What's the best and worst D&D book you own from any edition?

[gamerprinter]

I thought the argument was ToB offered good replacements for fighters and/or other existing martial classes.


I'm pretty sure that's what was meant.

If I had to pick a best I'd have to say the AD&D DMG.

It's not worth looking up, but I am almost certain every post in this forum discussing the issue, not once is the statement that "here's a good replacement for fighters", rather "improvements to fighters". I don't believe I ever seen the argument for what it's meant, only how it's misspoken.

 

[Random Bystander]

Which one?

Hmm...I have not played fighters from every edition, so I can not pick the worst fighter.

 

[Jhaelen]

Ok, help me out guys, maybe it wasn't Tome of Magic, but it was one of the later splats. It had spells with the "Stygian" descriptor that could drain levels. The introduction of those spells killed 3.5 at our table.

Ah, okay. This sounds more like the 'Spell Compendium'. It included a couple of wonky spells from the 'Book of Vile Darkness', which was initially released at a time when 3.0 was quite finished and 3.5 not quite released. Originally, these spells had been balanced by causing the caster to accumulate 'corruption' or something like that, but for some reason in the 'Spell Compendium' they simply omitted that drawback without adjusting the spells' power. It also introduced a couple of other broken-good spells and was the main reason why many felt that clerics and druids were overpowered in 3e.

 

[Mallus]

It's not worth looking up, but I am almost certain every post in this forum discussing the issue, not once is the statement that "here's a good replacement for fighters", rather "improvements to fighters". I don't believe I ever seen the argument for what it's meant, only how it's misspoken.

OK... but parsed that way it doesn't make any sense (because it's true the Bo9S classes/mechanics don't offer 'improvements to fighters'). I operate under the twin assumptions a) people usually intend to make sense and b) people frequently misspeak. So I try to read for meaning, and not to find fuel for semantic arguments.

Truth be told, it makes me a terrible proofreader, and it don't help my code debugging any, either. But we all have our crosses to bear...

 

[gamerprinter]

OK... but parsed that way it doesn't make any sense (because it's true the Bo9S classes/mechanics don't offer 'improvements to fighters'). I operate under the twin assumptions a) people usually intend to make sense and b) people frequently misspeak. So I try to read for meaning, and not to find fuel for semantic arguments.

Truth be told, it makes me a terrible proofreader, and it don't help my code debugging any, either. But we all have our crosses to bear...

The thing is, I'd like to see a mechanical way to improve fighters, not a replacement set of melee classes that work in a completely different way.

While I am often misunderstood, in both forum discussions as well as in general conversation, I always use as precise of language as possible as there is nuance in exact language. I don't misspeak, so it's usually not my assumption that others are misspeaking when I discuss issues with them. I don't want to argue semantics, I want to discuss specific issues. However, it becomes semantics when the people you discuss issues with can't use the right verbage. I can't necessarily guess when people are misspeaking. Say what you mean (correctly) or don't say anything at all.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, I'd like to see a mechanical way to improve fighters, not a replacement set of melee classes that work in a completely different way.

While I am often misunderstood, in both forum discussions as well as in general conversation, I always use as precise of language as possible as there is nuance in exact language. I don't misspeak, so it's usually not my assumption that others are misspeaking when I discuss issues with them. I don't want to argue semantics, I want to discuss specific issues. However, it becomes semantics when the people you discuss issues with can't use the right verbage. I can't necessarily guess when people are misspeaking. Say what you mean (correctly) or don't say anything at all.

But... But... I was just told, repeatedly, many, many, many times, that there is no need to improve fighters. That it's all just made up by DM's who lack the ability to run a balanced game.

 

[Jester David]

Torn on the "best".
As a Ravenloft fan I'm quite fond of Carnival but that's a side product. And I really liked the 3e Uneathed Arcana.

But, then again, Ptolus is inarguably the best product I have and a personal favourite. There's just so much to gush about that book before you even get to the content.

The worst... hrm...
Wow, this is going to upset some people but the 4e core rules. I have the boxed set. Despite running 4e for a year and playing for two the books are pristine. They saw almost zero use being rendered irrelevant by updates and the online tools. I occasionally used the PHB for rules questions but once I got the Rules Compendium the core books never left my shelf. I don't think I got my money's worth from them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But... But... I was just told, repeatedly, many, many, many times, that there is no need to improve fighters. That it's all just made up by DM's who lack the ability to run a balanced game.

I sincerely doubt that anyone has ever told you that.

There's no need to improve fighters relative to any other particular class. There is plenty of room to improve all the classes.

 

[Cadence]

1e DMG is my best - treasure trove of ideas, quotes, suggestions, and wacky tables. Been my favorite since I first got it in the early 80s. Runners up are the original B2 (still my favorite adventure) and the Moldvay Basic (although I don't think it does as good a job teaching a bunch of people to learn to play on their own as we nostalgize it doing).

4e PhB is my worst - The 4e DMG would have beaten it if I still had it. I've seen enough posts by @pemerton and @Manbearcat to know what a horrible job the DMG did selling the edition's mechanics (I wonder how my group would have reacted to it if we had it explained well at the time). The PhB did the same kind of job for selling the edition's setting. The 3e Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds were pretty vile too, but I don't own the one I used to have anymore.

 

[was]

Worst...Book of Nine Swords in 3.5