How do you prefer WotC reference non-core books in other products?

[Glyfair]

I know there are very different opinions on how WotC references non-core books in other books. For example, should the Spell Compendium have had spell lists for the non-core classes? Should an adventure like the Red Hand of Doom include things from the Complete series?

WotCs general approach has been to only include things when they can include completely in the book. Occasionally, they'll have a brief sidebar (like the additions to the Hexblade spell list in the Complete Arcane). Now, they are more often just including the information in the books (such as Magic of Eberron having quite a bit of Psionics content).

How do you feel about reference to non-core books in other products? By core books I mean the 3 core books, any core setting book tied to the material and any book directly tied to the new book (for example, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is a corebook to the Complete Psionics).

 

[frankthedm]

I'd prefer non-core book only be referenced when the information is completely included in a small font.

A suggested replacement is also nice for those who do not have the book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The option I prefer is not listed on the poll. I prefer references wherever appropriate--but with alternate options given for those who don't have the book.

For instance, if it makes sense for a character to have lesser orb of fire, include it in his stat block, but also include a paranethetical that says something to the effect of "If you are not making use of the Spell Compendium in your campaign, substitute burning hands instead."

You can't do this all the time, but I think it's the right way to handle at least 75% of references, with reprinting of the necessary material the proper answer most of the remaining times.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The option I prefer is not listed on the poll. I prefer references wherever appropriate--but with alternate options given for those who don't have the book.

For instance, if it makes sense for a character to have lesser orb of fire, include it in his stat block, but also include a paranethetical that says something to the effect of "If you are not making use of the Spell Compendium in your campaign, substitute burning hands instead."

You can't do this all the time, but I think it's the right way to handle at least 75% of references, with reprinting of the necessary material the proper answer most of the remaining times.

I agree--I like this a lot. I saw some instances of this where a character in a fluff-heavy book was described as a new monster with a parenthetical suggestion of (if you don't have X book, you can use a Dread Wraith instead), and I was happy to see the inclusion of cool new monsters without needless repetition of the monster stats or relegation to sidebars, while still being usable for all.

 

[Glyfair]

The option I prefer is not listed on the poll. I prefer references wherever appropriate--but with alternate options given for those who don't have the book.

Then you want #4, but conditionally

This works well when used in adventures (barring getting too involved), and perhaps in campaign books. It's usually pointless in splatbooks. Having an alternative for the included psionics abiliities in Magic of Eberron would have been a waste (unless you perhaps included a lengthly section on using Kalashtar in a game with no psionics materials).

 

[Crothian]

I like the sidebars. It is a little extra info on how to use non core things if people have them, but not needed if people don't have them. Players Guide to Eberron does an amazingly good job at this.

 

[tylerthehobo]

Me likey sidebars.

 

[Glyfair]

I like the sidebars. It is a little extra info on how to use non core things if people have them, but not needed if people don't have them. Players Guide to Eberron does an amazingly good job at this.

Apparently, however, there is a growing group that believes that every WotC book needs a disclaimer. Something like "The DM has complete power to allow, or disallow anything we say in this book. Please check with your DM, because he is allowed to change things."

There are a number of people who dislike the book specifically because it lists options for placing non-core material in Eberron, but doesn't have a footnote stating it's optional.

 

[Dog Moon]

I agree with Mouseferatu, although [and I know many people are apparently against this] I wouldn't mind some extra WE. Like I thought a perfect WE for Spell Compendium was to take some of the older limited spells partial casting classes [not just like the Assassin or Blackguard] and to add any appropriate spells from the Spell Compendium to the book. I already did that for the Healer, for example.

Maybe some don't necessarily need the extra boost, but if they're doing the Core Classes like that, then the non-Core needs a little love too.