Xanathars guide

[Parmandur]

This thread, and ones like it, is why I advocate having multiple DMs in every group.

This DM needs to get over himself, borrow the damn book, and stop focusing on getting “an edge” over the player characters.

editr just borrow the damn thing

It'd be one thing if it was a case by case thematic thing ("there no horses in my campaign world, so Cavalier is out"), but there doesn't sound like much reason here.

 

[John Brebeuf]

My character just recently died in a battle vs a beholder. I'm fine with it. It's expected. Rolling a new character to me is always fun, but my DM tells me I can't use xanathars guide because he doesn't have it when four other players at the table do have it. Just wanting to see what others think on this.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

DM's call. End of story.

 

[5ekyu]

My character just recently died in a battle vs a beholder. I'm fine with it. It's expected. Rolling a new character to me is always fun, but my DM tells me I can't use xanathars guide because he doesn't have it when four other players at the table do have it. Just wanting to see what others think on this.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I often dont allow any new materials mud campaign. The game finishes under same rules as it started. Seems fair, right?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It'd be one thing if it was a case by case thematic thing ("there no horses in my campaign world, so Cavalier is out"), but there doesn't sound like much reason here.

Yep. And combined with other stuff, like what sounds like a very railroaded beholder fight, it really sounds like there needs to be a person to person conversation about what everyone at the table wants from the game.

DM's call. End of story.

At the table, maybe. There is absolutely no reason not to discuss it further, try to find out why, or just discuss whether he is making a reasonable call.

I often dont allow any new materials mud campaign. The game finishes under same rules as it started. Seems fair, right?

For some values of fair, maybe. I’m not sure what could possibly be unfair about going the other way, though. Seems pretty arbitrary.

 

[Stalker0]

DM's call. End of story.

Yep. The core books has everything people need to make fun characters. If the dm doesn’t want to add in more, it’s completely their call and completely fine.

 

[Ath-kethin]

This is not an unreasonable stance.

I agree completely here. I don't allow material in my campaigns from books I don't own. It's not a "me-vs-them" thing, it's an "I need the resources to know what the PCs can do" thing.

 

[5ekyu]

Yep. And combined with other stuff, like what sounds like a very railroaded beholder fight, it really sounds like there needs to be a person to person conversation about what everyone at the table wants from the game.


At the table, maybe. There is absolutely no reason not to discuss it further, try to find out why, or just discuss whether he is making a reasonable call.



For some values of fair, maybe. I’m not sure what could possibly be unfair about going the other way, though. Seems pretty arbitrary.

Arbitrary? "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Hardly. For my completely non-random, non-whimsy and based on reason case;

1. The campaign played to date has been played so far with a given set of options available and included. The publication of a new book does not have any correlation to any planned event that changes all those things.

2. Allowing the new sub-classes only to the PC whose character died is rather unfair as it treats all players differently.

3. Allowing a universal across the board character trade out to the new classes is honestly highly disruptive to my style of game where the storylines derive a lot of their elements from the specific PC backgrounds and the in- game past of the characters.

4 Such disruption, again by a few players, is again unfair to the rest who choose to continue as we started.

5. Its my job as GM to not put players in the "you might not like this disruption but do YOU want to be the one trlling Jimmy he cant play his new toy. That is my job to do.

Since i say right up front that this is how i game and the players play anyway, it seems no expectations are broken.

Now, if everyone decides its time to drop this campaign and start a new one, thats a different call.

But i guess to some all of those adx up to "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Go figure.







Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree completely here. I don't allow material in my campaigns from books I don't own. It's not a "me-vs-them" thing, it's an "I need the resources to know what the PCs can do" thing.

Why is borrowing the book from one of he 4 players at the table who has offered insufficient, though?

If no one has it, or your players are weirdos that won’t let their friend borrow a book, sure, but otherwise it seems pretty strange.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Why is borrowing the book from one of he 4 players at the table who has offered insufficient, though?

If no one has it, or your players are weirdos that won’t let their friend borrow a book, sure, but otherwise it seems pretty strange.

Call it residual burn from 3rd party crap during the 3.x years.

I stand by my position.

 

[5ekyu]

There's nothing wrong with a DM not wanting to allow content he isn't familiar with.

If you really want to be able to use the book, perhaps you could lend your copy to your DM so he can at least read through it. Alternatively, if you can afford it, you could buy him his own copy. (Better yet, get your fellow players to chip in.)

Agree.

Also perhsps they should consider GMing a game as well so others can use that material.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app