Supplement reliance: where on the spectrum do you sit?

[Isamu Dyson]

If, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 were "Core only, and possibly not even errata" and 10 were "I will (and do) use anything available, even non-official splatbooks", which number would you be, and why?

[Elderand]

9.8: I won't use obviously badly written stuff (Immortal handbook I'm looking at you) but otherwise I'm willing to use anything with reasonable players.

[Isamu Dyson]

9.8: I won't use obviously badly written stuff (Immortal handbook I'm looking at you) but otherwise I'm willing to use anything with reasonable players.

Is it a necessity, though?

That is to say, when you are approaching a new campaign, do you first set books other than the Core which you will (always) use, or do you play things by ear and pull books as necessary?

[Emperor Tippy]

9.

If it's official 3.5 material or homebrew that I like them I will use it.

[Isamu Dyson]

9.

If it's official 3.5 material or homebrew that I like them I will use it.

How about 3.0 material that was official, but was never truly or fully updated to 3.5?

Epic Level Handbook, i'm looking at you :smallcool:.

[Elderand]

As a DM I'm always going to keep my options open, never know when a player will derail the campaign and go in a completely unexpected direction. So I always reserve the right to pull books out of nowhere for info/monsters/plot hooks.

For my players, it really depends on who my players are. If they are inexperienced I'm giving them the strict minimum for their character so they get used to things.

More experienced players I generaly ask them what book/ressource they plan to use, and what from those books/ressource and I'll approve or deny on a case by case basis before the game start.

If they want to bring something mid campaign it's negotiable.

[Kazyan]

7. I typically don't use homebrew or Dragon Magazine, but occasionally I can go up to 9.

[Flickerdart]

8. Content breadth is basically 3.5's only plus, so it makes sense to indulge in official material. Dragon is a little iffy, and I much prefer giving poorly designed classes quick fixes rather than open the door to homebrew or 3rd party (which is basically homebrew on paper).

[Psyren]

Put me at... 8 I guess? The further out into the sticks you get (Dragon Magazine, adventure paths etc.) the more I want evidence of some kind of review by other DMs/players online before I sign off. 3rd-party I generally prefer trusted publishers (like DSP) but I'm not afraid to evaluate stuff myself; I've found some rally cool gems that way, especially in PF.

Anyway - I trust the official material more... not because I think it's better-written necessarily, but because I know the community's been over it a dozen times with a fine-toothed comb and found the truly bad stuff.


How about 3.0 material that was official, but was never truly or fully updated to 3.5?

Epic Level Handbook, i'm looking at you :smallcool:.

ELH was updated, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a) actually.

[mabriss lethe]

How about 3.0 material that was official, but was never truly or fully updated to 3.5?

Epic Level Handbook, i'm looking at you :smallcool:.

3.0 material that was never updated is grandfathered in as being 3.5 compliant.

At my table, I probably prefer to run and play at about an 8. Official 3.5 material only with a few agreed upon houserules. Special exceptions for other material taken on a case by case basis. However, if I've got a table of newer players, I tend to choke back on the options so that they aren't overwhelmed, in that case probably a 4 or 5. Core+completes with TOM/TOB on request.

[Urpriest]

When I'm running things, Official 3.5 content plus limited Dragon access, no Dragonlance. So 8 or so. I like to keep things within roughly the same range as the forum discussions I frequent, so that I know roughly what to expect and have a good idea for what players' options are should they ask me for help.

When I'm not running things...I think Core-only is silly in this day and age. If someone was doing Core-only because of inexperience, they wouldn't be doing 3.5 to begin with, they'd be using Pathfinder or 4e. If it's to restrict power, well that's been refuted to death. And I agree with Flickerdart that the whole point of using 3.5 is to leverage the splat pool.

That said, I appreciate restrictions on my optimizing options. They make me think harder. :smallwink:

[Captnq]

Uh... I need examples.

So if I only use ONE 3rd party book, but only for ONE player in ONE campaign, and I only ban SOME books for SOME campaigns, but allow them in others, but don't allow Dragon, but do allow Dragon Compendium, but Don't allow Alternative class features, but DO allow level substitution, and Mystic Rangers, but not with...

Seriously dude. I need a scale to compare this to.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd put myself around a 9, for similar reasons to previous posters. People haven't really gone through D&Dwiki, but they have already told me what to expect from published 3.5 sources.

And the big draw of 3.5, other than familiarity and nostalgia, is its breadth. I don't see a reason to give that up, especially when there are some good nuggets of fun mechanics out there in splat land.

[Talya]

How about 3.0 material that was official, but was never truly or fully updated to 3.5?

Epic Level Handbook, i'm looking at you :smallcool:.

If it was never updated to 3.5, it is still official.

And my answer is almost the same as Tippy's. 8 - any official wotc or dragon magazine source is acceptable. Individually, I may ban a few badly written things, or any individual thing that strikes me as cheese on any given day.

[Helcack]

Turn that up to 11. I play exclusively(when me or my group of friends who homebrewed it) with a homebrewed magic system, AC system, weapon system, and XP system. When I don't I'm a 9.1 because I will ask for reasonable 3rd party stuff and some 3.0 material, but won't throw a fit or anything if I have to stick to 3.5. I like dragon magazine, and I don't even use the overpowered stuff in it. I enjoy many of the feats, and spells in it because I like the variety(especially the silly 0 level ones that were in one of the dragon magazines)

[Coidzor]

Around a 7-9, I suppose. Unless it's just unusable and we don't want to spend the time to make it usable and cannot find a decent homebrew within a reasonable amount of time searching, or be arsed to look in the first place, I'll probably use it within the body of 3.X. I'm not inherently opposed to Pathfinder, either, though right now it'd basically be like homebrew or 3rd party material where it's on a case by case basis beyond the stuff that's just asinine and banned specifically or as a class and the stuff that's been incorporated into the body of table rules.

[nyjastul69]

I think I'm a 9.x on your scale. I don't ban things. I will however remind players that they can't 'win' an arms race with the DM. Any trick you can do, I can do more of, better, or both. Luckily, the people I game with don't try and break the game.

[SassyQuatch]

I don't think there is a number for me.

Core, unless there is a homebrewed core.
Supplemental classes and races, unless those have been changed as well.
No campaign guides or settings books, unless those are cribbed from.

So... I give myself a B+.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Put me down for a 9.9. All books are open, including dragon and 3rd-party, even homebrew. I never say no to what the player wants to make, though I will sometimes require the player to use a homebrew/houserule fix if I believe something will be overpowered or inappropriate, but I'll work with the player to make sure we get something we're both happy with.

I'll only say no if we can't reach an agreement, like if I say "You can't abuse permanent Fusions" and the player says "But permanent fusing is the whole reason I wanted to take the power in the first place!"

[Silva Stormrage]

I am an 8.5, I tend to allow most things but a couple things I just don't allow and I don't allow homebrew unless I like it and it can't be done well or easily in the regular system. Also I dislike dragon magazine for most cases as well.

[Seer_of_Heart]

9.8 I'm willing to allow all official sources, semi official (dragonlance, dragon, exc) and I'm probably willing to allow homebrew and 3rd party as long as I check those first.

[Fax Celestis]

9-ish.

When a DM says "core only", to me that says "I don't know the system very well and I'm terrified you're going to be better at this game than I am", which is a very adversarial thing to say about a communal, social game. I don't want my DM to be afraid of me.

Alternatively, it says "I know the system very well but I don't trust my players enough to be mature with their characters," which is just as adversarial and distrustful as above. Again, not a DM I want to have.

[Seer_of_Heart]

9-ish.

When a DM says "core only", to me that says "I don't know the system very well and I'm terrified you're going to be better at this game than I am", which is a very adversarial thing to say about a communal, social game. I don't want my DM to be afraid of me.

Alternatively, it says "I know the system very well but I don't trust my players enough to be mature with their characters," which is just as adversarial and distrustful as above. Again, not a DM I want to have.

To be fair they may not have the books and rely on the srd only. Lack of access is a pretty strong reason not to allow other sources.

[ChaoticDitz]

@Fax: What about legitimately new DMs who want a mostly Core-based game with non-Core things approved on a case-by-case basis? Not that a lot is likely to get shunted out, but I'm sure you can imagine that all the books and splats and Dragon and 3rd-party sources constitutes a ton of information, which would certainly be intimidating to regulate for somebody who isn't even totally keen on the DMing and rules thing. (I know I, personally, would like to work my way out of Core with small steps, were I a new DM again like I used to be) Just asking out of curiosity considering your general tone.

Anyway, I'd say I'm around a, oh, 4 or 5. I absolutely despise homebrew, 3rd party sources, and Dragon magazine, because there hasn't generally been a decade of cap-checking on those things, but I also almost never ban things from official WoTC published books (barring, obviously, Dragon Compendium, if you count that) unless there's a huge power flaw, and even then it's specific classes/feats/spells, not whole books.

[Flickerdart]

To be fair they may not have the books and rely on the srd only. Lack of access is a pretty strong reason not to allow other sources.

SRD != Core. And there's so much more free stuff that WotC's put out that if a DM wants to ensure legal material access for everyone "core only" is a terrible way of getting that.

[Fax Celestis]

To be fair they may not have the books and rely on the srd only. Lack of access is a pretty strong reason not to allow other sources.

"Here is my copy of the book several weeks in advance of the first session. I would like to play X class and use X Y and Z feats and spells from this book."

If your DM still says no, there is a problem.


@Fax: What about legitimately new DMs who want a mostly Core-based game with non-Core things approved on a case-by-case basis? Not that a lot is likely to get shunted out, but I'm sure you can imagine that all the books and splats and Dragon and 3rd-party sources constitutes a ton of information, which would certainly be intimidating to regulate for somebody who isn't even totally keen on the DMing and rules thing. (I know I, personally, would like to work my way out of Core with small steps, were I a new DM again like I used to be) Just asking out of curiosity considering your general tone.

New DMs do get some slack, but honestly they need to learn somewhere, and I'd rather them learn from someone whose intentions are not to destroy the game and are instead to play a thematic, competent character (IE: me).

[Seer_of_Heart]

SRD != Core. And there's so much more free stuff that WotC's put out that if a DM wants to ensure legal material access for everyone "core only" is a terrible way of getting that.

I was just making a reasonable scenario of someone who doesn't own any books being a dm. Sorry for being unclear about srd=core. My opinion is that the only good reason to ban official material is lack of book access, which is why I like Fax's solution.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

"Here is my copy of the book several weeks in advance of the first session. I would like to play X class and use X Y and Z feats and spells from this book."

If your DM still says no, there is a problem.



New DMs do get some slack, but honestly they need to learn somewhere, and I'd rather them learn from someone whose intentions are not to destroy the game and are instead to play a thematic, competent character (IE: me).

I didn't know "competent" and "thematic" were on speaking terms in this game.

Anyway, give me a 10, none of that 9.9 weirdness. Don't get me wrong, I do make judgments to exclude certain things for power balance, but I run games that use 3.5 as a basic foundation for rules with almost everything changed significantly by homebrew, book-suggested houserules, and 3rd party variants. The few games that I've ran have looked nothing like DnD anymore ^_^

[Flickerdart]

I didn't know "competent" and "thematic" were on speaking terms in this game.
Mechanical adequacy is almost wholly unrelated to thematic quality.

[Coidzor]

Mechanical adequacy is almost wholly unrelated to thematic quality.

Though some themes just don't work. But that's generally true for most systems as I recall.

[NichG]

I'd say something like 6+8i. That is to say, when playing in a campaign I generally require the DM to homebrew things above and beyond the base rules of the game; something that just uses the base rules is generally not interesting enough for me to play, because I like to discover new things in play. I'll draw the line at a certain (low) quality point though.

At the same time, for a lot of 3.5 official supplemental material, I can take it or leave it; I don't really care that much either way. If you want me to play/run a core only game? Sure thing. A game with every source including regional books and stuff? Sure thing. I tend to draw the line at some dragon stuff, or things that are just badly written.

[geonova]

9.9 for me, i'll use anything, but if i don't think it meshes properly i'll veto it

[Lactantius]

Depends on the campaign.
If we play a premade campaign like RHoD, we stick to the used books of the campaign itself and try to minimize the number of splatbooks.

Splatbooks can cause havoc in a published adventure since the players generally will have a major advantage considering prestige classes, spells and feats.

[erok0809]

8 or 9. Anything that's official WotC stuff would be fine pretty much automatically. Stuff that isn't that, bring it to me and we'll see. 3.0 stuff can be updated if I feel it's necessary to do so, but most of it won't be needed.

[BWR]

I assume the OP is interested in purely mechanical aspects. Probably around 5-6.

There are few books I ban out of hand (off the top of my head I can only think of ToB and if I ever run something that high powered I'd probably ban ELH and D&D as well), but plenty of individual elements in a book that I would probably ban. I don't really see any point in differentiating between 1st and 3rd party stuff. If something's good, it's good; if it's bad, it's bad.
By far the most important consideration in my games is "does it fit the setting?" I would be a lot more permissive if I ran a Planescape game, allowing wild combos of races and classes, than I would in d20 Rokugan or Ravenloft.
power armor and plasma cannons would be no-way no-how in Dark Sun, but would be perfectly possible in a Dragonstar game.

And I include game breaking mechanics under 'does not fit the setting'.

[eggynack]

Probably 8.something. Basically, just about anything first party, potentially with not first party stuff being accepted on a case by case basis. Also, there's a possibility that Serpent Kingdoms is just banned, because that book is kinda dumb.

[Der_DWSage]

Hm. As a player, I'd say I'm about a 4. I stick to Core + Complete + PHBII for the most part, mostly because I've run into a lot of GMs that shoot down anything outside those books. And since there wasn't an example for where the 'Complete' books fall on that scale, it sounds about a 4.

As a GM? I'm closer to an 8. I allow things from most books and sources, but I try to veto obviously cheesy things. (Unless, of course, the entire party is on the same level of cheese-then it's fair game.)