campaign start, choosing source books

[Mike Miller]

How would one go about choosing what source books to allow for a new campaign? I have allowed most source books for previous campaigns, but I want a little more oversight this time around. I tried googling to see if there was some guide for thinking about the campaign and deciding what kinds of sources, but alas, no luck.

What considerations should I be making before starting the campaign in regards to sources?

Some background information: I plan to run the Sunless Citadel AP in its entirety. I'm updating it to 3.5 (no pathfinder material, btw) and I'm sure there won't be anything fun source book related as to its early publishing date. Additions will be up to me for more interesting flavor, which is fine. I just want to lighten things a bit, as our group has nearly all the 3.5 non-setting related source books. It will be easier for the players so they don't have to go through everything, but way easier for me as DM to pick and choose things and consider things. My group is generally pretty good about not abusing power, although they do optimize. By that I mean they don't attempt anything cheesy but do get powerful.

I want to use a lot less books for this campaign than "nearly anything goes" and I'm not sure how to start reducing the list of books. I'll start looking through a book and try to take it off the list, but then realize it has certain prestige classes or feats or items, etc. that might be fun and I can't bear to "ban" it for the campaign. Has anyone else experienced this? One idea I had was to only allow books that contain base classes, but that was already about a dozen books. I don't have an actual number in mind, but that is another question. What is a reasonable number?

Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

[zlefin]

you could stick to core + complete.

you could say each player gets core + 2 books of their choosing (so each pc is only diving through a couple extra books).

[Nifft]

I never treat books as all-or-nothing.

For example, a lot of stuff in Frostburn is fine, but the spell Ice Assassin is not fine.

What general tier of play do you intend for your campaign? If you're doing T1-T2, then the Spell Compendium is going to be a lot more pivotal than it would be in a T4-T5 game.

[Falcon X]

A common way is to do Core + 1 sourcebook of the player's choice.
This gives the players great freedom, but little chance of rediculous shenanigans. Most sourcebooks are balanced within the content of its own book.

That being said, I might allow all non-setting specific books that are 1st party.
Ones that I don't like to live without: Complete series, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Libris Mortis, Races of series, and the Environment series.

[ksbsnowowl]

When I ran the Sunless Citadel module series (8,000 XP until they hit 18th level, and I start Bastion of Broken Souls) I just limited it to non-setting-specific books. No Forgotten Realms, no Eberron, etc. They are stupidly powerful at the moment, but they've had their fair share of failures along the way.

Core + Completes would be an easy way to go. Adding Tome of Battle to that would be a kindness for the melee guys (though my party's 17th level Paladin holds his own and awes us with his damage output fairly often). Letting each PC use two or three books outside of Core is another ways I've seen it done effectively.

You could also just approve things on a case by case basis. Just lay out that you want to tone down the power level, give a few examples of classes, spell, and items that are right out, and then just review their future character plans one at a time as they come up. It's a lot sloppier, and will get players terse at you when they disagree at how overpowered or ridiculous you think something is (trust me, I know...) But it might be the best way to go to get the game you want.

[Yahzi]

How would one go about choosing what source books to allow for a new campaign?
Here's my suggestion: Core + World of Prime (which are really just modifications to core). Diversity should come through role-playing, not class mechanics. :smallsmile:

[Fizban]

Additions will be up to me for more interesting flavor, which is fine. I just want to lighten things a bit, as our group has nearly all the 3.5 non-setting related source books. It will be easier for the players so they don't have to go through everything, but way easier for me as DM to pick and choose things and consider things. My group is generally pretty good about not abusing power, although they do optimize. By that I mean they don't attempt anything cheesy but do get powerful.
This whole paragraph is contradicting itself. "Our group doesn't have a power problem so it'll be easier if I'll pick the stuff personally for flavor reasons because we already have all the books." So is there a problem or not? What do you intend to solve?

The only books actually being used are those that are being used. Books from which no one is using anything aren't actually being used. Banning them is just a waste of time. The books that are being used are actually just pieces here and there. You are already allowing things piecemeal without thinking it. What difference if someone asks for a reasonable piece of a banned book? The only difference is that instead of just okay-ing it like you normally would, you put in extra effort banning it and then deciding to un-ban part of of it.

If you need to ban books because your PCs are getting out of hand, how about just not letting them get out of hand? The idea that the players should be allowed free reign over some arbitrary amount of territory is bogus: all pieces of all characters must already be approved by the DM.

If you need to ban books because you can't handle all the stuff you're "supposed" to be using from all the books, just don't make yourself try to use those books. You choose what you use, you have the authority over what the players are allowed to use. If you feel that something they want to use would impact the setting and force you to do more work to compensate, then don't let them use it.


Now, if the point is that you want an extremely stripped down game with only a few specific elements, that's not going to be achieved by a book list. Build your game/setting out of whatever pieces you want and those are the pieces, whatever books they came from.

[Grod_The_Giant]

3.5 is so unbalanced that I don't think book-based lists are really the way to go-- pretty much every book has a mix of good stuff, bad stuff, and broken stuff. Better to make requests like "generally low-powered characters" than "core+1" or something. Remember, it's only the finished characters that matter-- once the game starts, you can neither tell nor care if a character has elements from one book or a dozen.

[Nifft]

@Mike Miller - the easiest way to get what you want might be to white-list content.

Just have a list of stuff that you allow, with a note on which book it's from so you & players can look things up easily.

Players can contribute suggestions, and if you like them, you add them to the list of stuff that you allow.

[Mike Miller]

@Mike Miller - the easiest way to get what you want might be to white-list content.

Just have a list of stuff that you allow, with a note on which book it's from so you & players can look things up easily.

Players can contribute suggestions, and if you like them, you add them to the list of stuff that you allow.

This is probably what I'll end up doing. I'm still going over all the suggestions but this will probably help my indecision the most.

[Goaty14]

Just make sure that they aren't going overboard. Check the wizard's spell list, check the fighter's feats, etc

[RoboEmperor]

Allow everything and ask the players to stay withing a certain optimization level.

If you restrict book lists then you are taking away the main advantage 3.5 has over all other systems: Extremely Unique PCs.

Generally people find what they like in other video games, tv shows, cartoons, animes, etc. and try to replicate that they liked in the form of a rule legal d&d 3.5 character.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think one possibility is to restrict each PC to core and two source books of their choosing. Once a player indicates they want to use a book, it becomes free game for everyone else. The DM reserves the right to ban particular nuisances within the allotted books. That way, the players are essentially building a group of 8-12 books outside of core, which is a very good selection. If you need to limit it further, give everyone a choice of only one book and several that you hand pick that you think would be good for the setting/class make up of your party.

You can add a rule that the DM can use material outside of these books, but must have a IC reason that the PCs don't have access to it. For instance, a ghost from a long dead civilization who can't speak common due to existing for such a long time might have a combat feat that the PCs can't pick. A long forgotten relic might be a magical item not in the allotted books.

You could even make additional feats, spells and boons quest rewards if you wanna tweak the adventure a bit.

[GilesTheCleric]

"Our group doesn't have a power problem so it'll be easier if I'll pick the stuff personally for flavor reasons because we already have all the books." So is there a problem or not? What do you intend to solve?


If you restrict book lists then you are taking away the main advantage 3.5 has over all other systems: Extremely Unique PCs.

I think this encapsulates everything I would say. If your players are mature and won't get in the way of each other's fun with their builds, why limit them? I know anecdotes aren't great evidence, but I'll say that in my games, I allow all 3.5, unupdated 3.0, PF, and dragmag, as well as 3pp by request (with some stuff being blanket-allowed, such as spheres of power and drop dead studios). My group are all pretty competent with the rules, and do sometimes build powerful characters. However, it has never stopped them from roleplaying or working alongside their party members. The games have always been fun.

[rrwoods]

Really just allow every book. As others have said, most books (core especially!) have a mix of stuff ranging from unplayably bad to campaign smashingly good. Restricting books does not change this.

Go over your players’ character sheets before the game, and for those than plan ahead, ask what their plans are. Be *involved* in character creation — that’s the best way to manage optimization levels across the group and help the players be on the same level.

The only exception is if there’s a subsystem you’re uncomfortable running, but really even then if you trust your player to be honest about their abilities (and legitimately know the subsystem) it shouldn’t be a problem.


Here's my suggestion: Core + World of Prime (which are really just modifications to core). Diversity should come through role-playing, not class mechanics. :smallsmile:
Strongly disagree. Mechanics are a large part of D&D, and for many groups, diversity of class mechanics is a significant source of entertainment at the table. Arbitrarily deciding that diversity must come from a non-crunch source limits the players’ ability to express themselves in a really unnecessary way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Strongly disagree. Mechanics are a large part of D&D, and for many groups, diversity of class mechanics is a significant source of entertainment at the table. Arbitrarily deciding that diversity must come from a non-crunch source limits the players’ ability to express themselves in a really unnecessary way.
There's nothing wrong with a game where mechanics take a strong second place to roleplaying, but... if you're not interested in using weird crunchy mechanics, why are you playing 3.5? You'll probably be happier with something lighter like 5e, Dungeon World, or Fate/Fudge.