What do you think is the 4th most influential 3.x sourcebook?

[Uncle Pine]

Greetings giants!

I am going to commission a DM screen and since it's going to have four "sides" I have decided to put the image of four sourcebooks on it. I plan three of them to be the cover of the Monster Manual (on the left flap), the cover of the PHB (on one of the central flap), and the cover of the DMG (on the other central flap). I am currently at a loss of what cover to put on the fourth, final section of the screen: the Magic Item Compendium's because of the sheer volume and awesomeness of stuff in it? The Spell Compendium's, for similar reasons? The Tome of Battle's because of the power of d&d anime? The A&EG's, or maybe the Strongholds Builder's Guidebook's?

What do you think would be the best fourth cover? Keep in mind that I usually run homebrew settings so while something like books like the FR or Eberron campaign setting would potentially be the perfect fit in other cases, this is sadly not the case.

[Edea]

Some other options, as they show up on the SRD:

Unearthed Arcana
Epic Level Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook

[Buufreak]

Seconding XPH.

[Orion Hamby]

UA or XPH for sure

[Khedrac]

If you really want the 4th most influential then it has to be the Spell Compendium.
Very few games actually reach epic or use psionics - yes they get used a fair bit on these forums, but I would still say they are in the minority here, going into the wider gaming world they are negligible importance.

The MiC has had a major impact, but it came out too late - Spell Compendium had already established its dominance.
When you add in the way it had reprinted, and updated in some cases, the spells form most of the other books, it lowers their importance while raising its own.
5th I judge to be the PHB2, narrowly ahead of the MiC. Its new classes brought new life into many campaigns by adding in several new base classes that are relatively easy to play (OK, forget the knight) plus some very interesting new spells.

[Troacctid]

I would personally say MIC. Alternatively, the original Red Box cover from the 70s. Although actually, if it were me, I think I would spring for a book that was influential to my personal experience with D&D, rather than one that was influential to the current edition of the game.

[StevenC21]

Definitely either Spell Compendium or ELH.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Spell Compendium or MiC.
The Spell Compendium also has a good-looking cover that fits the theme of the core books, which is another good reason to pick it.

[Unavenger]

XPH is the only one I've seen used particularly frequently outside of the forums. On the forums you generally see people use quite a lot of things, but off them it tends to be just the XPH that gets used a lot IME.

[Vizzerdrix]

Sandstorm. It gave us shapesand, after all.

[Palanan]

I'm going with MIC. It's a close contest with the Spell Compendium, but this is for a DM screen, and as a DM I find myself opening the MIC more often.

[Gusmo]

I like all of the suggestions for Unearth Arcana, and I think aesthetically its cover may fit well together with the others. In terms of being influential, I think we need to also include published adventures for consideration, so perhaps consider Red Hand of Doom. The Magic Item Compendium is also a good one, and has something for pretty much everyone, as opposed to things like the Spell Compendium. Given the nature of where it's going, I think the Rules Compendium may be a natural fit, and its cover is a little different and that may make it stand out nicely. Thematically, MM1 on one side and MM2 on the other side also makes some sense. Or perhaps the Fiend Folio, in the same vein. I'll throw in the Planar Handbook and Manual of the Planes as some other 'maybe' suggestions. I would also encourage you to just look at the covers of all the books you have access to, and pick the one you think just looks the coolest, whether by yourself as with your players. Covers that I like are Examplars of Evil and Lords of Madness - neither of these are influential, but they would add a good 'villain' element.

[Wildstag]

Tome of Battle. PHB and UA are obvious 1&2, and three might be some other book (maybe Paizo’s CRB), but I stand by ToB as 4th.

It came late enough in the game that it had less impact during the 3.5e heyday, but it has definitely shaped every table since, with a rule allowing it or banning it and usually people have an opinion on it.

[Dimers]

MIC can be applied to all characters and is usually an allowed source. I'd call that the most influential.

Personally I have another reason for preferring MIC: its writing/editing is so incredibly tight even while introducing new concepts. I associate MIC's cover with joy rather than the confusion that comes from so many other sources.

If I saw MIC's cover highlighted on a GM screen, I'd infer that the GM can be trusted to make clear rulings, isn't afraid of branching out a bit, and doesn't favor one archetype over another.

[Asmotherion]

My picks:

PHB II: (most of) it's classes may suck, but some of it's spells and revised rules are what gave way to Top Tier Optimisation.

Spell Compedium: A good sum up and revision of the best spells out there.

ToB: Made Martial Classes cool again.

A set of index entries for rules; It's very Practical.

A Relevant picture of Characters in D&D 3.5 art style.

[Uncle Pine]

Thank you all for chiming in! Based on the suggestions I'm currently leaning on either the XPH or MIC, with the latter in slight advantage because of the inherent "all-inclusiveness" of its design, so to speak.

Cheers for everyone and have fun. :smallsmile:

[AvatarVecna]

D&D is PCs banding together, exploring fantastic environments, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. You have the books for PCs, environments, and monsters. Now you need the book for stuff. MIC feels like the way to go, IMO.

EDIT: If I were to suggest a more complicated fourth cover, a collection of the various characters adorning the covers of the complete series, all arrayed together. At a gues, though, the lighting probably doesn't match between them, so...yeah MIC. >.>

[Eldan]

I'd actually make an argument for Complete Arcane. Want to know why?

The Warlock has been a core class ever since.

[Chronos]

I would argue that XPH and UA should specifically not be the books you choose. Sure, lots of folks used them, but that was precisely because they were both available in the SRD almost in their entirety. How many people actually bought either book, rather than just referring to the content online? How many, therefore, would even recognize the cover?

I'd say to go with the Spell Compendium. I don't think it was a good influence (Here's everything you need to make the classes that were already overpowered, even more overpowered, all in one place!), but it was definitely a strong influence.

[Ramza00]

I'd actually make an argument for Complete Arcane. Want to know why?

The Warlock has been a core class ever since.

Agreed. The compendium books also influenced 3.5 but the first half of the completed came earlier and thus had more influence.

2000 for 3.0
2003 for 3.5
2004 for Complete Arcane
2005 for Spell Compendium and it was even Dec!
2007 for Magic Item Compendium
2007 4th Edition announced.
2008 4th Edition books published 3.5 edition no longer gets new books.

2008 Pathfinder Announced
2011 to 2014 Pathfinder Content actually outsold D&D and other gaming systems during some of those 3 month quarters.

—————

My point of the timelines is to show the MiC and SC came late in the 3.5 heyday. Complete Arcane by contrast was at the height of 3.5 and lasted for a longer period of usefulness.

[Yogibear41]

Unearthed Arcana gets my Vote.

[reddir]

Is there any single cover or image that represents Dragon Magazine?

There was so much presented there that is influential to peoples' engagement with and imagination of D&D.

[Asmotherion]

I'd actually make an argument for Complete Arcane. Want to know why?

The Warlock has been a core class ever since.

I was about to, but then again it's more a matter of personal preferance than influence in the overall game.

[Biggus]

For me, definitely the Spell Compendium. When I'm DMing I open the SRD and the SC before I start, because I know I'm going to need them. Everything else gets opened if and when needed.

MIC is in second place; it and the SC might as well be part of the core books, in my experience content from those two gets used in every single game.

[Quertus]

Spell compendium shows favoritism.

ToB shows favoritism.

*Not* including psionics almost feels like showing favoritism.

But I'd vote for… UA, MIC, or <Dragon magazine>, *probably* in that order.

But… do my preferences matter? If it's for your screen, shouldn't it be what you use?

[Khedrac]

Spell compendium shows favoritism.

ToB shows favoritism.

*Not* including psionics almost feels like showing favoritism.

But I'd vote for… UA, MIC, or <Dragon magazine>, *probably* in that order.

But… do my preferences matter? If it's for your screen, shouldn't it be what you use?

What does "most influential" have to do with favoritism?

Most of the above posters seems to be answering the question "what is your favorite sourcebook?" not "what is the most influential".

In many ways Spell Compendium is the least balanced splatbook for 3.5 released, I didn't choose it because I thought was a deserving book but because in my experience it has had far more influeence on play than any other.

OK, the PHB pretty much always has the spells with the highest ceiling of brokenness in it, but a lot of the spells SC brings in from the old Forgotten Realms books have much higher floors for being broken.

Equally, how can not including psionics seem like favoritism? This is a subsystem that the vast majority of tables do not use (last month I had my first table of a game with a psionic character in since I played 1st Ed). The goes probably even moreso for Unearthed Arcarna - yes it is a book greatly used by the optimisation community, but it just isn't in the top tier of influential books on the wider playing community.

That all said, Quertus' last sentence nails it so I will repeat the quote: If it's for your screen, shouldn't it be what you use?

[Uncle Pine]

That all said, Quertus' last sentence nails it so I will repeat the quote: If it's for your screen, shouldn't it be what you use?

As someone who enjoys the tinkering aspect of 3.5e I tend to use a whole lot of things. In fact, I often don't place much restrictions on official sources to my players, if any, making it difficult to easily select a 4th pick. Thus, I decided to check others' opinions on it and see if they'd sway me. :smallsmile:

[Elkad]

The cover dragon of the 1977 Basic D&D boxed set.

[Piggy Knowles]

I recommend some of the original art from Tomb of Horrors (https://imgur.com/gallery/9bkpt), to remind your party that life is fleeting and the world is baffling and dangerous place.

[JyP]

Personnally speaking, it would be Savage Species : the book through which we could play any monster as PCs (even though I fiddled mainly through online resources to tailor each PC progression once bitten by a wererat / raised as an undead ghoul / reincarnated as a phase spider / a lich reduced to 1st level / cursed to slowly transform into a mindflayer).

[noob]

The small 4e essentials article allowing all dnd material in 4e thus making 4e be an extension to 3.5e?

[Zanos]

As far as 'should be part of core', is Rules Compendium allowed? I feel like I should staple it to my DMG sometimes...

I'll go with MIC too. Every character can use magic items(go away, VoP), as can any monster. MIC has good options for most character or creature archetypes in every cost range. Plus it recognized the built in math of 3.5 and allowed you to add common bonuses to more interesting gear at no extra cost and identify magic items with spellcraft.

[Efrate]

I would use MoI. I have seen it and have used it or shape soulmeld more than almost anything, with Tome of Magic a close second, merely because binder is awesome and truenamers are super weird. I cannot remember a group that I have played with in the past idk 10 years that did not included at least something from one of those 2 with MoI coming put ahead of ToM. Even soulborn.

I have had XPH and MiC banned in more games than allowed, but no one has ever batted an eye at ToM or MoI, or ToB fwiw in my groups.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't know about influential but aesthetically the spell compendium has to be the obvious winner. It has the same "this is an ancient, mystical tome full of wonders" cover design with the depiction of leather clasps and reinforced binding as the three core rulebooks. Almost no other book comes as close to that as SpC.

[Melcar]

Greetings giants!

I am going to commission a DM screen and since it's going to have four "sides" I have decided to put the image of four sourcebooks on it. I plan three of them to be the cover of the Monster Manual (on the left flap), the cover of the PHB (on one of the central flap), and the cover of the DMG (on the other central flap). I am currently at a loss of what cover to put on the fourth, final section of the screen: the Magic Item Compendium's because of the sheer volume and awesomeness of stuff in it? The Spell Compendium's, for similar reasons? The Tome of Battle's because of the power of d&d anime? The A&EG's, or maybe the Strongholds Builder's Guidebook's?

What do you think would be the best fourth cover? Keep in mind that I usually run homebrew settings so while something like books like the FR or Eberron campaign setting would potentially be the perfect fit in other cases, this is sadly not the case.

How about Rules Compendium?

[Thurbane]

I would say, for my table, 3x core > SC > MIC > PHB2.

[NigelWalmsley]

The answer is the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and it's not close. Not only is it clearly the most influential non-core book by any reasonable definition of the term, it also fits the same aesthetic of the PHB/DMG/MM1 covers in a way that other suggestions do not. The picture covers of later books clash with the "actual book cover" covers of the core books.

[D+1]

#4 should be the SETTING sourcebook for the game you're running. If there isn't one (because it's a homebrew for example) then make up a cover.

[Vaern]

The whole point of the game is to have fun playing through the story that your DM is telling, and to that end the rules should be flexible to accomodate both the characters that the players want to play with and the world that the DM wants to set his story in. All of the variant rules and character options presented in Unearthed Arcana to tweak the system and make it right for your game should put it somewhere squarely between the DMG for campaign setting development and the PHB for character creation and progression.

[Zanos]

#4 should be the SETTING sourcebook for the game you're running. If there isn't one (because it's a homebrew for example) then make up a cover.
That's a damn good point. For better or worse, the Player's Guide to Faerun has been the subject of many waking and dreaming thoughts.