Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Creamsteak" data-source="post: 3983347" data-attributes="member: 552">You're not alone. However, I've also known people that have the opposite perspective. One gaming group I "inherited" included guys who bought every Mongoose splat book, and in their previous game they were all legitimate. The assumption they had was that "if it was in print, it was legit."The truth of it is that a DM is more likely to actually get to use content from a book he buys. I burn through dozens of monsters, feats, classes, and stories in a given campaign. My players all together use about 1/2 of the total content I do. So as a general rule, DMs are going to get a lot out of a book more easily.On the other hand though, if a Player walks up to me wanting to play something I'm not familiar with, he's going to need to make me familiar with it. To use a simple example, if someone wants to play a Crusader from Bo9S, show me how it works. A warlock? Show me. Something from another 3rd party supplement? Show me.I, personally, prohibit various classes/feats/races/etc. based on the specifics of the campaign. In some campaigns, I don't allow Wizards but allow Sorcerers. In another, it's the opposite. I have my reasons, and most of the time it's an element of setting design. In one game, Bo9S is fine. In another, Psionics are fine. In yet another, a Samurai or Kensai base-class is fine. So if a player comes to me with something that might not work in my current game, I'm not necessarily prohibiting it from all of my games.</blockquote>

Verification