|
I am curious. I am sure this has probably been asked before.
As a GM for your games, what materiel do you consider "core", and what materiel do you consider "optional" (needs GM permission to be admitted), and is there any materiel you would outright ban?
For example, I would consider Pathfinder Core Rule book, to be well core materiel.
The Advanced Players guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat, i would consider optional materiel.
I would probably allow the six base classes of the APG in with out much scrutiny, but I would want to at least read over what players want to use, in terms of a feat spell etc in the book before giving it the green light.
I would consider the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, a little further out on a limb or "more optional", and I would want to read over the materiel carefully and ask the player about his character concept, and what is the "game mechanic" he is thinking of exploring before allowing that materiel in.
For reasons of personal taste i would ban fire arm materiel, including gunslingers (unless I am running a 3 musketeers / Pirates of the Carribean type campaign), and depending on the parameters of a specific home game I might restrict player's access to the monk, Samurai, and Ninja classes.
What are your thoughts and opinions?
Thanks
|
You are going to receive a litany of responses, but the end verdict is do what makes the game fun to you and yours.
Talk to your group and find out what they want to do.
I have new players whom had never played a TTRPG before, so I got to start with a clean slate. We use the Beginners Box now and if and when they choose to expand the discussion has led to a restriction to Core and APG. Their choice not mine. Only reason APG is included is my wife wants to play a Witch. The other two are core classes.
The books published by Paizo. I'm not even going to get into the problems latent in this question.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I sometimes forget that the APG isn't Core - so many people have it, and so much of its content "feels" normal that it's almost hard to imagine the game without it. It feels like "the rest of the Core".
This is especially true for me when I look at some of the mundane gear: blunt arrows, lasso, wooden armor, blanket, butterfly net, chest, hourglass... the list goes on and on. This isn't specialized stuff (though there are a few such items), most of this feels like "why wasn't this in the CRB to begin with?"
|
I sometimes forget that the APG isn't Core - so many people have it, and so much of its content "feels" normal that it's almost hard to imagine the game without it. It feels like "the rest of the Core".
I think that's probably because Pathfind really came into it's own with the APG. Prior to the APG, it really was just one of quite a few varient d20 fantasy games. Admittedly it had a lot of polish, but it also didn't really have anything that was distinctive...it was really just a revised D&D.
With the APG, Pathfinder stopped (to me at least) feeling like a revised D&D 3.X, and became it's own game.
Every Pathfinder book I own is allowed, and that includes Core, APG, UM, UC and numerous Golarion campaign books.
I strictly don't allow any of the 3.5 books, simply because I am of the opinion that pathfinder has enough diversity to offer and I don't have the time to revise and convert the old stuff.
I don't want to approve every single thing in the rules, as I have enough faith in the designers that everything is playable, and my players are not powergamers who try to exploit every possible loophole.
Every Pathfinder book I own is allowed, and that includes Core, APG, UM, UC and numerous Golarion campaign books.
I strictly don't allow any of the 3.5 books, simply because I am of the opinion that pathfinder has enough diversity to offer and I don't have the time to revise and convert the old stuff.
I don't want to approve every single thing in the rules, as I have enough faith in the designers that everything is playable, and my players are not powergamers who try to exploit every possible loophole.
So no Dragonfire Adepts, Warlocks, or monstrous PC half-breeds in your games?
Core: Core Rulebook and APG
Case-by-Case: Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic
Highly Questionable: Anything else
|
Our current GM kinda' hates APG, so we're Core per se. Some classes are kinda' sub-par w/o advanced options, but we manage.
Personally, I allow APG as my 'Core' and Ultimate Combat/Magic as 'Core+' (maybe even some 3.5 with a small preemptive discussion). Tho, if you cheese, expect to get cheesed one way or another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, and soon to be released Advanced Race Guide.
All this me and my group consider Core.
Super Genius Games and Rite Publishing have earned an automatic approval with their products.
Other 3pp must have approval and if a player wished to use must buy a copy of it for the GM.
By definition, only the core rulebook is core. :) But in my upcoming games, whenever they start, I will allow core and most of the APG (cavalier and inquisitor are the only new classes allowed, and some minor things eliminated because I feel they don't fit with the flavor of my world). I also allow most "planetouched"-like 0 HD races from the Bestiary 1 and 2 as possible races.
Any materials from Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat will have to be okayed by me, and none of the base/alternate classes from those books will be available, and no firearms (again, largely a flavor thing).
I also will have a rule that if you play a divine caster that automatically know all spells on their spell list, and you want to use a spell from one of the splats (APG, UM, UC), you will have to replace a core known spell with the spell you want from the splat (this is to keep known spell lists from becoming insanely long). If my players have a problem with that, we will discuss it.
I tend not to use 3PPs (not for class/feat/spell material, anyway).
|
I allow anything Pathfinder, Super Genius Games, Rite Publishing, and anything 3.5. I need a permission check with all other Pathfinder 3PP materials, and hardly ever allow 3.5 3PP.
One of the big reasons I liked Pathfinder is that I looked at my gaming shelf when 4ed was announced, saw all the money I had placed into that edition, looked at the announcement again, and realized that like Alternity before it, I would no longer have any support for my system. Paizo fixed my problem, and filled in a few holes as well.
Honestly? I've never had a problem allowing whatever at my gaming table. And I think that DMs who only allow core are working on either:
A.Theory
B.One bad experience
Edit: Oh, unless not allowing something is because of flavor. I have done that before and get why people would do that for their games.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think that DMs who only allow core are working on either:
A.Theory
B.One bad experience
You forgot a couple:
C.They like simpler gamesD.They don't want players using options they're not familiar with themselves and they haven't been memorizing splat books since their players were in diapers like some GMs have. ;)
And I think that DMs who only allow core are working on either:
A.Theory
B.One bad experienceEdit: Oh, unless not allowing something is because of flavor. I have done that before and get why people would do that for their games.
I have run core only when I was first learning a system. I would much prefer to learn the core rules inside and out before adding to them. In other words--it's about developing experience before you HAVE that one bad one. :)
I have also run core only when I knew that was all the players had access to, and they themselves were newbies so I would not want to lay extra things on them to learn.
So there are other reasons too. :)
I have only played in 2 PFGs prior to that we played 3.5. We have always freely mixed and matched without trouble. Not sure what people mean when they say conversion problems though it is likely my inexperience with PFG. If there is an item, monster or prestige class I cannot find or find almost the same in PFG I have no problem going 3.5, or to the web in search of a homebrew, however we have never played in any organized play.
Most paizo PF stuff is allowed. Synthesist and Master Summoner are right out for the majority of my players. Summoner is highly restricted, but again is player dependent. Feral mutagen alchs are under watch. SGG and Rite are allowed sight unseen. Most other 3rd party requires an OK.
Any full BAB archer is under watch too.
|
In my games, the core rulebook is always allowed.
Anything else, whether 3PP, 3.5, home brew/player created, or even Paizo requires GM approval and/or editing. Which just means I am involved in character creation and development.
I usually allow stuff from Paizo - or talk to the player and find a better option. I haven't had a player come to me with 3PP or home brew and said "no" except for the psionics book - which was more of a "I haven't read it yet."
Unfortunately, I also play PFS and have to deal with a lot of new options that I can't keep up with as a GM. It's annoying to have to stop game to make sure the player isn't ignorant of the rules or cheating. Ignorance being much more common than cheating. But, as a GM and player of some PFS games, I adapt.
So no Dragonfire Adepts, Warlocks, or monstrous PC half-breeds in your games?Every Pathfinder book I own is allowed, and that includes Core, APG, UM, UC and numerous Golarion campaign books.
I strictly don't allow any of the 3.5 books, simply because I am of the opinion that pathfinder has enough diversity to offer and I don't have the time to revise and convert the old stuff.
I don't want to approve every single thing in the rules, as I have enough faith in the designers that everything is playable, and my players are not powergamers who try to exploit every possible loophole.
No.
Unless a player really wants it, then I might try and convert it.
But, alas, my players are quite conservative when it comes to class & race selection. I had an Eberron campaign before and it took nearly 4 years before anyone created an Eberron-specific character - Warforged-Fighter, if I remember correctly...
The Core book and the APG are approved. Anything else is up to GM approval, but once I approve it is always available.
|
|
Current table rules from the GMs I'm gaming with--
All officially released Pathfinder products from Paizo.
No 3rd party stuff, no 3.5 stuff. Not exactly-official Paizo material, on a case-by-case basis (we've already allowed the extra cantrips from Paizo's blog).
Exceptions possible on a case-by-case basis: if it's for role-playing purposes, does not present any potential game-balance problems, AND it's not a pain in the a** to insert into the game-- i.e., no really weird mechanics that the GM and/or players now have to keep track of that we weren't using before-- it will probably be allowed (haven't really had it come up much yet anyway); if it's pretty clear that the player wants the exception for mechanical advantage (or any other munchkin-like reason), the answer's gonna be no.
|
|
But, alas, my players are quite conservative when it comes to class & race selection. I had an Eberron campaign before and it took nearly 4 years before anyone created an Eberron-specific character - Warforged-Fighter, if I remember correctly...
I played in an Eberron campaign for years in 3.5-- too bad your players didn't appreciate as much; but my first Eberron character picked up on dragonmarks, and my 2nd Eberron character was an artificer.... I really don't like the way Eberron was done in 4E (I don't play 4E anyway though), but Eberron (in 3.5) was my favorite D&D setting. I really enjoyed the "magic is common" + "magic as technology" combo that Eberron had going.
Anything from the "core line" is allowed, if playing in golarion all splats are accepted too. Only thing not accepted is summoners and gunslingers are on a case by case.
Core: Core Rulebook and APG
Case-by-Case: Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic
Highly Questionable: Anything else
+1
Except that Summoners & Alchemists are banned.
if it's pretty clear that the player wants the exception for mechanical advantage (or any other munchkin-like reason), the answer's gonna be no.
What I find strange about this attitude is that the only reason you take a feat, or anything else, is for an advantage. Why do you take toughness? To have a hit points advantage. Why do you have Skill Focus (Craft (Baskets while underwater))? To have an advantage over others who do not. Power Attack? Yep, that's an advantage.
Well, discounting rolling against a table for choosing feats.
Anything written by Paizo for PFRPG, because there is no good reason to limit one's or one's players choices to merely the Core Rulebook.
For reasons of personal taste i would ban fire arm materiel, including gunslingers (unless I am running a 3 musketeers / Pirates of the Carribean type campaign), and depending on the parameters of a specific home game I might restrict player's access to the monk, Samurai, and Ninja classes.
This is very true in my games. Otherwise I'm open to Core Rulebook, APG, and both the Ultimate Books. 3PP Splatbooks are subject to GM and group approval, so that everyone can agree on something before it is incorporated into the game. I do have one campaign running now with a Cavalier of the Dragon Order, who multiclassed into Super Genius Games Dragonrider (for sort of obvious reasons, an Order of the Dragon cavalier just seems to beg to be riding a dragon, doesn't it?)
One note: I used to be much more a stickler on what was allowed/disallowed before I got Hero Lab. Hero Lab is so good at crunching the numbers for character creation and level ups that I don't really have a fear of adding something that I can get within that software, as long as the group agrees about its balance and "funness." Which is why I think it is such good business sense for 3PPs to create Hero Lab files for their books. SGG did it for Dragonrider (it comes with the PDF when you buy it from Paizo) and it was the deciding factor for me allowing it at the table.
I dont outright ban anything. I consider the core rules and the base classes from the APG and Super Genius Games Core. All other material is case by case with dm approval.
For me Core is anything comes out from Pazio's Pathfinder Role Playing Game line. Option is the content from the Players Companion, Adventure Path, and Campaign Setting lines along with any 3rd party content.
Core is anything published by Paizo
I just require players to submit a sheet to me, and reserve the right to veto anything on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just require players to submit a sheet to me, and reserve the right to veto anything on it.
"so I have this male dwarven fighter and I woul-" "IT IS A FEMALE!"
|
I think that DMs who only allow core are working on either:
A.Theory
B.One bad experience
You forgot a couple:
C.They like simpler games
D.They don't want players using options they're not familiar with themselves and they haven't been memorizing splat books since their players were in diapers like some GMs have. ;)
E) There is some freakishly broken stuff in various D&D splats, particularly if multiclassed with Paizo archetypes.
I'm looking at you, Wildrunner and DoF 1st-printing Hospitaler with full BAB and full spell-casting. (And every wizard in the game would be a Mage of the Arcane Order.) :-P
Hmmm.... 20pt D&D+PF Bowbarian Cheeserunner:
STR:14
DEX+19
CON:12
INT:12
WIS:12
CHA:07
01 pala1 [Divine Hunter][Precise Shot], Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
02 barb1 [Wild Rager] ...lose paladin abilities, but keep the free feat, saves, and class skills!
03 barb2 [Wild Fighting][Reckless Abandon+1], Power Attack
04 barb3 DEX>20
05 barb4 [Reckless Abandon+2], Deadly Aim
06 wild1 [move+10]
07 wild2 [Primal Frenzy], Manyshot
...at 7th, you're move50 (stacks with Boots of Speed), rage/frenzy for STR+6 and DEX+6, and can Rapid/Manyshot four arrows at -2 or five arrows at -4 (Reckless Abandon offset +2). Six arrows if hasted. Own a STR+6 longbow. Three melee attacks, four if hasted.
Surprise round, drink potion of Heroism (always held in one hand, with bow held in the other); Rage/Frenzy (STR+6/DEX+6/CON+4/will save+2).
Attack at 8th (with a +2 bow and Bracers of Archery Greater): 8(BAB)+9(DEX)+2(BrA)+2(Rck)+2(Her)+2(enh)-3(DyA)-2(rap)-2(WlF) = +18(x2Manyshot)/+18(Rapid)/+18(wild)/+13(iterative
Damage: d8+6(STR)+6(Deadly)+1(BrA) = ~17.5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just require players to submit a sheet to me, and reserve the right to veto anything on it."so I have this male dwarven fighter and I woul-" "IT IS A FEMALE!"
IT IS ALSO A GOAT. WITH ROCKETS. A ROCKET-GOAT.
Core is anything published by Paizo
Well... sort of.
Are we playing with Words of Power? Yes, it's by Paizo, yes it's in the APG, but I wouldn't want a player to assume we were using it in my campaign. (I would very likely allow it, by the way.)
Are we playing with piecemeal armor? Again, Paizo rules but it isn't a given I'm allowing it in my campaign.
There are a lot of optional rules Paizo has published. I'm open to considering any of them, but the assumption isn't that they're automatically allowed at my table.
Core for me is: anything in the CRB, AGP's classes and class options and feats and spells and magic items, and the same from UC and UM, plus feats, traits, spells, and magic items in other Paizo works.
Point being: stuff that is more of what's in the Core... is "core" to me. Anything that's an alternate rule system instead of player choice... is optional pending my approval.
As for what I allow at my table... it's more than all of the above.
I don't know, I've met players who couldn't make that connection. I've heard "Oh this is awesome" said about something that simply didn't impress me much, the old 3.5 kensai is considered broken by some of the older players in my group, simply because the DM didn't have the monsters kill the guy giving away his powers.