There are to many PRC's and Feats (a rant)

[Ace]

All the talk about the forgotten rums and crunchies and all of that has got me thinking about the emaresemnet of iches we have for 3e

Now I love cruchy bit I can use in my own game world but it is quickly reaching a point in which I have so much out there that I can't use a fraction of it

I have my own world I like and no interest in 'soft stuff', this is awful for those who like the soft stuff since I won't be buying anythoing that may help them get more of the soft stuff they like but thats life...

That leaves me with crunchies-- new classes, magic systems, spells, monsters, feats you know the drill.

Let me put it this way, If you are a player you might if you were very lucky play twice a week-- max.

This means out of the all of your characters, not counting bonus feats you will have 7 feats-- thats it.

And these feats are in 'feat' chains-- If you are doing certain PRC's or are trying for something like Whirlwind attack.

There are over 200 of the things out there and you won't get to use most of them.

Even as a DM you won't use a lot of them. Any feat given to an NPC that doesn't interact with the players in a manner using the feat irrelevant. Basically its Fantasy shopping, this isn't bad if you think its worth the money. I don't YMMV

Prestige classes are worse. The new Swashbuckling D20 books is really cool and cruchy enough to break teeth. There are what 90 PRC's-- how as a GM could I use even the smallest fraction of them

Most PRCs start getting usefull later in a adventurers carreer-- around 5th or 6th level.

This means the players need to be say 4th or 5th (3-4 months play) before you can safely use encounters with them.

Sure its cool to make the High Prelate NPC a lore master, but if the players never interact with him in a way that uses his abilities, why bother. Its a waste of prep time to me.

As a player you will have played (assuming 1 game a week, 3 session to level up, l1 start) for 18 sessions, about 5 or 6 months play before you can qualify for the official ones.

Spells are pretty much the same way. Unless you are in a specific world or you make a real effort to use a variety of spells as a player or GM, they are just clutter.

Monsters are OK, you can use a of different kinds in a game, it detracts a bit from versimilitude

Here is the issue, every single month there are new D20 crunchy bits coming out and the rate they are made, basically its like a tidal wave.

I hate being in a position where I am between the Hammer and the Poverbial Anvil with each purchase

I can either say--- enough and buy nothing more unless its really cool-- Like sovstone, twin crowns and swashd20

or I am stuck with a lot of tough choices

FREX- When 2e was out if I wanted a splat for Dwarves I had one to choose from-- Now there are 3 of them out and probably more on the way.

Most of them are good. The thing Is I will use maybe one of them in part

Same with other things, spells, monsters, PRC's etc

How do you choose.

Do I spread the money out and buy doing so assure more variety in the market and more outlets for talent or do I concentrate on a few companys and therefore support them but cut the variety.

Shoot each homebrew slot (not mine) is one less "slot" open to professional stuff

It is a difficult choice to make

How to choose from an adundance of riches when your limits are time, usefullness and money--- and worse you play several RPG's

Sigh.....

 

[Crothian]

I support the huge amounts of feats and prestige classes. Not because I'll ever use them, but because it increases the chances of finding the ones I need.

 

[Vaxalon]

I support the use of the "spellcheck" button on the posting worksheet window.

 

[danzig138]

I'm with Crothian

I'd rather have the feats and PrCs available than not. I just recently finished a Greyhawk campaign that ran from 1st to 7th level before everyone bit it, and no one was particularly interested in PrCs, but it was still nice having the options available.

 

[fl8m]

I'm even more unlucky than some, I only get a chance to play twice a month, so all the wonderfull stuff is even more out of reach for me. However i'd much rather have to much stuff available than not enough.
I usually stick to buying the official wizards stuff unless i see a specific 3rd party product reviewed or recomended highly. even then half my books owe thier ownership to impulse buying

 

[Draconis Imperium]

As a DM, all the clutter can be a pain in the butt. One of your PC's levels and wants this feat or spell. So you need to read up on it before( atleast I do) you give it to him. So you either take time from the game or he doesn't get the benefits from ingame leveling until I get time to check on it. I do this to make sure a unbalancing feat or spell doesn't blow up in my face.

I like alot of the crunchies but I also know it is impossible to keep up and PC's will find the one thing that really will screw a campaign!

 

[The Sigil]

Interesting...

Very interesting argument indeed...

I have found that the so-called "crunch" generally falls into one of three categories:

1.) Redundant Crunch - More monsters, more spells, more Feats, more Prestige Classes, etc. While it's all very neat and nice, it is basically just more variations on the same theme - it's more of the same, just re-arranged. There are probably upwards of 2000 monsters - do another one or two really make a huge difference?

I think this is the kind of "crunch" that most people who say they are sick of crunch - and even some who don't say it - are sick of.

2.) Variation Crunch - This is stuff that takes an existing theme and varies it - for example, "new magic systems" from Sovreign Stone to Spells & Magic to Occult Lore to Monte's Bard. It's not "more of the same, just re-arranged" as is Redundant Crunch, but it does not truly "add" to the system - rather, it presents "another way to do it."

This is not necessarily bad, either - in fact, I think having 20 different systems of magic in a campaign can be fantastic for flavor.

3.) Expansion Crunch - This is stuff that is totally new to the system. It's not a variation on a theme, and it's not number-shuffling - it's a completely new add-on. Examples (to me) include Alchemy & Herbalists (the new alchemical products), Traps & Treachery (detailing and expanding on the basic concept of traps and poisons), Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves (Craft rules) and Lords of Darkness (the part concerning drugs).

This is at once the easiest and hardest to do - easiest because it doesn't need to be balanced against "existing crunch" of the same type, but hard because you have to define the balance yourself. Personally, this is the kind of crunch that excites me the most. It frequently is "new uses for old skills" but is potentially limitless - each expansion in this manner pushes the borders a little farther - which of course creates even more "border" for future expansion. IMO, alchemy and herbalism are more or less defined to the point where future alchemical stuff would be redundant (thanks to A&H and Occult Lore's herbalism section) - but now, we might see a selection on "flora and fauna of the inner and outer planes and their medicinal uses (hmm... maybe I should do this... )" - and this would once again expand the horizons.

The most glaring hole in 3e that could use filling right now with expansion crunch is Mass Combat, but there are others (Craft skill, for instance, seems WOEFULLY underdeveloped).

On the whole, I think that Redundant Crunch may be getting close to hitting market saturation. While there is always the desire for the "new monsters" and "new spells," eventually there is just "too much" of the same competing for the same dollar. Variation Crunch lasts longer, but eventually variation crunch starts looking like Redundant Crunch. It's the Expansion Crunch that I look for - because if I always write/purchase Expansion Crunch I never worry about it becoming Redundant Crunch.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, my absolute favorite type of Crunch doesn't come from a d20 publisher. It comes from Nestlé.

--The Sigil

 

[Lazybones]

I agree with Draconis. While I've only skimmed the book myself, I've heard tales on the story hour forum about how Relics and Rituals, for example, opened up a whole lotta cans of worms in a few campaigns when DMs weren't sufficiently up on reviewing new spells (or didn't anticipate the impact that they would have on their games). Normally I'm in favor of more choices but we're getting to the point where there are literally thousands of spells, PrCs, feats... it gets mind-boggling after a while. I mean, how intensively are these things playtested given the deluge of new "crunchy" products?

 

[Desdichado]

And having too many choices is a problem.... how is that again? All you have to do is say "only core books, and then new stuff as I approve it." Simple as that.

 

[Psion]

Close your eyes. They will all go away.