Core Three Only?

[niolo]

That's interesting to hear that most people allow more than just core. We usually don't use anything outside core, except after some VERY hard bargaining. Lately we've allowed more options, after an inclusive dialogue discussing the pros and cons of what to allow or disallow. It is interesting. If we went back to core, I'd be happy just the same.
--breeyark!

 

[pawsplay]

I tend to use core (and sometimes the XPH), plus liberal additions on a case by case basis. Every time my druid player asks me a question about a spell compendium spell, I glare at him balefully and say, "I don't know, I'd have to become more familiar with the spell."

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I tend to use core (and sometimes the XPH), plus liberal additions on a case by case basis. Every time my druid player asks me a question about a spell compendium spell, I glare at him balefully and say, "I don't know, I'd have to become more familiar with the spell."

Good idea. There are anough direct damge spells in that book for druids to put a warmage to shame.

 

[Delta]

Core only here.

One thing I'll say is that as DM, any supplements would be picked by me in advance (for a given campaign). It would not be up to individual players to pick what books they get to use.

 

[Particle_Man]

One advantage of core only is that a lot of its info is on the SRD which is handy if you don't have your books with you but do have access to a computer.

I played a character using core only in a campaign where others didn't, but that was a personal thing, as I felt all the options were overwhelming me. I had fun with it (elf rogue, if anyone cares).

There is nothing wrong with core only. Other books add options but you can have a lot of fun with core only.

 

[Bad Paper]

hey grimstaff

Do you have any house rules?

 

[Li Shenron]

I always allow at least the 5 splatbooks (3.0) by default, but the players take >90% of their characters' stuff from the core anyway.

For groups which always use lots of books, it could be odd to go back to core only, but it could also be a good occasion to take a look at what was overlooked or dismissed as "weak" and try instead to make it work. Also, it's an occasion to play another class...

 

[Grimstaff]

Do you have any house rules?

Not really, though my last campaign had several. Stuff like weapon penetration, fumbles, level training, etc. This time around, we decided to try a campaign strictly RAW and Core Books only, partly due to the fact that our previous two campaigns had begun to break down around 15th lvl from feats, PrCs, and spells from non-Core books that had obviously never been playtested before being included in the various splatbooks. Stuff from books like Book of Exalted Deeds worked just fine at mid-levels but then got silly at higher levels, and we had the difficult problem of "retroactively" nixing the additional material, pretending it wasn't a problem, or nerfing/changing it from the ground up, none of which were appealing options when what we really wanted to do was get on with the adventure!

After a short stint with C&C, we collectively agreed we liked the freedom of that game but still missed the customization options of 3.5, so we all agreed we would see how the game went without all the admittedly cool but extraneous extra splat.

Not to say we ont ever touch splats again (I love Complete Arcane!) but we are going to see this experiment through to the end.

We are using a custom exp table though, to prolong the "sweet-spot" play levels of 6th-12th.

 

[IndyPendant]

I am a firm believer in making sure the players are happy with their PCs. These are characters that (barring total disaster) may very well be with them quite literally for years! If I can't give a player what he wants, then I will work with him to try and find a compromise that meets him partway.

In other words, I make sure that if I'm going to take on the responsibility of running a campaign, I'm going to make every effort to do it right. Part of that, to me, means being as involved in character generation as my players. If a player wants something exotic, I say "Okay, let me take a look at it." I take the time to examine it, decide if it's reasonably close to balanced, and if so I allow it--with the caveat that if I discover later that there was something I had missed, the player will have to be open to balance changes later.

This method has worked very well for me so far.

I have a player in one campaign playing a Warblade from Tome of Battle. I happen to be one of those people that think the ToB is horribly overpowered (please don't resurrect that debate on this thread! : ) but he was convincing enough for me to let it through. I almost took it away from him recently, but all my players seem convinced his character is not overpowered, and they aren't the type to be dishonest with me like that, so...*shrug* I compromised by taking away the Warblade's ability to 'refresh' Maneuvers during an encounter. He's still playing it, and I'm still trying to decide for myself.

On the other hand, a player in my other campaign loved the flavour of the Complete Divine's Spirit Shaman. Now, *this* class is such a laughably, pathetically weak class that I was tempted to ban it outright simply because it was so horrible it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. After I got past that initial impulse, I listened to what the player wanted for her character, and drew on abilities from classes in other books to boost the Spirit Shaman to a level I felt was balanced. I again offered the caveat that if it seemed my changes made her *too* powerful, she had to be open to changes later. And in fact, I did end up changing it recently again--by buffing it even further. (Gods, but the Spirit Shaman is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE class mechanically. It's got some good flavour, though... : )

The issue isn't whether to allow extra books or not. The issue is whether a GM is willing to invest the time and effort required to run a campaign properly, and what kind of relationship a GM has with his players. Now, if the GM and the players together decide they would all prefer to limit their own choices, then great! Run with it. However, a GM that arbitrarily limits his players' choices because he can't be bothered to take the time to examine what a player wants for his character...should not be a GM, imo.

(Edit: Please note that this response presumes an *experienced* GM. For new GMs, it's a good idea--and in fact, strongly recommended--to limit the game to the Core Three books. I did that myself when I recently tried my hand at running a campaign using Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, since it was essentially a completely different (if similar) system to 3.5e.)

 

[Grimstaff]

The issue isn't whether to allow extra books or not. The issue is whether a GM is willing to invest the time and effort required to run a campaign properly, and what kind of relationship a GM has with his players. Now, if the GM and the players together decide they would all prefer to limit their own choices, then great! Run with it. However, a GM that arbitrarily limits his players' choices because he can't be bothered to take the time to examine what a player wants for his character...should not be a GM, imo.

(Edit: Please note that this response presumes an *experienced* GM.

SO...are you saying the DM should spend a few hours of the game session each week dealing with a players Half-Dragon Rainbow Adept's new spell list, or just alot a few hours away from his career or kids?

Seriously, despite the fact that my players all decided on the Core Three only rule, I don't think a DM who limits the number of optional rules at his table is in any way a bad DM. As a matter of fact, I would have to say that any DM with the time read, analyze, and modify any of more than 1000 published feats, spells, and PrCs is simply a DM without a job and family!

I've played with a lot a great DMs who didn't need to roll out the red carpet for every bizarre .pdf full of nonsense someone happened to bring in the door, and yet still, unbelievably , managed to run a fantastic, fun, and engaging game.