D&D 5E Do you allow third party material in your game...

[Klaudius Rex]

This thread is specifically for those DMs who have decided to allow third party source material in their games.

We are starting up Tomb of Annihilation soon, and a few of my players want to be monster races from Volo's Guide (which is fine), and even new classes from Unearthed Arcana (what the hell, i'll try it out, too!)

When news broke, a few others wanted to use some stuff from EN5sider (the Occult class) and some Warlock of Death pact (from who knows where).

I looked much of it over, and it isnt bad, but what i want to know before making a DM decision at my table is, why did you decide to allow third party source material in your game in the first place?

if you dont allow third party material, you can chime in as well, but i really wanted to see how its worked out for those of you who decided to allow things from places like EN5sider, DMGuild, Unearthed Arcana, etc.

So far my players are thinking...

Goliath monk (probably the most official character in my game),

Tabaxi artificer (Volos guide and Unearthed Arcana),

Human or elf warlock of death pact (from somewhere out there in cyberspace),

and a
human occult class (from ENsider)

let me know what you think.
thanks in advance!

 

[MNblockhead]

I use ENSider, but mostly for NPCs and as drop-in content from my campaign world.

I hesitate to allow players to use ENSider and other 3rd-party class options, even Unearthed Arcana, because it may not have been playtested thoroughly and I don't feel I am very good at determining how certain features and options may become unbalencing. But I have certainly made exceptions. I try to say yes to players, but, ultimately, I have to run the game and if I feel that 3rd-party material is unbalenced, doesn't fit into my campaign, or that I just don't want to have another set of options and rules to worry about, I am comfortable saying no.

I don't run Pathfinder for a reason. Too much to keep track up and on top of as a game master. It isn't fun for me. D&D 5e has hit my sweet spot and the release schedule has been reasonable. I've not felt overwhelmed yet. But once I start letting anyone play any option they've found on the Internet, then it becomes much hard for me to plan and run sessions.

 

[BoldItalic]

Allow whatever looks like being fun for you as well as fun for the players but treat it as a playtest and reserve the right to change or withdraw things after a few sessions if it doesn't seem to be going well.

They might regret not taking a healer, though ...

 

[Dualazi]

Both campaigns I play in allow UA material, and for the most part it has been fine. One player was a horizon walker which was found to be just fine balance wise, and I personally have been playing a gunsmith artificer, which I think is slightly underpowered. As BoldItalic states though, I think the wisest decision is simply being upfront with your players that if things get out of hand then they agree you have the right to correct as needed.

 

[Morrus]

Hell yes. Third party stuff is so much fun! I don't use UA, though, because it's just playtest material. I'll wait for it to appear in a book, fully polished.

(I plan on running Adventures in Middle Earth soon, too, which is *all* third party!*)

*or is D&D a third party to Tolkien? Hmm. Philosophical!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Usually no, not because I have a problem with it, some of it quite good, but because of sourcing issues. Selfishly, i don't want to have to get access to and then fully understand even more material than what I already have to with the official stuff. It means I have to be expert at more things or take time to research corner cases in game when they come up. I will occasionally make case-by-case exceptions, but, in general, i limit the amount of things I add to games (including UA stuff) because of the increase in my workload.

Hell yes. Third party stuff is so much fun! I don't use UA, though, because it's just playtest material. I'll wait for it to appear in a book, fully polished.

(I plan on running Adventures in Middle Earth soon, too, which is *all* third party!*)

*or is D&D a third party to Tolkien? Hmm. Philosophical!

I don't understand your distinction. A lot of 3rd party stuff undergoes even less playtesting than the UA stuff -- they're essentially at the same level of development -- so why accept it from a 3rd party of potentially dubious rules understanding and not from the developers of the game?

And, to be clear, this is trying to understand your position on this as I might be missing something, and not a criticism of your choice. It's a fine choice, and you appear to be very happy with it.

 

[Morrus]

I don't understand your distinction. A lot of 3rd party stuff undergoes even less playtesting than the UA stuff -- they're essentially at the same level of development -- so why accept it from a 3rd party of potentially dubious rules understanding and not from the developers of the game?

I don't use third party stuff labelled as playtest material, either (unless it's my own and I need to playtest it). The UA stuff is pretty much labelled as unfinished. I don't mind waiting a bit longer for it to be finished.

And, to be clear, this is trying to understand your position on this as I might be missing something, and not a criticism of your choice. It's a fine choice, and you appear to be very happy with it.

Third party stuff may be worse, as good, or better. I judge it on its own merits, just like I do stuff from WotC. I think AiME from C7 is fantastic; I didn't particularly like SKT, and never used it.

I feel I'm pretty able to ballpark quality without too much effort, and using a few filters (no playtest material, no stuff that's badly formatted, that sort of thing) to narrow down the initial pool doesn't guarantee anything, but it's a workable filter. I think it's a better one for me than a blind "just stuff wot WotC wrote" filter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't use third party stuff labelled as playtest material, either (unless it's my own and I need to playtest it). The UA stuff is pretty much labelled as unfinished. I don't mind waiting a bit longer for it to be finished.



Third party stuff may be worse, as good, or better. I judge it on its own merits, just like I do stuff from WotC. I think AiME from C7 is fantastic; I didn't particularly like SKT, and never used it.

I feel I'm pretty able to ballpark quality without too much effort, and using a few filters (no playtest material, no stuff that's badly formatted, that sort of thing) to narrow down the initial pool doesn't guarantee anything, but it's a workable filter. I think it's a better one for me than a blind "just stuff wot WotC wrote" filter.

Ah, okay. I was leaning towards "because it's likely to be superseded by a new version" but as quick filter of quality control works too.

 

[TwoSix]

I actively encourage players to seek out and use third-party material. There's quite a bit of third party stuff that's quite simply better, from both mechanical design and aesthetic standpoints, than any supplemental material that WotC has put out.

The only upside to official material is that more people discuss it online, so its strengths and weaknesses get discovered pretty quickly. You have to a decent design eye to be able to identify good third-party material from unbalanced stuff, since that discussion will (unfortunately) be lacking.