Allowing stuff beyond the core books.

[Jakathi]

with everything, you have to use common sense.

a paladin shouldn't be able to use magical feats a magic user shouldn't be able to turn undead.

Now, the basic feats such as riposte, grapple and such could be allowed as extra feats, but only because the fighter is assumed to know how to feint and riposte with a sword if his trainer was worth a grain of salt. in the end, go with your gut instinct and if it seems wrong, don't let em get away with it.

"hey, but jack can turn into a wolf! why cant i?" kelsie whines.

"Gee wilikers. I thought you didn't like being a cookie cut-out." the mighty dm replies.

 

[Olive]

a paladin shouldn't be able to use magical feats a magic user shouldn't be able to turn undead.

Why shouldn't a paladin be able to use magical feats if he prepares the spells at higher levels like everyone else?

 

[shadow]

I admit that I'm a "supplement-aholic". I like using as many optional sources as I can. To me the half the fun of the game comes from surprises. New feats, prestige classes, and spells keep the game fresh. I'm pretty liberal about what I'll allow, but I do have a rule. When I DM players who wish to use anything from non-core sources must show me it first and get my approval. That eliminates most extreme cases of rule-abuse.

 

[Storminator]

In a typical campaign the PCs aren't really going to get that many choices for classes and feats. If you open up your rule set, but review everything they take you should be OK.

Spells are trickier, because your PCs really can rip thru a hundred different spells in a campaign. Take a little more care with them.

Also, don't be afraid to yank a spell after you've seen it in use. If a spell (or feat, or PrC) turns out to be better than it looked on paper, it's wiser to pull it and deal with the campaign discontinuity than it is to leave it in.

But your players seem pretty reasonable. You should be able to work it out with them amiably.

PS

 

[Wicht]

I run a kalamar campaign and so basically use anything in any of the Kalamar books I like. I also use any monster from any book that I find that I like. The rest is on a case by case basis, which is probably what you want to do.

 

[Jakathi]

simple a paladin shouldn't have access to many magical feats because

they are primarily a holy warrior who've been granted special powers by their own particular gods in order to combat evil. they are not primarily spell-casters. It'd unbalance the to allow them to make magical arms/armor and such just because they can cast a few heal spells or whatever.

 

[Darrin Drader]

What I recommend is before starting a new campaign, get together with your players and any supplements you might have. The players will likely have a list of things they want included in the game, so have them write everything down, and then collect all the source material. At that point, read through the list, add to it yourself if you want, and then decide how each thing fits into your campaign. There will likely be things that you will not want to include, and that's fine.

One thing I can say is that WotC is as careful as possible to design rules mechanics that are balanced and internally consistent. That said, some options are overly complicated, and you may want to steer clear of those unless you want to sit down and house rule how they work.

I don't recommend opening the campaign up to everything under the sun, and I also don't recommend being too liberal with Savage Species. Personally I find it to be an excellent tool for designing good challenges for PCs, but I'm not overly fond of the notion of allowing players to get their hands on a half troll, half-illithid and go adventuring with an owlbear barbarian and a half-dragon alienist.

Aside from the notion of being selective about what you do allow, I definitely recommend using a lot of the options because it adds a lot of depth and flavor to the game that wouldn't otherwise be there.

 

[nopantsyet]

I'm becoming more convinced that restrictions are a good thing. They don't always have to be rules restrictions, they could be roleplaying restrictions as well. But I think having a framework that forces the players to alter their assumptions adds to the game. Besides, on the occasions I am not DMing, I feel like I'm cheating if the DM doesn't impose some restrictions.

 

[Crothian]

I allow anything, but it has to fit the character. My players get an idea of what abilities they would like the character to have and then going looking for ways to make that happen. Now, if you have players that just go after the best number crunching abilities it may casue problems as they abuse what is out there. But I've always felt that those problems lie with the players and not the books. With a good group of resonible people you should rarely have balance problems, no matter what is allowed.

 

[Valiantheart]

I would follow Henry's suggestion. Its a good idea to figure out all the player feats you are going to allow from the core and splat books and present them in the very beginning for character creation.

PrCs should be left completely out of the players hands. Its up to you to introduce them and dont just do it because joe bob player 1 was designing his character from level 1 to be a Mystic Theurge.

Sprinkle in what you need and expunge the rest.