Character Generation

[pallandrome]

I have a house rule: If you want to multiclass, or pick up a PrC, then there has to be someone around to teach it to ya. If I don't like the class you picked, for whatever reason, then I'll make sure that there is no one around to teach it to you. I'm the DM, I can do that yanno. Which means, if I think you are cherry picking on me, I might decide that there is no one around to retrain you in your old class. That being said, I have rarely been called upon to enforce this rule, as such things don't bother me unless taken to extremes.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have a house rule: If you want to multiclass, or pick up a PrC, then there has to be someone around to teach it to ya. If I don't like the class you picked, for whatever reason, then I'll make sure that there is no one around to teach it to you. I'm the DM, I can do that yanno. Which means, if I think you are cherry picking on me, I might decide that there is no one around to retrain you in your old class. That being said, I have rarely been called upon to enforce this rule, as such things don't bother me unless taken to extremes.

Don't you suppose that it would cause less conflict to require the player to run his plan by you at character creation, so that you could say "no, I don't want that much cherry picking, you won't be able to find a teacher for that class," instead of letting him get to level X before he finds out that he can't do what he had planned? It seems awfully antagonistic.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I usually work by the rule that if a player can't tell me exactly what their character can do without looking in a book then it doesn't work. Is transcribing and keeping notes on your character's abilities really all that hard? No. There's really no excuse to slowing a game down this way. I generally don't agree to limiting my players in this way (and as a player, I'd object to being limited in this fashion) as it reduces PC diversity and creativity. All it takes is a little preparation, note down a few feats and some special abilities and you're set.

Unless you're a spellcaster. I still can't remember the ranges, durations, or areas of effect for many common spells, and I've been a 3rd edition DM since 2000. Hell, I still can't remember the rules for bull rushing. After all this time I find myself remembering the 2nd or 1st edition versions of spells every once in a while. Requiring a spellcaster, especially a cleric or druid, to have all his spells written up in a notebook is probably more troublesome than requiring him to just have those books ready at hand, along with a list stating which spells are from which books.

It might also be useful to require a spellcaster to have his book open to the page on which his spell appears when his turn comes up. That way, no time is wasted leafing through pages.

 

[Klaus]

I allow all books I own, if only to have them actually BE used. So for me it's:

- PHB I & II
- DMG I & II
- All Complete books
- All Races books
- All Environment books
- Heroes of Battle
- All Eberron books (if playing in Eberron)
- Draconomicon
- Libris Mortis
- XPH

 

[Chupacabra]

I'd go with the PHB and the "Complete" books and keep it to those. Every character type gets a meat-and-potatoes version (ex: fighter) and a variant or two (ex: swashbuckler) as well as a decent selection of PrCs.

In my own campaign I make all PC's run a PrC idea thru me WAY ahead of time before they take the class. Some PrC's really call out for NPC tutelage or sponsorship so they are not just about meeting the prereqs. This also gives me a chance to screen out the PrC's that I feel are just too odd or powerful for this particular campaign.

Nothing wrong with keeping it simple. Heck, even with just the PHB alone and some house rules here and there you can create a wide variety of PC's.

 

[Crothian]

I trust the players not to cherry pick and use all the books responsible like.

 

[maggot]

I'm using a similar system in my game, but I allow multiple books if necessary on a case-by-case basis. The warlock can use warlock-specific stuff out of Complete Mage. As time goes by, there are more books that refer to non-core books, so I'll be revising this next campaign. I'm not sure how.

If everyone gets CORE + 1 or two suplplements, then you are always having to make sure thecharacter used stuff from the books that only they are allowed to use - assuming everyone can pick their own additional supplement or two. That's just adding more bookwork. If you set a list and allow it to be used, it is much easier.

Or perhaps, he trusts his players to follow the character creation rules. How can following the rule "any one book plus core" need any more auditing than the rule "these 10 books"?

Why don't you all have a gentleman's agreement to not cherrypick? I have that with my players. We just don't do it. You shouldn't need a rule for something like this. Emphasize character development over powergaming and cherry picking usually goes away (or at least is minimized).

I've yet to see a good definition of "cherry pick". You know it when you see it, and by that time it is too late: the character is already in the game. Is the archery master that takes all the weapon feats from many different books cherry picking? What if he takes an archery prestige class? What if he takes two? When does it get cheesy?

The one-book-plus-core method works well to keep everyone on the same level without too much DM intervention. The "any N books" method works well for players that own or have access to all N books, but ups the power level a bit for each additional book.

(The first extra book is a good power boost. The second not as much, the third not as much, but each additional book is one more book worth of feats from which to skim the topmost feats.)

 

[smootrk]

If one of my players went out and supported our hobby (and/or our FLG), then I will definitely do whatever I can to integrate the aspects the player wants into our game. I am not so draconian in my DM'ing to dictate hard rules on supplements allowed, or sections of those supplements allowed. I may Houserule out a small aspect or strike down the occasional 'broken' item/spell/feat/etc. but I will not declare my player's purchase to be a waste of money, just because the book hasn't interested me (yet). If the player saw fit to spend money for something located within a supplement - I say "Great, lets see how it can fit in."

 

[maggot]

If one of my players went out and supported our hobby (and/or our FLG), then I will definitely do whatever I can to integrate the aspects the player wants into our game. I am not so draconian in my DM'ing to dictate hard rules on supplements allowed, or sections of those supplements allowed. I may Houserule out a small aspect or strike down the occasional 'broken' item/spell/feat/etc. but I will not declare my player's purchase to be a waste of money, just because the book hasn't interested me (yet). If the player saw fit to spend money for something located within a supplement - I say "Great, lets see how it can fit in."

Hey, that's a pretty good attitude to have. I wish I gamed with your players.

 

[dvvega]

If you really want/need to limit choices you can do the following:

Core Books (PHB2/DMG2 I think are considered Core nowadays by some).
The appropriate class/race book for your character.
The appropriate environment book for your character.

This will usually being the total of books per player to 4 or 5 with an overlap occurring.

Once play begins and players experience each others' cultures, race, class, then a bit of cross-over choosing can occur. The DM can then introduce further books as he/she introduces new concepts.