Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tzarevitch" data-source="post: 1977508" data-attributes="member: 1792">Honestly, it is not likely that the player needs the whole book. I have never played in a campaign where the player needed the entire setting book. If he is using background information or rules from a book, then he should be required to have a copy of those rules. I do not think that he needs the whole thing though. I would however require him to have copies of the rules he plans on using and stuff relating to his character background. It is not fair to expect the DM to have to find those things himself during the game when they involve a PC. For example, if a player is in an Eberron game and he is playing an artificer, he should have a copy of all the rules on artificers and all of the infusions that he wants to use. He may also reasonably be expected to have a little information at hand about the land from whence his character hails (especially if the character has Knowledge (local)). I had a DM way back in 2e who required wizards to mantain real spellbooks. The player had to have a little card file with the write up of all the spells he knew. That way there would be no fishing around for precise wording of spell effects. I have also played in games where every player maintained a card catalogue with the important information on each of his magic items for easy reference. It is not a hard thing to do and I don't think it is unreasonable to require it. In short, I don't think it is unreasonable to require a player to actually have copies of special rules or setting information that he is expecting to use or expected to use. I do think it is unreasonable to acquire the whole book. Let him get copies of the information he needs however he chooses to get it. If he wants to hand-copy it, that is fine, so long as he can read it and he can access it when it is needed. Tzarevitch</blockquote>

Verification