Brancers of Armor

[Vespucci]

Most of the 3.5 books "override" the 3.0 books. The best example are the core books. You also have all the complete series that override "Sword and Fist" and the like...
But this is not always the case... There are plenty of 3.0 books that are part of the 3.5 system. MM II is a good example. They've even been updated by WotC by PDFs on their site. Those are without a doubt part of the 3.5 RAW.

A&EG is one of the ambiguous ones. There is no such book in 3.5, yet WotC never provided an updated PDF for it... So when i say a "DM might allow it" i'm actually referring to that ambiguity...

I understand that. It's beside the point. My disagreement with you is over what it means for a supplement to be published by WotC. This post makes your view clear: if WotC published it as a generic expansion to a particular edition, it's part of the basic rules of that game, and the ref would be making a house rule to exclude it. That's certainly not the RAW (only the basic three books are labeled "core"). It's a radical view of player entitlement.

If you'll pardon the tangent: This view of player entitlement emerged around the same time that the ref was becoming a "storyteller". There's a logical connexion between the two developments. As the ref started to take over the plot, players began seizing upon more rules in an attempt to fight against 'railroading'. So we have D&D: the rail-shooter. Characters are built, from a grand array of rules, for the sake of rapidly eliminating the threats bursting out at them, but otherwise just roll down the tracks of the "DM"'s "story".

 

[Jimlock]

i suggest you read my previous post cause we posted them at the same time....

 

[Jimlock]

I understand that. It's beside the point. My disagreement with you is over what it means for a supplement to be published by WotC. This post makes your view clear: if WotC published it as a generic expansion to a particular edition, it's part of the basic rules of that game, and the ref would be making a house rule to exclude it. That's certainly not the RAW (only the basic three books are labeled "core"). It's a radical view of player entitlement.

Here i''ll paste it in this one in case you missed it...

But the rules of 3.0 are just the three core books. A&E is no more official than any other supplement, published or unpublished, that was designed for use with the 3.0 rules.
Is it the first time you hear of "official supplements"?

So A&EG is just as unofficial as a book by Mongoose Publishing? ...and just as unofficial as a personal house rule of mine?

No. D&D 3.0 rules, are all the rules in all the 3.0 D&D books. Whether you get to use them or not is a different story, as is a different story whether you use all or some of the rules in the core books.

If the ref wants to use A&E, or any other supplement (no matter who published it), making it part of their campaign is a house rule. Keeping it out is the RAW.

RAW = Rules As Written... you are clearly confusing this with SRD...
totally different things...

Here's something that makes what i'm saying clear:

Rules Compendium (Official 3.5 supplement):

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

 

[Vespucci]

Is it the first time you hear of "official supplements"?

So A&EG is just as unofficial as a book by Mongoose Publishing? ...and just as unofficial as a personal house rule of mine?

No. D&D 3.0 rules, are all the rules in all the 3.0 D&D books. Whether you get to use them or not is a different story, as is a different story whether you use all or some of the rules in the core books.

RAW = Rules As Written... you are clearly confusing this with SRD...
totally different things...

Here's something that makes what i'm saying clear:

Rules Compendium (Official 3.5 supplement):

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supple- ment differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

In my experience, "official supplement" is player speak for, "you gotta let me use this book!" It's effective rhetoric, but nothing more. WotC didn't use it, because they weren't so arrogant as to tell hobbyists to purchase their whole range. (Though they didn't shut down this behavior - it fit with their sales targets.)

I don't have the book to hand, but if Wizards used "official supplement" on the Rules Compendium, they didn't use it for any of their other supplements - that would be the kiss of death for your case. If they didn't use "official supplement" for the Rules Compendium, you're still wearing the burden of proof. (At a minimum, you need to explain what "Core Rules" means - is it just marketing to you?)

Oh, and, by the way, I'm not clearly confusing the RAW with the SRD. I've already stated that the Epic Level Handbook is a supplement, so I can't think that's part of the RAW.

 

[Umbran]

You're now up to a couple of pages of just the two of you duking it out. You don't seem to be coming to any compromises or mutual understanding - you're just butting heads, with no gain for anyone - not yourselves, or any other readers.

Consider changing your approaches, or giving it a rest, please.

 

[Jimlock]

In my experience, "official supplement" is player speak for, "you gotta let me use this book!" It's effective rhetoric, but nothing more. WotC didn't use it, because they weren't so arrogant as to tell hobbyists to purchase their whole range. (Though they didn't shut down this behavior - it fit with their sales targets.)

Believe me... If there is ONE person is the world that hates supplements more... its me.. I've argued on this "you gotta let me use this book!" logic over and over again...
I can't agree more on why these supplement come out in the first place...

However this is a debate about something else...

I don't have the book to hand, but if Wizards used "official supplement" on the Rules Compendium, they didn't use it for any of their other supplements - that would be the kiss of death for your case. If they didn't use "official supplement" for the Rules Compendium, you're still wearing the burden of proof. (At a minimum, you need to explain what "Core Rules" means - is it just marketing to you?)

The've only written "supplement" on the book. I used the term "official" so as to make clear its a WotC product, so don't worry about any kisses of death...

It's funny how you evade answering to what the book says though... I'm really eager to hear what you have to say as far as that goes...

What is CORE? It's the base of the system. The minimum one needs to play the game. There's no need to buy any of the supplements, for you can always play with just the core rulebooks.

......But that doesn't mean that the supplement's are not an extension of this system. And they are just as optional as the original system is.

Would you kindly point me to where in the CORE books it states that the core books are the absolute and only reference for the rules of the game, while the rest of the supplements are not?
Please?

Oh, and, by the way, I'm not clearly confusing the RAW with the SRD. I've already stated that the Epic Level Handbook is a supplement, so I can't think that's part of the RAW.

Right you are not confusing it... then where does this come from?

If the ref wants to use A&E, or any other supplement (no matter who published it), making it part of their campaign is a house rule. Keeping it out is the RAW.

You're clearly confusing SRD with RAW. A&EG doesn't have rules in it? If one uses A&EG in his game doesn't he follow the RULES AS WRITTEN in the book? ...however or as much as he follows the RULES AS WRITTEN in the PHB?

I'd advise you to google what RAW means... and then visit WotC site to see what SRD means...?

Epic Level Handbook? Funny you mentioned that book...

In 3.0, the Manyshot feat, was found in ELH... while in 3.5 it can be found in the PHB... Please explain to me why i'm less allowed (therefore i have to go into house-ruling) to take the feat in 3.0 than in 3.5? Oh i forgot... because in 3.0 it's in RAW (!!!), while in 3.5 it's in this romantic novel called "Epic Level Handbook" that happens to have been published by the same company....

Moreover, by you, it's more correct to play epic levels by the almost nonexistent rules found in the CORE DMG, than by the foul Epic Level's handbook.... Because in the DMG one can follow the Rules As Written, while in Epic Level HAndbook there are no written Rules to follow...right.

In your opinion:

-It is better for the DM to "fabricate" some rule for Craft-poisonmaking, because the CORE DMG says so... than to follow the Skill explained/designed in Comp. Adventurer.

-It is better for the DM to find on his own how to treat Sneak Attack in respect to touch attack and ranged touch attack spells, because the DMG says he should "find his own way out" in case there is no rule to solve a conflict... than to use the rule explicitly explained in Comp. Arcane.

-It is better for the DM to figure on his own what happens when a Hidden character moves from cover to cover... than to follow the rule in Comp. Adventurer.


...well you know what? all the above rules have been incorporated into Rules Compendium now... damn... it's still a supplement.. isn't it? Damn I can't consider them as part of my CORE rules even now because they are still not in my CORE books...


Even this...

Rules Compendium (Official 3.5 supplement):

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supple- ment differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

...i cannot follow.... cause it's still not part of my CORE rules... My CORE rules are my CORE RULES... and i have to follow the AS WRITTEN... cause the rest of the books are all about poetry...

 

[Jimlock]

You're now up to a couple of pages of just the two of you duking it out. You don't seem to be coming to any compromises or mutual understanding - you're just butting heads, with no gain for anyone - not yourselves, or any other readers.

Consider changing your approaches, or giving it a rest, please.

I saw your post only after i posted mine..sorry for that.

 

[Tovec]

Vespucci's Point of View:
The only rules the DM should be required to adhere to are the core books (DMG,PHB and MM) of any edition. Everything else beyond that is the DM's choice, regardless if it has the WotC sticker or not.

If this model is followed it stops the feeling of "player entitlement" because a certain book has the WotC brand.

It doesn't matter if WotC makes it any more than anyone coming up with additional rules the DM should not be forced to follow them.

Jimlock's Point of View:
You are confusing your terms. (Tovec: which really isn't that important.)

Core - DMG,PHB,MM1
RAW - rules as written, rules the way they were written in any edition
SRD - system reference document, both the core and expanded material for a given edition

If not specified most people will assume you mean 3.5 not 3.0.
There is a 3.0 source called the arms and equipment guide. Many DMs will allow it in 3.0 games because it is designed with that ruleset.

Many DMs may not allow 3.0 material in 3.5 games as much of it has been updated in one form or another. They are under less obligation than normal if it were another 3.5 book.

Oh, he also seems to take objection with you saying everything should be considered optional and unofficial beyond "core". Including the houserules me and my buddies come up with.

Both Point of View:
Consult your DM.
General agreement on the rules - mostly.
Consult your DM - worth repeating.

Umbran's Point of View:
Stop fighting or else. (Tovec: Boo )

My Point of View:
Oh, you guys each got a few things wrong in your own arguments but that's cool, I'm not going to nitpick.

However..

The epic level handbook is a different case entirely because it covers material NOT related to the CORE rules. In much of the rules from any source it is generally not assumed players play epic characters. The rules in this book override restrictions on many things but provide a tangible (written) exclusion as it says "EPIC" somewhere on it.
Ie. Epic weapons and epic armor bonuses exceeding a base +5 enhancement bonus.

This is not generally the case with regular (A+EG) material because the regular material focuses on pre-epic. So unless I miss some glaring omission the rules of not being able to go past a certain number should be followed.

Hope this helps clarify things. Please stop the fighting and think of the children.