Can you use too many sources?

[Elodan]

Hey everybody,

Going through my house rules. I use Arcana Evolved as my base plus the Arcana Evolved Spell Treasury for my spells. I then pull in certain races/feats/PrCs from:

• FRCS (where the campaign is based)
• Players Guide to Faerun
• Races of Faerun
• Complete Warrior
• Complete Divine
• Complete Arcane
• Complete Adventurer
• The Complete Book of Eldritch Might (pretty much Bard only here)

I just reference these. I've then pulled in additional material from other sources where I write them out.

I'm thinking off adding the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic and Races of Eberron (I like Shifters, Changelings and Kalahtar).

Does this seem like too much from either a player or DM perspective? I have the rule if you want to use something from the book you need to bring it.

Thanks.

 

[Crothian]

I once used about 20 books for a single game session. It wasn't too much. As long as you can handle it and you are not bringing in more books then you need you are fine. All the matters is if you can handle it, not if some other EN Worlders think it is too much.

 

[Jdvn1]

For a one-shot, I'd say you want to keep the number of books down.

For a campaign, use however many you're comfortable with.

 

[Psion]

I find 10 books to be a practical limit for a "core set" for a campaign, with maybe 1-2 "guest books" at a time exploring additional ideas.

 

[moritheil]

No. It is not possible to use too many sources. It is, however, possible to use questionable sources (many object to Dragon magazine feats, for example.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes I think it's possible to use too many sources.

If you're using AE you probably should avoid most of these sources for crunch.

AE has no psionic rules (except Mind Witchery) that I'm aware of, so that one might be okay, but you could still be breaking things by letting a psion take AE stuff.

I don't know why you'd let Eberron races into FR. (For that matter, same with AE races. Are there Mogh in your FR?)

Does this seem like too much from either a player or DM perspective? I have the rule if you want to use something from the book you need to bring it.

Thanks.

Yes. IMO it's not good enough to have the rule available. More material means more complexity, which means you need more time to think about balancing, brokenness and what have you. This is complex enough that completely honest players can still "break" the system accidentally, and not just by making stuff overpowered. (They can gimp their PCs, too.) Because the material isn't designed to work together* stuff can quickly spiral out of control.

*Splat books are virtually always playtested by themselves (or just with setting books).

 

[moritheil]

Yes. IMO it's not good enough to have the rule available. More material means more complexity, which means you need more time to think about balancing, brokenness and what have you. This is complex enough that completely honest players can still "break" the system accidentally, and not just by making stuff overpowered. (They can gimp their PCs, too.) Because the material isn't designed to work together* stuff can quickly spiral out of control.

*Splat books are virtually always playtested by themselves (or just with setting books).

FWIW I don't agree with the paradigm that balance is something the DM has to ensure by carefully restricting what is available in the hope that PCs will still be able to do what they want without being "overpowered."

The distinction of "honesty" and the implication that players who build carefully are "dishonest" is a gross disservice to those players who actually care about their game enough to be prepared for it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

FWIW I don't agree with the paradigm that balance is something the DM has to ensure by carefully restricting what is available in the hope that PCs will still be able to do what they want without being "overpowered."

Fine.

The distinction of "honesty" and the implication that players who build carefully are "dishonest" is a gross disservice to those players who actually care about their game enough to be prepared for it.

Where did I say that?

 

[moritheil]

As I said, it was an implication, not a statement:

This is complex enough that completely honest players can still "break" the system accidentally

The implication is that only a dishonest player would want to "break the system," whereby "break the system" you presumably (by context) mean "get ahead of the power curve."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

As I said, it was an implication, not a statement:

The implication is that only a dishonest player would want to "break the system,"

Yes.

whereby "break the system" you presumably (by context) mean "get ahead of the power curve."

By a large amount, enough to harm the game. Optimization isn't bad; the game is built around that.