D&D General Do players expect to use any/all WotC options in campaigns?

[Nobleshield]

I've been playing D&D off and on since the 90s and recently considered starting up a D&D campaign. However, I haven't played much of 5.5, and I skipped 5e entirely. With 5.5e's changes, many 5e books are listed as compatible, but they often need adjustments—like many of the subclasses Tasha's and Xanathar's—to fit the new rules (please correct me if I'm wrong here; since I didn't play 5e I'm not that familiar with these books other than they add extra subclasses and spells and such), and that's before counting the playtest stuff in Unearthed Arcana. I'm a bit hesitant to include sourcebooks I'm less familiar with, as I only have the PHB, DMG, and MM. Plus, my memories of the 3.5 days with countless splatbooks and additional options, many potentially unbalanced when combined, make me cautious. Two of the people I play 5.5 with like to use all sorts of books (many 3rd party).

Given this, would it be wise to limit options to the Player's Handbook only ("Core only," as we said in 3.5)? Or is the expectation of both players and WotC that any book (including UA? Beyond exclusive?) is fair game to play in any D&D game? I'd ultimately be the final arbiter if I'm going to DM, of course, but I want to get a better handle on how players approach things to avoid conflict, as I recall in 3.5, people didn't tend to like "Core Only" games.

 

[jasper]

Ever since AD&D, I have came across majority of people who want it all. If official, they want it. Once a DM put his food down, he either had fun or lost a lot of players. We 3E started, I said Core only and it was great until my group died for lots of reasons. Now, in 5E, I started doing Adventure League and never went back. I got sick of people saying I was a Rotten DM for even suggesting limits. But some of these goobers were okay with their favorite DM doing limits.

 

[Morrus]

Here we go again....

 

[CreamCloud0]

Here we go again....

Well we gotta rehash at least one of the classic thread topics every few weeks or so, at minimum!

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Some players do.. but my campaigns have a white list that is option based, not book based. I've never done "core only" in the sense that core options are auto white listed.

 

[TerraDave]

Its ok to only use the 5.5 PHB. Its a big book. Outside options, while a thing, are not as much of one as with 3e.

I am not sure how you are finding players, but lots of them are out there, and many are fine with PHB only options. In fact you could probably go even farther and limit some 5.5 options, and still be fine.

 

[SableWyvern]

In any game I run (D&D or otherwise), my players expect to be able to use whatever options I lay out as available.

On the rare occasion I have a player who even knows about things that lie outside that range, they might ask for something that interests them and which they believe is likely to fit the game as they understand it -- but they'd be far more likely to ask for something in general terms and rely on me to let them know if there's a suitable option within the game. Actually asking for a known, specific mechanical doodad or option (which isn't already explicitly available) would be extremely rare.

 

[VashVet]

My two cents (and this can be a contentious topic for some)…

I’ve rarely had a problem with a player wanting to bring in a player option that I didn’t want to allow, and I’ve never witnessed a problem with a DM who wanted to restrict such options. I’ve seen it both ways and in almost every case, people came to agreement, accepted whatever was put out there (adding a new subclass or new feat, or keeping options limited), and getting on to the game. The few outliers were some back and forth arguments of the lightest kind before there was compromise.

This is not to say heated arguments don’t and can’t happen. In my opinion, when and if this happens, determine whether the request seems reasonable and how the other side is presenting their concerns, and how you want to respond. If there seems to be a lot of anger involved, you may not want to move forward with the game. The game is supposed to be fun, not a source of contention.

That said, because 5.5 is so close to 5e, you can expect that someone may ask you to bring in a subclass from 5e. Most of the time, the rule adjustments necessary are light. A lot of people report playing subclasses from 5e as-is without any problem. My opinion? Assume the subclass plays the same way, and be ready to adjust when and if you run into a problem. If you don’t want to use anything from 5e, just say that up front at the beginning of the game. If a player takes issue with that, hear their reason why and see how you feel after that.

And that’s all I’ve got! Good luck!

 

[TwoSix]

If they’re relatively new or game-system incurious, you’re probably OK.

If they’re experienced and/or game system enthusiasts, they’ll probably not be thrilled.

I personally would not play in a Core-only game, as it tells me the GM isn’t experienced enough to be aware the PC balance is basically ephemeral. 5e simply isn’t compelling enough for me in its standard incarnation after 12 years of play.

 

[pnewman]

The ones who use D&D online to make their characters do, because it is bad at telling users, especially new users, how to exclude sources and that they need to check with their DM first before they assume that an Aarakocra Haunted One with the Mark of Finding will work in his campaign.