Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasin" data-source="post: 3402881" data-attributes="member: 7531">Heh. That's why is used that particular example, because I think it actually makes sense and could see someone wanting to play something like it... but in the end, in a generic kill monsters take treasure game, they're likely to regret it.Right, but the guy who wants to play a fighter and not a swashbuckler/beguiler would argue that the fighter is cooler. As a DM, I don't think either should be especially rewarded, unless I want to generally encourage one concept but not the other, for the whole game.Now, I don't see a thematical reason to encourage core over non-core. Monks aren't more appropriate for a LotR-inspired, Western medieval game than knights. Druids aren't more appropriate for an urban game. For any style of play or appropriate set of concepts, there's options outside the PHB that are a better fit than at least some of the options from the PHB.The only reason to encourage core-only character creation is for simplicity: the DM doesn't have to be familiar with as many books and options in order to keep on top of things. It's a very valid reason, but I don't see how allowing some players but not the others access to core really helps. I don't think it's more of a workload on the DM to run a game with a warblade and a swordsage than a game with a fighter and a swordsage. He'll still want to read Tome of Battle.If you don't want to read more than three books, core only for everyone. If you don't want to read more than six books, core + Tome of Battle + Complete Warrior + PHB2 for everyone. If you want more of a roguish game with only five books, core + Complete Adventurer + Complete Scoundrel for everyone.I meant that the guy with the splatbooks has the choice of going with a splat character or going with a beefed-up core character.The guy without the splatbooks has the choice of going with the beefed-up core character, or making a not insignificant purchase of an item that one of his friends (or at least acquaintances) already has!If I were put in that situation, my question would be "why don't you just lend me the book!?"Meh. This is all correct of course, but being all tolerant and saying "whatever works for you" doesn't make for a very interesting exchange of ideas. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I was just honestly curious why the original poster thinks this is a more convenient solution than sharing the books (on the assumption that the problem is what we have inferrede, the availability of splatbooks for some players but not the others). It seems way more problem-prone to me.</blockquote>

Verification