New campaign, Core + ONE acessory

[buzz]

And which spells do you think the Cleric will choose then? I'm guessing that it'll be the most powerful spells that are getting used most often.

I reiterate my basic assertion: so what? If those spells basically replace PHB spells the player had on his daily "must have" list, how is that different from the aforementioned house rule about requiring the cleric to permanently swap out the spells from the core list? Either way, they get access to the spells they want. And if any of those spells prove game-breaking, you work out a solution with the player.

All this pre-emptive player-fear kind of puzzles me, I must say.

 

[Piratecat]

If those spells basically replace PHB spells the player had on his daily "must have" list, how is that different from the aforementioned house rule about requiring the cleric to permanently swap out the spells from the core list? Either way, they get access to the spells they want.

Ah, but if the cleric is swapping out spells instead of adding them, he has to make a leap of faith and guess which spells are going to be most useful. He sacrifices flexibility for strength. Your method adds strength and retains flexibility. If the cleric has scribe scroll, things get really wacky. I'm always concerned about additional power with no tradeoffs whatsoever.

 

[buzz]

Ah, but if the cleric is swapping out spells instead of adding them, he has to make a leap of faith and guess which spells are going to be most useful.

I'm proceeding on the assumption that there are some spells that will not be missed, however. I have yet to play in a campaign where tongues or undetectable alignment really mattered, for instance.

I'm also playing in a campaign where, albeit as a sorcerer, I've found that the non-core spells I thought were cool initially turned out to be useless. I've since replaced them with core spells that are way, way more useful. Ergo, why I think that free access to SpC sounds like a bigger advantage than it really is.

BTW, I'd like to sincererly apologize to the OP for pulling the thread so far off topic.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I'm proceeding on the assumption that there are some spells that will not be missed, however. I have yet to play in a campaign where tongues or undetectable alignment really mattered, for instance.

I'm also playing in a campaign where, albeit as a sorcerer, I've found that the non-core spells I thought were cool initially turned out to be useless. I've since replaced them with core spells that are way, way more useful. Ergo, why I think that free access to SpC sounds like a bigger advantage than it really is.

BTW, I'd like to sincererly apologize to the OP for pulling the thread so far off topic.

And yet, in my last session the PC's might have had an easier time of things if they had the tongues spell. That may have been a spell you chose to swap out for a spell in the Spell Compendium and therefore didn't have access to.

On topic, if you choose the 1 sourcebook only option and go with the Spell Compendium, then don't you think that it may be a bit unfair to the non-casters in the party? The only direct benefit that they might get from this additional book is having the spells cast on them by the wizard or cleric. I would be more inclined to allow 1 book per player so that at least everyone has some extra goodies. Either that or just stick with the core rulebooks.

Personally I have a lot of extra WotC and 3rd party sourcebooks in my game. I like the options that it adds. It hasn't been a problem so far but, then again, my players seem to stick with the core rulebooks for most things so far.

Olaf the Stout