) but for community ones. This book polarized the community like nothing else ever has, and for that, I will forever hate it. In fact, I guarantee someone is going to post (non-ironically) quoting me saying this and say that I'm a bad person or something for not liking ToB. It's happened before. :smallsigh:
Dragon Magic: Ok WotC, yes, "dragon" is in the game's title, but did we need three ENTIRE books about dragons? Did we need another dragon-themed base class? Really guys? This book could have been something else, like say Junglescape or Races of the Plains or a support supplement for Tome of Magic or for the various non-core base classes out there, but nooooooooo, we had to have MORE STUPID DRAGON CRAP. :smallmad:
Monster Manual IV: This one I'm really sad about. It has some very nice stuff in it (the Avatars of Elemental Evil, the Zern, the Varag, the Necrosis Carnex), but it has so much dross (anything leveled, the Spawn of Tiamat [DAMMIT MORE DRAGON CRAP]). Could have been so much more, and wasn't.
Races of Eberron: I have the entire Eberron line of books to tell me this jazz. I didn't need a new races book for that. I'd have preferred Races of the Plains or Races of the Planes (hahaseewhatIdidthere?) or something else even.

[Lateral]

Tome of Battle: Not for mechanical reasons (in fact, it's quite nice mechanically) but for community ones. This book polarized the community like nothing else ever has, and for that, I will forever hate it. In fact, I guarantee someone is going to post (non-ironically) quoting me saying this and say that I'm a bad person or something for not liking ToB. It's happened before. :smallsigh:

Actually, this is... one of the most reasonable reasons for disliking ToB that I've
ever seen. People say it's too magicky, and I say, "Wotta load of crap; less than half of the disciplines have any magic in them." People say it's too strong, and I say, "Oh, yeah, and wizards turning into 50-foot monsters and killing everything into a 1,000 foot radius isn't?" People say the fluff sucks, and I say, "That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you can always just change the fluff if you like the mechanics."

You say this, and I say, "You know what? You're completely right." Despite the fact that I love the book, the effect on the community has been pretty polarizing.

There have been benefits, too; most notably, it's a mechanic that's just crying out for homebrewers to take up the flag.

[Arutema]

Favorite: Player's Handbook. Can't play without it.

Least: Savage Cheeses. Not enough savage progressions, too much that is overpowered, grossly underpowered or just poorly thought out.

[faceroll]

People say it's too strong, and I say, "Oh, yeah, and wizards turning into 50-foot monsters and killing everything into a 1,000 foot radius isn't?"

I hate this argument.

[arguskos]

You say this, and I say, "You know what? You're completely right." Despite the fact that I love the book, the effect on the community has been pretty polarizing.
That it has. :smallannoyed:


There have been benefits, too; most notably, it's a mechanic that's just crying out for homebrewers to take up the flag.
And they do, in spades. I'm just not among them, nor will I ever be. More power to them, but it's just not my speed.

[Crossblade]

Draconomicon - I like the fluff about the dragons.

Unearthed Arcana - Variant classes are nice, Paragon Classes are interesting.

Races of Dragon - LOVE the expansion on Kobolds, enjoy DragonBorn... Spellscales though? Meh. Dragonwroughts are awesome and the Rite of Draconic Affinity is a great idea.

Explorer's Handbook - I don't play Eberron, but I LOOOOVVVEEE Airships!!!


Least Favorites? Well, I didn't buy any books that didn't have even the slightest appeal to me, so I can't say justly as to why I would outright dislike a certain book.

[Amnestic]

Did we need another dragon-themed base class? Really guys?

Not to rag on your decisions, but the DFA is...the second and last dragon-themed base class, next to the Sorcerer? You've got three "Powers of the Gods" classes in the PHB alone.

[Greenish]

Not to rag on your decisions, but the DFA is...the second and last dragon-themed base class, next to the Sorcerer?There's also Dragon Shaman in PHBII.

[Amnestic]

There's also Dragon Shaman in PHBII.

I stand corrected. Though the Sorcerer=Dragon heritage stuff is strictly optional. You could avoid those feats altogether and have your Sorcerer come from...I dunno, Air Elementals if you wanted. I recall the PHB saying that it was deliberately somewhat vague.

[Greenish]

I stand corrected. Though the Sorcerer=Dragon heritage stuff is strictly optional.Then again, Eberron ties Shugenja to dragons.

[arguskos]

I stand corrected. Though the Sorcerer=Dragon heritage stuff is strictly optional. You could avoid those feats altogether and have your Sorcerer come from...I dunno, Air Elementals if you wanted. I recall the PHB saying that it was deliberately somewhat vague.
While your point is valid, that there are more divine classes than dragon ones, I still feel like the DFA could have been in PHB 2 instead of the Dragon Shaman, and they could have simply never printed the latter and we'd be better off.

Dragons are not a deep enough concept to fuel two specifically themed base classes, IMO, whereas the concept of the divine is. That's the only issue with having multiple dragon-themed classes really (I like the DFA quite a bit, after all).

[MeeposFire]

Tome of battle, Tome of magic (fluff is great for the whole thing and binder is great mechanically. It is a very good read). Eberron Campaign setting and Expanded Psionic handbook.

No to players handbook. If not for the basic rules I would consider it very poor. Bland and full of classes that are thematic but bad in design.

[Veyr]

Weapons of Legacy: Again an underwhelming contender, but another one that strikes me close to the heart. I love the concept and incorporate it frequently into my games (in fact, I just gave my barbarian a legacy weapon, Young Rage, an anger-fueled halberd).
Actually, I should add Weapons of Legacy to my least-favorite list: the idea is great (and in fact is something that 3.5 desperately needed; unfortunately, IMO, it still does), but the execution is, IMO, absolutely hideous. It leads to a complete no-win situation for the DM, and I do not like that in the least.


Tome of Battle: Not for mechanical reasons (in fact, it's quite nice mechanically) but for community ones. This book polarized the community like nothing else ever has, and for that, I will forever hate it. In fact, I guarantee someone is going to post (non-ironically) quoting me saying this and say that I'm a bad person or something for not liking ToB. It's happened before. :smallsigh:
I agree with the above poster and agree that this is a reasonable stance, but I for one do not see this as inherently a bad thing. Sure, there are stupid fights on these forums about it, but the fact is that it's an excellent book with superb mechanics, and while some people may choose to not use it and that is their prerogative, the notion that it is bad because of this strikes me as quite wrong-headed. It's almost like saying we shouldn't have it (that is, "it is bad" implies "it would be better if it didn't exist", or at least could imply that) because some people can't stop arguing about it. I'd hesitate to posit that "this" (fights over ToB) "is why we cannot have nice things" (ToB itself).

Note: I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I truly doubt this was your intent. This is beyond reading between the lines, it's taking several logical leaps to perhaps questionable conclusions made by a series of vague implications. Nonetheless, it is my initial reaction to your post, and I think it's worth pointing out how your logic might be extrapolated.

[Amnestic]

While your point is valid, that there are more divine classes than dragon ones, I still feel like the DFA could have been in PHB 2 instead of the Dragon Shaman, and they could have simply never printed the latter and we'd be better off.

Dragons are not a deep enough concept to fuel two specifically themed base classes, IMO, whereas the concept of the divine is. That's the only issue with having multiple dragon-themed classes really (I like the DFA quite a bit, after all).

I have no qualms with the bolded statement. Dragon Shaman always felt a little too weak for anything other than the second half of an already action-heavy Gestalt build.

[MeeposFire]

I wouldn't mind seeing the auras being standard on a DFA..

[Veyr]

Favorite: Player's Handbook. Can't play without it.
But if we could, everyone should. It really is a terribly-designed book. The foundation's there for all the stuff I like about the system, but there are so many problems with so many aspects of the PHB. The Classes, Spell Descriptions, and Feats can and probably should be thrown out wholesale. Make something up when you come across a pre-req for a PHB feat, and you're golden.

I would try to save the Bard though. I like that one. The Rogue and Barbarian are probably salvageable but IMO not worth it. The rest can go burn for all I care.

[arguskos]

Veyr, I'm on a iPod thus no quoting. However, I wanted to respond. I think that the big thing you're missing with my ranking is that it is a personal opinion only. I said nothing about the book in an objective way, beyond that I causes fights and has good mechanics. On those points, we appear to be agreed. My ranking of it as bad is because of that, and because of it starting fights, I ban it, since it has caused punchouts in my experience! The pure idea of maneuvers is fine, and the mechanics have a small charm to them that I like. I personally have some dislikes, that I will not mention here due to the known propensity for that book to start some ****.

As a note, when I say things, I rarely mean anything beyond what has been said. ;)

I'd also go ahead and agree that your logic there was... questionable. I like melds having nice things. I just wish they didn't cause new bad things. :(

Finally, don't take this response as personal or angry or something. Just clarifying is all.

[MeeposFire]

Barbarian is good for one alternate class feature. If it was not for that pounce ability the fighter is probably better in most situations.

Keep the bard for sure though. Rangers have potential too.

[Veyr]

Arguskos: "understood" or "agreed" applies to pretty much all of your response; in fact I'd argue that clarity was not necessary since I did understand that, but then it's also not a bad idea because one can never be sure about such things on the Internet.

However,

I ban it, since it has caused punchouts in my experience!OK, wtf? Never, ever would I ever allow anyone who threw a punch over anything in a D&D game to return to my game. Not in a million years. And blaming a book over this? That's preposterous.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Favorite: Player's Handbook. Can't play without it.

Fun fact: You totally can. I own neither the DMG, the PH, or the Monster Manual, and I've been playing D&D for a few years now. The SRD is one of the best things that ever happened to D&D. (http://www.d20srd.org/)

Also, if you know the rules, you can cut every inch of Player's Handbook material out of the game and do just fine.

My favorite books?

The Expanded Psionics Handbook (great casting system), Fiend Folio (best of the Monster Manuals), the Player's Handbook 2 (just all-around good stuff), Heroes of Horror (I just like it), Lords of Madness (Aberration goodness), Draconomicon (plenty of expansion to the iconic monster of D&D), Tome of Battle (AKA Melee Gets Nice Stuff Now Too), Tome of Magic (I like all of the classes in this, even the Truenamer in concept if not in execution), and if there's one I can emphasize, Heroes of Battle, not because it's my absolute favorite but because no one ever remembers that it exists.

Least favorites? Eh. Weapons of Legacy had a great idea, but terribad execution. The 3.0 psionics book needs to die in a fire. The Monster Manual IV is the most generic and the worst of the Monster Manuals by a fair bit. Nothing else I can think of besides that.

[Feldarove]

Favorite(s):
Dieties and demigods (hours of reading material while on the crapper).

Epic Level handbook (never used, just read and dreamed that one of our campaigns wouldnt end after the 5th session).

Player's Handbook (this book is very well written compared to the mounds of garbage that other company's put out as thier core rule book. Just because the top of the genre book has some flaws that near a decade of scrutiny has revealed does not mean its terribly written)

Least Favorite(s):

Tomb of Battle (really thought it was cool at first, then 4e hit, and I realized it was just a playtest for us dnd monkeys)

Book of Challenges (As a player I always cried when my dm brought this book out and knew that at least 1 of the party members was going to die)

Weapons of Legacy (terrible, its like a whole book giving homebrew tips and poor examples)

[MeeposFire]

It did not take a decade to figure out the PHB classes were bad. It was known very early that druids, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers were at a different level and that the warrior classes had issues. It was not always known how to fix it but it was very well documented.

I will say the 3.5 PHB is better than the 3.0 one but that doesn't say much and it is better than the 3.0 psionics book.

[Veyr]

Tomb of Battle (really thought it was cool at first, then 4e hit, and I realized it was just a playtest for us dnd monkeys)
I am very confused — how is that a statement, good, bad, or neutral, about the book? I can't see how the release of 4E would change your opinion of a 3.5 book?

[The Dark Fiddler]

Also, if you know the rules, you can cut every inch of Player's Handbook material out of the game and do just fine.

Weapons, skills, and feats say hi. :smallwink:

[MeeposFire]

Weapons, skills, and feats say hi. :smallwink:

Weapons, feats, and skills are all found on that website.

[grarrrg]

I simply cannot believe that no one has mentioned the BoEF yet. :smallbiggrin:

You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

[Amnestic]

Weapons, feats, and skills are all found on that website.

Isn't it just the levelling-via-Exp and the WBL stuff that they don't have? Neither of which are really integral to play.

[MeeposFire]

Isn't it just the levelling-via-Exp and the WBL stuff that they don't have? Neither of which are really integral to play.

It is missing few other things but they are small things like you said (build order is one I think).

I almost asked what BoEF was but I just figured it out. We of course did not include 3rd party products since BoEF wins every time!

[Greenish]

Weapons, skills, and feats say hi. :smallwink:What, you haven't memorized those? Even from the core?

For shame!

[Feldarove]

I am very confused — how is that a statement, good, bad, or neutral, about the book? I can't see how the release of 4E would change your opinion of a 3.5 book?

Let me try to help you with your confusion. I think it starts by your question. You are asking me "how is that a statement, good, bad or neutral, about the book?" under a section titled "favorite (and less than favorite) 3.x books".

You assumed that I was commenting on the quality of the book, but I was only giving my perspective of like and dislike.

I thought the book was a really cool idea when it first came out. Then 4e came out and I saw that ToB was much like it, and I thought, I spent money on a book that I feel was only put out to see if people liked the idea. When you release a book that is so radically different in play than much of your other content and then your next edition is much like it, it rubs your players the wrong way.

Is the book's content bad? I wouldn't say so. It was very interesting and enjoyable. Are its effects on the community negative? Some (even in this thread) would argue yes.

Ex(outside of dnd):

I think the 2010-2011 Green Bay Packers are a very good football team, but I am from Chicago and I hate them.

I realize when viewing my comments for WoL one could say I am contradicting myself.

[Thurbane]

Favorites? The one's I have gotten the most use from would be PHB 2, MIC and SC...

Least favorite? ToB - silly, over the top anime and doesn't fit thematically in most campaigns. :smalltongue: [J/K - we don't use it, but I have no particualr gripe with the book or systems]

[MeeposFire]

Funny nobody in my area had any problem fitting TOB in their campaigns mine included. Certainly it was no more anime than the rest of D&D (which ironically has been made into an anime before).

I understand the personal opinion part of what you said but the part making a statement on other peoples games yanks my chain.:smallwink:

EDIT: OOO next post shows there is a hidden joke I take it back:smallbiggrin:

[Tvtyrant]

Favorites? The one's I have gotten the most use from would be PHB 2, MIC and SC...

Least favorite? ToB - silly, over the top anime and doesn't fit thematically in most campaigns. :smalltongue: [J/K - we don't use it, but I have no particualr gripe with the book or systems]

:smallwink: I'm not sure if this was an intentional fish-hook or not. I think the fact that it provides so many tier 3s is nice for a certain level of game. Not so great for a lower or higher level but whateves.

The white text is hard to see...

[Zaq]

Top books, eh? Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and the Magic Item Compendium are all very strong contenders. (Tome of Magic gets a mention as the book most likely to cause me to shed a single perfect tear, ideally while the wind and the overdramatic music swell in the background.) Races of Destiny gets a strong mention just for the illumian race and the Chameleon, but it can't quite reach the level that ToB, MoI, and MIC hold. It's Hot Outside, It's Cold Outside, It's Wet Outside, and It's Not Outside are all a lot of fun, but again, definitely on the second-best level.

Least favorite . . . Savage Species is definitely up (down?) there. Weapons of Legacy is one of the few WotC books I ban out of hand on the rare occasions that I GM . . . the system gives me a headache, and it seems impossible to make a legacy weapon that isn't either overpowered or underpowered. Great concept, but if there's anything worthwhile in the execution, it's lost on me. Complete Warrior has very little to offer in exchange for the load of crap it delivers (I swear, the feats and PrCs in that book have some of the harshest prereqs I've ever seen. Melee can't have nice things, indeed), though just Bear Warrior alone makes it better than Savage Species.

[arguskos]

Arguskos: "understood" or "agreed" applies to pretty much all of your response; in fact I'd argue that clarity was not necessary since I did understand that, but then it's also not a bad idea because one can never be sure about such things on the Internet.
Glorious! Great to hear that we're on the same page.


OK, wtf? Never, ever would I ever allow anyone who threw a punch over anything in a D&D game to return to my game. Not in a million years. And blaming a book over this? That's preposterous.
Oh, I didn't let them back (and I threw the last punch, since he decided to come at ME over it). And the book was directly responsible for the fight, so, uh, I'm pretty justified in this respect. I allowed the book for another player, and the offending party grew angry about it. He asked me to not allow it. I told him I felt it was alright. He said some very stupid things. I asked him, politely, to please take a five minute break and come back when he was cooled off. He threw a punch at me, calling me a moron and some other foul stuff for allowing ToB. I ended the fight swiftly, and ejected him from the apartment.

It was, sadly, ToB's fault, since the content of the book provoked an otherwise good player to violence. I've seen the sheer MENTION of ToB cause heated arguments between dear friends who are normally level-headed folks. It causes issues, and that's why I no longer allow it.

I know this is a pretty far outlier, but it's happened on a few occasions, so I'm marking it up to more than random chance. There's something about the book that causes issues, and to avoid the issues, I avoid the book. I've got other things to do in my free time, like have fun and avoid punch outs. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

Books don't punch people. People punch people. :smallwink:

[Veyr]

It was, sadly, ToB's fault, since the content of the book provoked an otherwise good player to violence. I've seen the sheer MENTION of ToB cause heated arguments between dear friends who are normally level-headed folks. It causes issues, and that's why I no longer allow it.
Quite frankly? No. Anyone who would get that worked up about anything in a game has serious issues completely unrelated to the game. Sorry, but I reject your assertion that this was "an otherwise good player" who was "level-headed" and "dear friends" with those involved. That reaction is completely and utterly irrational and unacceptable, and using the book as an excuse is absurd. The problem is this person, not in any way, shape, or form the book.

[Feldarove]

Quite frankly? No. Anyone who would get that worked up about anything in a game has serious issues completely unrelated to the game. Sorry, but I reject your assertion that this was "an otherwise good player" who was "level-headed" and "dear friends" with those involved. That reaction is completely and utterly irrational and unacceptable, and using the book as an excuse is absurd. The problem is this person, not in any way, shape, or form the book.

Well clearly ToB was the catalyst for this man's issues. I feel like you are not understanding what this whole thread is about veyr. You do realize its asking people for thier personal likes and dislikes of books right?

The poster is saying that in his personal experience ToB caused crazy things to happen.

I have a friend who hates Dragon Magic because it reminds him of someone we let into our dnd group. This new person had just bought the book and wouldn't let any of us read it because it was new and his. It made no sense. So, now my friend hates the book. Has nothing to do with the content of the book.

[Veyr]

I do not believe that someone's right to an opinion is equivalent to a right to never have that opinion questioned. There is absolutely no point in a discussion board where no discussion can take place, which is what you would have if all anyone ever did was state "this is what my opinion is, and that's sacrosanct so you can't touch that."

I'm not trying to say "no, that's not your opinion" or even "no, your opinion is wrong". I'm just saying that opinions should have reasons, and those reasons should be relevant. I don't think your friend's hatred of Dragon Magic is any more defensible than Arguskos hating Tome of Battle solely because of this one extreme incident (it is my understanding that he has other reasons for not including it, which is fine, but I am addressing that one in particular). It is a mis-application of events and facts that have nothing to do with the book into one's perception of the book, and that does not constitute an opinion of the book.

In other words, my point is that these two opinions are not opinions of the books themselves. Your friend doesn't dislike Dragon Magic so much as the person who was being annoying about it. From the sounds of things, he still hasn't even read it — and yes, reading a book is a prerequisite to having an opinion on it.

[Thurbane]

Oh sure, people can question the opinions of others, but sometimes personal preferences just can't be defined, and often there's not a lot to be gained by dissecting someone's tastes...

Would there be much point in asking me to define why I don't like Salt And Vinegar flavoured potato chips, or is it just enough that I don't like them? :smallbiggrin:

Funny nobody in my area had any problem fitting TOB in their campaigns mine included. Certainly it was no more anime than the rest of D&D (which ironically has been made into an anime before).

I understand the personal opinion part of what you said but the part making a statement on other peoples games yanks my chain.:smallwink:

EDIT: OOO next post shows there is a hidden joke I take it back:smallbiggrin:


:smallwink: I'm not sure if this was an intentional fish-hook or not. I think the fact that it provides so many tier 3s is nice for a certain level of game. Not so great for a lower or higher level but whateves.

The white text is hard to see...
Actually, I will cop to being a ToB hater early on. Then there just came a point where I realized that it truly does not matter to me what material people do or don't use in their D&D games. Whatever works for a group (splats, houserules, settings etc.) is fine for me.

The only time I become a bit beligerant is when people try to ram ToB (or anything else for that matter) down the throats of others as "essential material for enjoying the game", or when there's an implication that you are "doing it wrong" if you're perfectly satisfied using your actions to simply beat on a monster with a pointy stick. Happily, this seems to be happening less and less, at these forums, anyhow.

[arguskos]

Quite frankly? No. Anyone who would get that worked up about anything in a game has serious issues completely unrelated to the game. Sorry, but I reject your assertion that this was "an otherwise good player" who was "level-headed" and "dear friends" with those involved. That reaction is completely and utterly irrational and unacceptable, and using the book as an excuse is absurd. The problem is this person, not in any way, shape, or form the book.
1. He was. I knew him for over a year. He was a normal fairly level-headed guy. I knew him, you didn't, you'll just have to take my word on this one.

2. The "dear friends" comment was a different incident, which if you re-read closely, you'll notice (my wording can be a mite bit tricky, sorry).


I do not believe that someone's right to an opinion is equivalent to a right to never have that opinion questioned. There is absolutely no point in a discussion board where no discussion can take place, which is what you would have if all anyone ever did was state "this is what my opinion is, and that's sacrosanct so you can't touch that."
Of course the questioning of opinions is fine. Agreed here.


I'm not trying to say "no, that's not your opinion" or even "no, your opinion is wrong". I'm just saying that opinions should have reasons, and those reasons should be relevant. I don't think your friend's hatred of Dragon Magic is any more defensible than Arguskos hating Tome of Battle solely because of this one extreme incident (it is my understanding that he has other reasons for not including it, which is fine, but I am addressing that one in particular). It is a mis-application of events and facts that have nothing to do with the book into one's perception of the book, and that does not constitute an opinion of the book.
My reasons are many. Allow me to simplify the one you are questioning, and dispel a notion if I might.

I have issues with the arguments it causes. It has been at the center of fights, angry arguments, and has caused the dissolution of gaming groups in my experience. It has a history of causing issues with groups I have played with, more than I am willing to chalk up to coincidence. Because of these incidents (and other, less specified, reasons; which I will not enter into here), I disallow it now.

I am not blaming the book for that person's bad judgment. I am blaming it for provoking him, WHICH IT ABSOLUTELY DID. To say anything else is blatantly false. It provokes people, and that is what I want to avoid. This is absolutely an opinion of the book, just not of the mechanics, but of the effect of the book on people.

I've said this before, and I'll say this again and again if I have to. The book, divorced of all emotion, is something I like just fine. However, it was placed on my list of personal least favorite books explicitly because it is never divorced from emotions and that causes issues that I should rather prefer to avoid.

Also, and I'm pretty sure this isn't your intent, but I'm getting some pretty angry vibes from you towards my person and opinions, which I don't appreciate. Just a discussion, no need to be heated. :smallwink:

[Veyr]

1. He was. I knew him for over a year. He was a normal fairly level-headed guy. I knew him, you didn't, you'll just have to take my word on this one.
I think, then, that our definitions of "level-headed" must differ. I would never used that term to describe anyone who would throw a punch over a game in any circumstance ever.


2. The "dear friends" comment was a different incident, which if you re-read closely, you'll notice (my wording can be a mite bit tricky, sorry).
Ah, my mistake. Mind-boggling to me, as I can't imagine how it could cause any real strife, but whatever.


Of course the questioning of opinions is fine. Agreed here.
Glad to hear.


My reasons are many. Allow me to simplify the one you are questioning, and dispel a notion if I might.

I have issues with the arguments it causes. It has been at the center of fights, angry arguments, and has caused the dissolution of gaming groups in my experience. It has a history of causing issues with groups I have played with, more than I am willing to chalk up to coincidence. Because of these incidents (and other, less specified, reasons; which I will not enter into here), I disallow it now.

I am not blaming the book for that person's bad judgment. I am blaming it for provoking him, WHICH IT ABSOLUTELY DID. To say anything else is blatantly false. It provokes people, and that is what I want to avoid. This is absolutely an opinion of the book, just not of the mechanics, but of the effect of the book on people.

I've said this before, and I'll say this again and again if I have to. The book, divorced of all emotion, is something I like just fine. However, it was placed on my list of personal least favorite books explicitly because it is never divorced from emotions and that causes issues that I should rather prefer to avoid.
I have absolutely no concept of how a book about a game could provoke anything. It's a game. Again, mind-boggling for me.


Also, and I'm pretty sure this isn't your intent, but I'm getting some pretty angry vibes from you towards my person and opinions, which I don't appreciate. Just a discussion, no need to be heated. :smallwink:
My apologies if that was the impression you've gotten; it was not intentional. As I've said... I really find the concept of getting worked up over a book in a game quite... perplexing.

[arguskos]

I think, then, that our definitions of "level-headed" must differ. I would never used that term to describe anyone who would throw a punch over a game in any circumstance ever.
Don't look at me, man. I'm not the dude.


As I've said... I really find the concept of getting worked up over a book in a game quite... perplexing.
You and me both. I'm just reporting the thing.

[Thurbane]

I think, then, that our definitions of "level-headed" must differ. I would never used that term to describe anyone who would throw a punch over a game in any circumstance ever.
In my experience, it's perfectly possible for people to be otherwise level-headed, and have one out-of-character moment where they totally overreact to something.

FWIW, I have been at a D&D game where someone was beaten bloody by a fellow player. To be fair, though, without excusing the actions of the aggressor, the "victim" was deliberately provoking the guy with out-of-game actions and comments.

[Dsurion]

In fact, I guarantee someone is going to post (non-ironically) quoting me saying this and say that I'm a bad person or something for not liking ToB. It's happened before. :smallsigh:you are a bad person for not liking ToB :smalltongue:

Nah, I'm kidding. I neither like nor dislike the book, really. My only beef is that I prefer tier 4 level balance to 3, and that the book is somewhat hard to read due to the weird font and color.

I wanted to mention BoEF as a disliked book, not because of anything inherent to the book itself (aside from the oft agreed upon awful art), but because it made Wizards rethink their licensing policies to be more strict and draconian.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Favorites? Dragon Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Savage Species, Complete Arcane and Complete Divine. And Unearthed Arcana, hands down.

Not so much? Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Canarr]

I have absolutely no concept of how a book about a game could provoke anything. It's a game. Again, mind-boggling for me.


Okay, so... do you actually *know* any gamers? ;)

Sorry, that was a bit flippant... I was just surprised to read that statement. Now, I've never been in a (P&P) game that actually degenerated into violence, but heated arguments, IMO, happen very, very often among gamers.

I mean, D&D alone: 3.0 vs. 2nd, 3.5 vs. 3.0, 4E vs. 3.x - that alone can fill entire chatrooms or "discussion" threads. Extend that into other P&P systems (WoD, Exalted, Shadowrun...), or, Heaven forbid, into other areas of Gaming such as CCGs, MMORPGs, boardgames, wargames - then all bets are off. I've witnessed discussions (at a Con or a LGS, mostly) where the mere utterance of, "Yeah, well, 4E might float your boat, but I prefer 3.5 or PF." provoked the same reaction as an admittance that, yes, I may occasionally light puppies on fire.

Even among our regular gaming group (we've been playing together, on and off, for the last 15-20 years) a rules argument may occasionally turn into heated discussion and mutual frustration. There's a reason that "fan" comes from "fanatic".

But that's a bit OT; as for the thread title: I personally like Complete Adventurer, Complete Warrior, and Heroes of Battle (I'm happy about anything that will give warrior-types a bit more fluff&crunch). DMG II is also nice, mostly for the fluff. Rules Compendium gives a nice overview of the rules, plus a few much-needed clarifications. If we're adding third party books, I like a few of Mongoose's Slayers Guide to... books - and Kenzerco's Mother of all Treasure Tables is great if you want to give your players more than just gold, gems and magic items. Cityscape, because I like city-based campaigns, and that book brings nice flavor to the table.

Least favorites... Complete Arcane & Champion. Savage Species, mostly for the fact that the rules are all over the place here, with little rhyme and reason. Other than that, I've rarely bought a book I wasn't reasonably sure I would like.

[Yora]

Fun fact: You totally can. I own neither the DMG, the PH, or the Monster Manual, and I've been playing D&D for a few years now. The SRD is one of the best things that ever happened to D&D. (http://www.d20srd.org/)


My favorite books?

The Expanded Psionics Handbook
Fun fact. You can play a psionic game without that book. :smallamused:

[Alleran]

My favourite would be Magic of Faerun. I like well-developed magic systems. Draconomicon isn't too shabby either, thanks to all the stuff it has on dragons.

The least favourite, on the other hand, would be Savage Species. Or maybe Dragons of Faerun.

[Feytalist]

I'm a sucker for all things Faerun. Because the books don't just provide mechanics, they tell a story. And that's not even counting the fluff.

I especially love Races of Faerun. The feats/spells/PrC's in there are kind of weird and silly, but then they win all those points back for describing like 40 different races in absolute detail.

Although yes, Dragons of Faerun was just a cry of help, really.

I similarly love the Planescape universe, so Planar Handbook/Manual of the Planes gets much love.

[Yora]

Yes, Dragons of Faerûn was bad. But does anyone even remember Power of Faerûn? :smallbiggrin:

[Feytalist]

Hehe, I loved Power of Faerun. But I kinda just read it as a novel, not as a sourcebook :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Okay, so... do you actually *know* any gamers? ;)


Nope, I've actually never seen anyone outside of message forums get more than a bit agitated at an RPG or other game discussion. Or at least, it never went beyond "Dude, that's wrong" or "No, man. Don't do that".

On topic... I agree that Savage Species was bad. I have a special dislike for the Fiendish Codices and the Book of Vile Darkness, because they didn't do anything on the 'loths, the coolest of all fiends. The Manual of the Planes, for the most part, felt just pale compared to the original Planescape books, but that's no reason to hate it.

[Sdonourg]

Favorites: Draconomicon (nice fluff and a lot of new dragons), EPH (psionics is always good), ToM (nice fluff + binders and shadowcasters are awesome), Frostburn, Dragon Compendium (Sha'ir is a boon), Manual of the Planes/Fiend Folio/Planar Handbook (I like Plancescape, and FF is the best of monster manuals, especially for nerras).
Least favorites: Weapons of Legacy.

[Alleran]

Yes, Dragons of Faerûn was bad. But does anyone even remember Power of Faerûn? :smallbiggrin:
My problem with Power of Faerun was how it provided more rules for the abuse-able Leadership. Other than that, it was loaded with plenty of stuff about establishing kingdoms and so on. Coupled with the Border Kingdoms articles on the Wizards site I thought it was rather good.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Fun fact. You can play a psionic game without that book. :smallamused:

http://www.b3tards.com/u/0f0141b3371e42dc18b5/well_played.jpg


I have a special dislike for the Fiendish Codices and the Book of Vile Darkness, because they didn't do anything on the 'loths, the coolest of all fiends.

To be fair, nobody did anything with the Yugoloths. I've only played 3.X and on, and I literally know nothing about them beyond the fact that they're mercenary NE fiends.

...not to mention that harping on books for what they didn't do is a wee bit unfair.

[Eldan]

Faces of Evil. Planes of Conflict. Hellbound. All these books did awesome things to 'loths. I mean, they could just have done what Pathfinder did, and hire Planewalker's Shemeska :smallwink:

[Yora]

But I think it would be fair to call them setting-exclusive monsters. Yes, warforged are also in the MM3, but they are still Eberron creatures.

[Feytalist]

Yugoloths are setting-exclusive? What setting?

Unless you count the planes as its own setting, a la Planescape.

[Volthawk]

Besides, 'loths are about as setting-exclusive as devils and demons, really.

[Yora]

I meant Planescape. They show up a lot in AD&D Planescape material and in the 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes. Then there are some in MM2 and MM3, but I never see them given any meaningful role anywhere else.
Dating back to very old FR material, it is established that yugolths invaded Myth Drannor, so they still have to show up in that context in one or two FR books. But in no setting except Planescape have I ever seen them given any meaningful role.

[Eldan]

Back in AD&D, that counted as default, though. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and other settings were all assumed to be part of Planescape and share the Wheel.

[Feytalist]

Yeah, that's what made Planescape fun.

Official 3.x policy is that all the "Prime Material" planes are wholly distinct from each other, with no crossover possible.

Yora, I thought that was what you meant. I remember that Myth Drannor/Yugoloth connection as well.

[MeeposFire]

Loths were official in most campaigns but were not really utilized. It is similar to the situation with psionics. Eberron used psionics heavily but psionics were not limited there and psionics were rarely seen in many of the other settings but likewise it exists there it just is not utilized as much.

[Kallisti]

Books don't punch people. People punch people. :smallwink:

If WotC would publish a splatbook that punched people, it would be my new favorite book from any edition.

[Arutema]

If WotC would publish a splatbook that punched people, it would be my new favorite book from any edition.


A book that punches people, you say? (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/1755-Nier)

Warning. Link contains extremely foul language.

[thompur]

Complete Arcane for the Warlock
Tome Of Magic for the Binder
Tome of Battle for the win
Fiendish Codex II for the cool fluff, the Hellfire Warlock, and the Politics of hell


Least: Magic of the Incarnum for being an incomprehensible mess of crap.

[navar100]

In my experience, it's perfectly possible for people to be otherwise level-headed, and have one out-of-character moment where they totally overreact to something.

FWIW, I have been at a D&D game where someone was beaten bloody by a fellow player. To be fair, though, without excusing the actions of the aggressor, the "victim" was deliberately provoking the guy with out-of-game actions and comments.

While nothing so violent, I had lost friends because my cleric didn't cast Cure Light Wounds enough to their taste. They were incensed enough to yell at me about it in a public place.

That doesn't mean I should be hating clerics or the Cure Light Wounds spell, though.

[Callista]

Oddly enough, I like Book of Exalted Deeds and both Fiendish Codexes. I enjoy playing Good-aligned characters, and I think Outsiders are generally interesting; so the Good/Evil planes naturally come up a lot. Good-aligned types often end up fighting the worst of the Evil, which of course is where the Fiendish Codex I/II comes in. I've never had the chance to play a pacifist or somebody with a vow of poverty, but when I get into an appropriate game I'll probably give that a try too.

Also, Necronomicon, because undead are just creepy and cool.

[Esser-Z]

Favorites are the ToB, for its general awesome, and XPH, for being more fun AND balanced than magic!

Least favorite would be good ol' mister "Balance? What is Balance?" PHB.

[Undercroft]

Favourites: Tome of Magic (for the binder stuff), Book of Vile Darkness (because my PCs are creeped right out by cancer mages and vermin lords), Complete Arcane (mostly for the warlocks) and lastly Lords of Madness (because abberations are pure damn win. Illithid Cancer Mage had one player terrified)

Dislike: Book of Exalted Deeds (occasional nifty idea and some okay feats, but generally it sucks), Savage Species (some nifty templates in there, but in general not my sort of thing)

[RaginChangeling]

Favorites:

Tome of Battle
Tome of Magic
Heroes of Horror
Magic of Incarnum
Races of Eberron
Races of the Wild
Dragon Magic
Magic Item Compendium
Monster Manuel 3

Least Favorite:

Most of the Completes (Exceptions for Champion, Warrior)
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Deeds
Monster Manuel 4+5

[big teej]

only speaking from books I own in hardcopy.....
(in order that I pull them out of my bag of holding)

Player's handbook - it's nice to have the actual fluff text that the SRD lacks.

Magic of Incarnum - My new favorite toy. has some really fun stuff in it mechanical and flavorful, my only issue with the book was the PrC "incandescent Champion" just one or two lines of its fluff threw the whole thing out for me.

Book of Vile Darkness - oh how I love this book, whenever I need to make my players go :smalleek: I pull out this book. it's lovely.

Monster Manuel III - huzzah warforged at last!!! I haven't thrown anything from it at my players (using an avalancher tonight) so I can't speak much to it.

Masters of the Wild - a fun book for my barbarians and rangers, there's a few nifty weapons in here that I'll get around to using when it fits a concept, didn't like the prestiege classes that require "destroy x amount of y per day or lose class features" those didn't seem sustainable AT ALL

Tome and Blood - I can't speak to this one, I've only glimpsed through it, I've never played a wizard/sorcerer and niether have my players, so this book is waiting until that happens

Defender's of the Faith - this book has a bunch of helpful fluff and crunch, at the very least, a fun read.

Sword and Fist - pretty much the same as above, but with slightly less useful crunch from what I remember.

Song and Silence - some really fun spells and equipment also more than a few prestiege classes that my players are really excited about.

Enemies and Allies - premade NPCs - yay, orginizations - also yay. wrathful healing? oh yes please thankyou

Book of Exalted Deeds - the only book in my collection that remains out of bounds despite me owning it in hardcopy and reading it.... I really don't like this book. it's fluff was crap, it's mechanics were weak, and the ideas behind it seriously frusterated me. I allow things from this book on an extremely justified case by case basis (the only thing currently in use is any of the enchantments + the sacred relic feat)

Cityscape - we don't use this one much, but it's a fun and informative book. as soon as we run a city based campaign I'm sure it'll be fantasticanomical

DMG II - I reference this book all the time for the weapon/armor templates (still trying to understand how those work properly) the magic items (elixer of reckoning yes please!) and a bunch of other things. a solid book, dependin on what your looking for.

Races of Stone - one of my most consulted book. heavier armor? yes! the feats in here, the dwarfy fluff, and goliaths, I love this book to death (bullettes as mounts!)

Arms and Equipment Guide - another of my most consulted books, mostly for the armor/weapons (duh)

Monster Manual I - huzzah the third core book at last. useful for.... OBVIOUS THINGS =D

Monster Manual II - for when your players start bragging.

Deities and Demigods - finally I can say "no lookie here, your god really DOES say 'don't do that'"

[SurlySeraph]

Favorites:
ToB. I hated it until I actually read it, and then it turned out to be wonderful.
Complete Champion. There are annoying bits (mostly "This PrC is like staying in Ranger except worse" and "Stop it with the organizations") but it's full of nice things for melee and divine types.
FCII. Pretty good mechanics and the best fluff of any DnD book I've read.
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

Least favorites:
BoVD. Trying too hard, failing even harder. There were good bits like that Armor of the Dread Emperor and Soul Eater, but then there were bits like Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain. And NCoEPs override any argument for BoVD that I can think of.
BoED. Pages and pages of derp. Good moments, but reams of derp.
Weapons of Legacy. Even more wasted potential than BoED. I don't think I've ever used anything from it except Legacy Champion, and I've only used that purely for the mechanics, not because it's fun or cool.
Magic of Incarnum. The mechanics were too annoying to puzzle out for me to care much about them. The fluff... bluuuue! Souuuuuls! Races that don't make very much seeeeense!

[Tytalus]

Complete Arcane for the Warlock
Tome Of Magic for the Binder
Tome of Battle for the win
Fiendish Codex II for the cool fluff, the Hellfire Warlock, and the Politics of hell

Least: Magic of the Incarnum for being an incomprehensible mess of crap.

I agree with all of that.

As a least favorite, I have to add the PHB. No other book has caused so many problems for the D&D community, IMHO. Introducing classes of tier 1 and 5, it (falsely) coveys that the classes there are roughly balanced in terms of fun and power. It introduces one of the most complex classes, too (druid: full memorized spellcasting, animal companion, wildshape, buff spells affecting stats, etc.), a newbie trap. Overall: badly designed.

[Set]

Favorites: Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, Frostburn, Sandstorm, Heroes of Horror.

Not so much: Races of Eberron (least favorite races, book, despite having three of my favorite races in it...), Book of Exalted Deeds, most of the empty feeling later Eberron supplements, like Xendrik, City of Stormreach, Explorer's Handbook, etc.

Violent gaming tangent: In college, a player threw a chair at the GM in a game of Villains & Vigilantes game when his Wolverine clone was hit by an ice-villains attack and buried under a bunch of ice, which he would claw his way out of only in time for her next attack, which would bury him under a bunch of ice, again, six rounds in a row. So, while I've never seen a rules argument turn violent, I have seen a player frustrated enough to hurl furniture...

I think he was over-reacting. I was writing up my third character *of the session,* as the first two had already died that evening, and I didn't even throw a wadded up character sheet!

[Bang!]

Favorites:

Tome of Horrors I-III: These were consistently amazing, in the schlocky old-timey D&D way. There are a bunch of throwbacks like flumphs, hippocampi and nilbogs(!!!). There are common-sense monsters that were strangely omitted elsewhere, like sea serpents and leprechauns. There are monsters you never knew how badly you wanted, like bear-sharks and man-eating clams. There are creepy mind-devouring space children. There are undead tornadoes with big punching fists. These books throw the older editions' zany-romp paradigm into the 3e rules, and that's a thing I can appreciate.

Fiend Folio: Lots of cool monsters and templates. I skimmed through it to try to pick out my favorite monsters, or the things that really shined. I ended up trying to remember to include almost every page. The entries are all just really cool.

It's [Wet/Hot/Cold] Outside: Interesting classes, variants, feats, spells and gear for players; setting considerations, monsters and guidelines for DMs who don't want to build everything from the ground up; material applicable to pretty much any campaign setting; game balance is mostly good, with few exceptions (looking at you, Frostburn). All in all, these books are just solid, from almost any angle you want to take.

Monster Manuals (I-III): Monsters are neat. I like monsters. My favorite thing about AD&D was the monster manuals - when I started playing with a couple of friends, the only book we had was the 2e Monster manual; the rest just wasn't that important. The 3e MMs aren't as catchy or intriguing, and read more like a ccg card than a plothook, but they're still filled with monsters, and that counts for something. Beside the environment series, these are my favorite WotC-published books. The last two are really short and dry, except the bits that felt like a Lords of Madness addendum. The MM2 might have been poorly balanced (understatement much), and it had an awful lot of monkey-love, but its monsters were pretty cool, as far as WotC monsters go.

Creature Collection I-III: You may have noticed I like the monster books. The thing about the CC series is that they're not actually that great: they reiterate a lot of material, they aren't especially creative or zany, they aren't introducing new ideas or mechanics. But what they do have doing for them is that they're filled with monsters that players don't usually know. Even with pretty mundane concepts, the fact that they're unfamiliar is enough to catch some players off guard or shake them out of the monster-reaction-autopilot that MM monsters sometimes incite, without giving the DM extra homework the way homebrewing everything would.

Least Favorites:

Eldritch Might 2: I'm not a huge fan of Monte Cook's stuff, but a book reworking Bards and Sorcerers sounded intriguing. Especially the Bards; I never knew what they were doing casting spells in D&D, and this book was going to get rid of that and to compensate with spellsongs. That just sounded too cool. Then I got the book, and Bards got to 'upgrade' from casting Irresistible Dance, Confusion, Dimension Door, etc. to dealing 5d6 damage a couple times per day. Sorcerers abandoned their normal spellcasting mechanisms to adopt a new ability that was almost indistinguishable from their normal spellcasting mechanisms. There was something else in the book that I can't remember for the life of me. All in all, the promise was high, the payout was awful.

Weapons of Legacy: I hate the expectation in WotC D&D that I'm going to weigh players down with magical treasure. I don't want to do that, it doesn't make sense to me in a world-building sense, or a narrative one. Even without jumping away from the power curve in D&D, I'd rather give a character one signature item, and to eke more and more abilities from it over time than give the character more and more swag to dangle off their various boy parts. Weapons of Legacy seemed to promise exactly what I wanted. But then it had its plot-constraints. And its weapon-enhancement fees. And its ability penalties. And the fact that the items kind of sucked for all the investment they required. Bleh.

???

Dragon Magic was a cool supplement. It had new monsters, new classes, new rules, new ideas and support for just about every previously-unsupplemented mechanical subsystem in D&D 3e, all along a particular theme. I am a huge fan of those aspects of it. But its theme is Dragons. I'm not such a big fan there. I mean, Dragons are big scary lizards and that's cool and scary I guess, but they already had more support than they could justify from the MMs alone (and that's before going into Races of the Dragon, the Draconomicon, Dragons of <settings go here>, the few blurbs they got in every supplement or the classes like Dragon Disciple or Dragon Shaman that crop up all over the place). I mean, I get that the game has "Dragon" in its name, but it could totally be treated in a figurative sense. Like "Here be dragons" or mythical dragon allegories for evil or the unknown. It just felt awkward giving one particular monster that much attention, and working the flavor text into a game has always felt contrived. Drow of the Underdark did the same thing as a supplement, but did so less well and to a concept that was a little less of a stretch for me to use (namely, "Underground").

[AslanCross]

1. Tome of Battle: New and fun ways to kill people with your sword.
2. Spell Compendium: Somehow manages to be less broken than the core spell set.
3. Expanded Psionics Handbook: Great balance, good fluff.
4. PHB2: Really does a good job of expanding core abilities.
5. Monster Manual III: Great crunch and fluff all around.

Honorable Mention: Eberron Campaign Setting, Heroes of Horror, Heroes of Battle

Least favorite: Monster Manual II. Duplicate monster concepts, random CRs. Also, Magic of Incarnum, which I simply find incomprehensible.

[Samy]

For the most part, my favorite books become my favorite books because of usually only one or two outstanding things. I don't so much do the "this book is of good quality overall", but more along the lines of, "I don't know about the rest of the book, but this ONE THING is so frikking awesome it's practically become a core rule in my games".

1. Regions. I can't even imagine playing without regions ever again. If I ever venture outside the Forgotten Realms, I'll definitely want to construct regions for whatever game worlds I go to. It's an awesome system. The first version was in Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the updated version is in Player's Guide to Faerûn.

1.1. Regional backgrounds. A great addendum/add-on to the region system, found in Champions of Valor.

2. Races. These are completely subjective, but the coolest add-on races I've found for 3e are the Sharakim (humans cursed to look like orcs) from Races of Destiny and the Aventi (aquatic humans) and Darfellan (orca-men) from Stormwrack. These guys have become major parts of my campaigns and I love playing with them just as much as elves, dwarves and halflings.

3. Asian stuff. Oriental Adventures is chock-full of great classes, prestige classes, feats, equipment, spells and everything. I'm not so fond of running purely anglo-saxon stuff, I love having some ethnic spice and this book gives that in spades. I love the additional flavor that OA material brings to the game and would hate to go without.

4. Variant classes. The concept of trading a class ability for that of another class (as long as the two are of roughly equal power) is indispensible to me. It allows for a huge amount of flexibility to D&D's usually very rigid classes. Most of this stuff is found in Unearthed Arcana, although other books have class variants too.

5. Compendiums. Having everything in one spot makes things SO much easier. Between Rules Compendium, Magic Item Compendium and Spell Compendium, the only downside is that there were never books like this for feats, races or classes.

I could go on and on. Fluff-wise Faiths and Pantheons is the absolute first book I hand to my divine players, it's got so much deity goodness. Dungeon Master's Guide II and Player's Handbook II are very solid books, and most Complete books have at least one or two good ideas in each that are worth salvaging. Cityscape has some good stuff.

[Rappy]

Favorites:

Tome of Horrors I-III: These were consistently amazing, in the schlocky old-timey D&D way. There are a bunch of throwbacks like flumphs, hippocampi and nilbogs(!!!). There are common-sense monsters that were strangely omitted elsewhere, like sea serpents and leprechauns. There are monsters you never knew how badly you wanted, like bear-sharks and man-eating clams. There are creepy mind-devouring space children. There are undead tornadoes with big punching fists. These books throw the older editions' zany-romp paradigm into the 3e rules, and that's a thing I can appreciate.
Agreed.


Creature Collection I-III: You may have noticed I like the monster books. The thing about the CC series is that they're not actually that great: they reiterate a lot of material, they aren't especially creative or zany, they aren't introducing new ideas or mechanics. But what they do have doing for them is that they're filled with monsters that players don't usually know. Even with pretty mundane concepts, the fact that they're unfamiliar is enough to catch some players off guard or shake them out of the monster-reaction-autopilot that MM monsters sometimes incite, without giving the DM extra homework the way homebrewing everything would.
Also agreed. Some other personal favorites (but not all, as I have an uncanny love for many supplements)...

Bane Ledger I and II: Focused exclusively on (often obscure) real world mythological creatures with a variety of challenge ratings. Because sometimes, you just want to throw out a baby-eating flying torso or a fire-breathing tribal giant.

Frost and Fur: Perhaps blasphemous, but I prefer this title over Frostburn. Plenty of good material catering to Slavic, Inuit, and Norse culture.

Green Ronin Advanced Bestiary: The best love letter from an angry GM is a template-stacked swarm of pygmy hellbeast tarrasques.

As for least favorites...well, that definitely goes in a three-way tie to the Book of Exalted Deeds, Deities and Demigods, and Monster Manual IV, for reasons stated by others numerous times over.

[Volthawk]

Agreed.


Also agreed. Some other personal favorites (but not all, as I have an uncanny love for many supplements)...

Bane Ledger I and II: Focused exclusively on (often obscure) real world mythological creatures with a variety of challenge ratings. Because sometimes, you just want to throw out a baby-eating flying torso or a fire-breathing tribal giant.

Frost and Fur: Perhaps blasphemous, but I prefer this title over Frostburn. Plenty of good material catering to Slavic, Inuit, and Norse culture.

Green Ronin Advanced Bestiary: The best love letter from an angry GM is a template-stacked swarm of pygmy hellbeast tarrasques.

As for least favorites...well, that definitely goes in a three-way tie to the Book of Exalted Deeds, Deities and Demigods, and Monster Manual IV, for reasons stated by others numerous times over.

Huh, looks like there's some more nice monster books for me to try and hunt down, then.

[Bang!]

Bane Ledger I and II: Focused exclusively on (often obscure) real world mythological creatures with a variety of challenge ratings. Because sometimes, you just want to throw out a baby-eating flying torso or a fire-breathing tribal giant.

Frost and Fur: Perhaps blasphemous, but I prefer this title over Frostburn. Plenty of good material catering to Slavic, Inuit, and Norse culture.

These sound very cool. I'll be looking into them when I get a chance.

[stainboy]

Favorites:
XPH, for getting sorcerers right, and for removing bad rules as a reason to ban psionics.
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, because I've had my copy for eight years and I can still pick it up and read it.
Heroes of Horror, for printing not one but two necromancer classes.

Un-Favorites
Races of the Dragon, for taking dragon wank to the next level with kobold uber-sorcerers and glorified template lizardmen.
Book of Exalted Deeds, because I never never ever want to hear about Vow of Poverty again.
Planescape Campaign Setting 3rd Edition, for not existing.