|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many of you play with the core rules and only the core rules, and why? I do so for the sake of simplicity and to avoid potential balance issues. I also get perturbed with players who are more interested in using the supplements to pimp their character to be the most bada*s in the party rather than allowing creative roleplaying to do that for them. Am I the only one?
Is this going to be one of the "Evil Splatbook Munchkin Optimizers vs. Good Honest Core-Only Roleplayers" threads? Because if yes, I'll go grab the asbestos suit.
How many of you play with the core rules and only the core rules, and why? I do so for the sake of simplicity and to avoid potential balance issues. I also get perturbed with players who are more interested in using the supplements to pimp their character to be the most bada*s in the party rather than allowing creative roleplaying to do that for them. Am I the only one?
To answer a question with a question, is there a reason you're seeking our approval?
FWIW, when I still ran 3.5, my preference was to run core only, or core plus very select items from a handful of books. Having switched to Pathfinder, my plan is run Core+APG only from here on (even with UC and UM coming out).
I hear your frustration about players asking for supplements you do not allow. It's always one thing to state that "GMs Rules, stop whining" is always the way to go, but that is sometimes harder to enact in practice--especially if your players are your friends, and you don't want to disappoint them. Does that mean you shouldn't say no? Of course not, but the conversation is harder to have. And some folks by their nature, have more trouble saying no than others. Even if your players accept the no supplements rule, there's always the "risk" of their whining about it the whole game anyway, and who wants to put up with that? Of course, good players won't--or will respect the "I'm sorry you're disappointed, but this campaign just won't work with the Complete Cheesemonkey, maybe you can try your concept in a different game?" But what we hope for and the people we sometimes end up working with (or deciding not to, because of difficulties) are different things.
There is also the player perspective to consider that they want to use the materials they've bought, which is something I can sympathize with, but at the same time---someone else spending $30 on something they wanted of their own free will is not an excuse to pressure someone else (your GM) to spend the same amount of money. And players "guilt tripping" you into using a supplement because they bought it for you is the worst. Again--you can always say no---but there's a lot more social navigation to deal with than stark message board conversation tend to acknowledge (or be able to, for obvious reasons).
But as hard it is, it's a conversation you're going to have to have if you want to be happy (and an unhappy GM means the game isn't going to be fun for anyone). If your players won't accept no for an answer, it's perhaps best to ask them to run instead---and hey, after all, they have more books to use, it's only fair that if they want to use those books, they see how those books work from the GM's point of view. :)
Good luck.
I allow pretty much anything. I figure, as the GM I will not limit myself to any small set of game products when challenging the group. I get the opportunity to explore all kinds of various character concepts and designs. But players only have control over the design and concept of one thing, their PCs. I trust that my players will make decisions that are reasonable. If I didn't, why would I bother gaming with such people?
A DM has the authority to decide which rules to allow. Considering the structure of 3.5 supplement releases and the lack of cross-supplement balance/compatibility (there were many "broken" combinations of classes/feats/spells from multiple supplements), a "Core only" campaign has the virtue of limiting complexity.
However, 3.5 Core has its own balance issues and can make it difficult to effectively realize certain character concepts. Personally, as a GM I preferred "Core + Unearthed Arcana" when running a rules-limited campaign, as it allowed a greater degree of customization without too much power creep.
One thing a GM should be clear on at the start of the campaign is which rules/supplements can be used; this can be as broad or as targeted as desired (i.e., banning/including only a single class/feat/item/race/spell from a specific suplement to banning/including the whole thing). Note that this can even include banning of certain core classes/rules, depending on the campaign. For example: prestige bards from Unearthed Arcana only; no clerics or druids, but dragon shamans and spirit shamans instead; paladins, including the alternate paladins in Unearthed Arcana, gain their powers from celestial/fiendish hosts; rangers use the spell-less variant rules from Complete Warrior; PC sorcerers don't exist (only available to monsters like dragons, etc. with innate sorcerer spellcasting); wizards must be specialists and use spell points from Unearthed Arcana with the vitalizing variant. The GM should provide players a setting overview, as well, so that players can fit their character concepts more organically into the game world, both in a background and rules sense.
Core only makes life simpler. That said usually if someone really wants to play something outside of core and has a compelling reason/character concept I'm game. But really core just makes for less hassle (and lugging around stuff)
So yes I'm with you there.
I generally allow anything( with a few exception...I use a line item veto with new books). Though if a GM wants to limit things even to 'just core only' I am usualy ok with it.
I've always been of the opinion that you should run any options you are interested in by the DM. Similar to TOZ, but I always asked the players what specifically they were going for, just so I didn't necessarily have to go through the whole book if all they wanted was one feat or spell.
Players have to show me anything from a supplement that they'd like to use before I allow it. As the DM I do not rule out anything because it's "too powerful." The DM is the most powerful person at the table, so I can always make adjustments to monsters/NPCs to keep the tension/drama high.
I do insist that the player bring the supplement to every session so we can look it up if something hinky comes up. "Ohhhh, well, I, uh, kinda forgot to bring it today. But I'm sure the super-cheese factor allows me to . . ." No, it doesn't. If you didn't bring it, then your character has a brain fart, the planets aren't aligned correctly, you slip on a banana peel, whatever. Didn't bring the book, and there's a rules question? Core wins.
Also, some feats come off as very "trainable." Some don't. If a feat is an extension of a class feature or is something they character has had to deal with, then I usually allow them to take it. A rogue taking Skill Focus: Tumble, for instance. Or a fighter who's had to deal with several Willpower saves taking Iron Will. However, if a feat seems more like a special ability, like, say, Monkey Grip, it depends. If a player actually spends a a few game sessions wielding an over-sized weapon and taking a -4 penalty to each attack, then I'll allow them to take the feat when they level (that's excellent role-playing AFAIC). If, OTOH, the player DOESN'T do that, levels, and says, "I'm taking Monkey Grip so *now* I can use the giants longsword . . .," I'll respond that they'll need to find an expert to train them. Sometimes, I'll even ask the player to play an NPC during the next session to represent the training (but their main loses out on the XP for that session and thus levels a little more slowly). If they keep munchkining they find that they end up a level behind everyone else.
I play with a core group of people, and they've learned over time without me having to bludgeon them. They actually *like* it. They're not stupid, they realize what I'm doing, but they also think that it is fair (they've said so).
Perhaps something like this would work for you?
|
3.5e core only. Why? Because I'm the DM and have an existence outside of D&D. Due to other life commitments if I stick with 3.5e core only (and that means MM1 only for me too) then I can be very conversive with the rules. This means less disruption during the game as we don't have 'new power X' rolled out from splat-book 76 followed by the six ideas on what the rule means followed by the arguments on RAW vs RAI, etc, etc. We have had all those conversations with 3.5e. Also players need one book and I only need three - no back strain from carrying the contents of a small library around.
Our group like options available in the corebooks and don't see that extra books really added anything that improves our D&D experience. The 3.5e multi-classing system means there aren't many character concepts that can't be made from core. Oh we don't allow prestiage classes either - but that is what the core rules say, those classes are DM invite only.
S.
|
To be honest, now that I think about it was really more my players pulling stuff out of it from nowhere in the middle of the game that made me ban it so I wouldn't have to deal with it on the fly. I may have to go back and review that decision.
I may also have to try Stefan's approach. Should have done it from the start, considering my groups newness to the game. :/ Lessons learned.
To be honest, now that I think about it was really more my players pulling stuff out of it from nowhere in the middle of the game that made me ban it so I wouldn't have to deal with it on the fly. I may have to go back and review that decision.
I may also have to try Stefan's approach. Should have done it from the start, considering my groups newness to the game. :/ Lessons learned.
Nah, you made the right choice, whether you knew it or not. The BoVD is a little weak, its really cool, but it doesn't unbalance anything and it is for NPC's (in most games). The problem is really the BoED. It sucks. It has a horribly skewed view of what "good" is. It subscribes heavily to the notion that NG is "good", and LG is "really good", while poor CG is left to be "sorta good". But that is mostly fluff. The real damage is in the cleric spells. It is true that most of the really powerful ones require sacrifice. This often takes the form of WISDOM damage. In other words, "I don't cast that....ever!--damage". But some of the worst spells only require that the caster be celestial. Then they hand you a 5th or 6th level spell in a 2nd level package. Yeah.
No, I'm not going to reference a bunch of spells. I'm sorry, I don't have the time or energy. But plenty of people have seen what I'm talking about. Just read through the spell section TOZ, you'll either love it or hate it.
Also, some feats come off as very "trainable." Some don't. If a feat is an extension of a class feature or is something they character has had to deal with, then I usually allow them to take it. A rogue taking Skill Focus: Tumble, for instance. Or a fighter who's had to deal with several Willpower saves taking Iron Will. However, if a feat seems more like a special ability, like, say, Monkey Grip, it depends. If a player actually spends a a few game sessions wielding an over-sized weapon and taking a -4 penalty to each attack, then I'll allow them to take the feat when they level (that's excellent role-playing AFAIC). If, OTOH, the player DOESN'T do that, levels, and says, "I'm taking Monkey Grip so *now* I can use the giants longsword . . .," I'll respond that they'll need to find an expert to train them. Sometimes, I'll even ask the player to play an NPC during the next session to represent the training (but their main loses out on the XP for that session and thus levels a little more slowly). If they keep munchkining they find that they end up a level behind everyone else.
I'm not confident that Mykull will return to this thread (it has been dormant for awhile), but I think I'll respond to this thought. Let me point out where I think the logic fails in this. First off, a minor nit-pick, a character takes a -2 penalty for using a weapon one size off. Well that out of the way let's dig in.
Let's say your group instead defeats a large creature using a greatsword or other two-handed weapon. Well according to the rules, your medium PCs can't even wield a weapon without Monkey Grip. So in that case, the player can't even roleplaying training on their own. By forcing them in that case to seek out a trainer and spend game time, you are punishing the player from doing something, that honestly is not that powerful and in fact is often weaker than other choices. Compare a medium character using monkey grip with a large greatsword vs. using a medium greatsword and power attacking. To use the large great sword, the character takes a -2 on attack rolls (the size penalty still applies, even with monkey grip) and gets an average of 3.5 damage more (3d6 vs 2d6). Taking a medium greatsword and power attack with a -2 penalty this character will do 4 points of damage more. So using power attack a medium greatsword, the character is going to do more damage on average, in fact 2/3 of the time they will do more or the same damage (when the extra d6 would have came up 1-4).
Also, will the character have to pay extra for training? If the character misses sessions due to training time, will the character not receive xp during those sessions? Are you seriously considering punishing a martial character (the weakest characters in the game)for an underpowered choice (see above analysis) and considering it a logical decision? What if a fighter uses their bonus feat that is there only, singular class feature, to purchase this feat, do they still have to go through the training and cost and missed xp?
Compare this to a ranger who gets rapid shot by virtue of their class feature. Do you force the ranger to "study" with a master before they can do it? I mean they never played out shooting two arrows in the same round before doing it, so they obviously never practiced, right? What about many shot? Never shot two arrows at once, so they can't do it without training right? But wait, it is an extension of their training correct? Well so is a fighter using their fighter feats to get a feat that qualifies as a fighter feat.
Also, in your games do you play out every single minute of every single day for the characters? Could characters be doing training off stage, but choosing when the party's lives are on the line to use weapons and talents that they have already mastered instead of trying to try out something they are still working on getting proficient with? (i.e. never using an oversized weapon in combat until they have the feat to do so "effectively")
As always, every group will do what is comfortable for them, but there is no logical reason for the above suggestion. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but first we should understand why we feel something should be done, before doing it. Are we trying to limit overpowered issues or are we just offended by people using buster swords? I actually thinking making everyone pay for training (sort of the old school 1 gp = 1 xp) and causing it take time would be quite interesting, but picking and choosing who is forced to do it is a bad call in my personal view (you want to use a big sword, you miss two sessions, you want to shift to another plane of existence despite never casting any teleportion magic before, sure you studied it in your down time).
P.S. Oh yeah, I forgot, "This is why fighters can't have nice things." ;D
P.P.S.: The "you"s in the above isn't directed at Mykull necessarily.