What makes a good splatbook?

[Faraer]

If a splatbook talked about splats in a way that added depth, but did not add any new mechanical benefits, would you be interested?

I think it would be difficult to do. A splatbook has to be useful in-game as well as a good read.

The RPG culture would be in so much better shape if it wasn't a normal idea that depth is less useful in play than mechanical benefits.

 

[BronzeDragon]

This:

I'm about half convinced that a good splatbook is one that makes the splat more interesting without adding new rules -- problem is, I can't think of a splatbook that doesn't add new rules, so I suspect that all I've concluded is that I personally dislike splatbooks.

Except I'd replace "half convinced" with "fully convinced", and "dislike splatbooks" with "hate splatbooks with a passion rivaled only by Hercules' fits of fury".

 

[Set]

The best 2E 'splat' was the Complete Dwarves Handbook, IMO, followed by the Complete Sha'irs, Complete Necromancers, Complete Thieves and Complete Spacefarers Handbooks. The Complete Elves Handbook was just painful, and I say this as a fan of Anne Rice's particularly florid writing style, and the Gnomes/Halflings Handbook didn't really do anything to spice up or draw interest to the races in question, IMO. The Complete Humanoids Handbook suffered from being essentially a laundry list, trying to cover far too many races in one too-thin book.

For 3E, Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane are awesome. Complete Divine and Complete Mage are decent, and the rest are kind of 'meh.' We've had two arcane (Complete Arcane and Mage), two divine (Complete Divine and Complete Champion), two rogue (Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel) and one fighter (Complete Warrior). I wouldn't mind seeing another 'Complete' for the fighters, but I think Book of Nine Swords pretty much destroyed any chance of that.

The 'Races of' books are kinda 'meh.' The Killoran are the only race I find interesting of the new ones (the Raptorans make me think, 'Hey, here's where they failed to update the Aarakocra, who are already established as being one of the creator races of the Realms setting!' while the Goliaths give me the same vibe, 'Oh look, some racial abilities and cultural details that would have made sense for the already-established Half-Ogres.'). The Kobolds being 'updated' to a PC race so underCRed as to be a joke was amusing, but the Dragonborn were far too specialized to be useful (how many game worlds use Bahamut at all, or have a slot for a race that can only worship a single overspecialized nonhuman god of extreme alignment?) and the Spellscales didn't really ignite any fires. Of the old races that got a mild updating, the Gnolls are the only interesting one, and even then the extra racial HD make them pretty much unplayable.

 

[kinem]

The RPG culture would be in so much better shape if it wasn't a normal idea that depth is less useful in play than mechanical benefits.

I didn't say that (and you didn't say I did, either) though I think many readers might interpet our posts that way.

As I did say, it would be difficult. 'Depth' could easily not be useful in-game especially for a player who buys the book; a DM could incorporate it, but still not as easily as crunch.

 

[diaglo]

nothing makes a good splatbook.

they are written for a style of play for a class or group of classes. so the most you can hope for is someone who plays similar to you to write one.

 

[Jack99]

Book of Nine Swords may not make the top 30 from the various polls.

I think, and this is purely gut feeling/hunch, gathered from various boards, that book of 9 swords is not super-popular simply because it hasn't sold so well, because a lot of people rejected the idea up front. On the other hand, it seems to have a high degree of customer satisfaction, as in most people who had bought it, are very satisfied with it.

Now, I might be blowing smoke out of somewhere, but it's the impression i get from the boards.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

nothing makes a good splatbook.

they are written for a style of play for a class or group of classes. so the most you can hope for is someone who plays similar to you to write one.

Maybe that's actually the most decent approach - decide what kind of focus you want for the book:
- Martial Combat
- Spellcasting
- Divinity and Gods
- Stealth & Intrigue
- Exploration
- or other (more exotic: Comedy, Music?)
and then build on that idea.

Maybe it would also be best to ensure that every class (not those that naturally fit into the theme) gets something out of the book.
So, a book on martial combats would contain feats, spells and prestige classes that support primary spellcasters like wizards becoming more engangd in this. Maybe even offer alternate core classes, a spellcaster with weaker spells but better martial prowess.

A book focusing on stealth & intrigue could grant fighters and spellcasters feats or spells that make them better at this stuff, so a stealth & intrigue campaign isn't the most fun for the Fighter only.

I think the Complete Champion (which seems underrated on this thread) seemed to have focussed on this a little more, supporting people other then Clerics to have a relation to the gods.

Groups that prefer any of these play concepts could choose the books that fit them best. Even if the group varies its style a lot, it can still benefit considerably from such a book, because everybody knows where to look for an abilty depending on the current style/focus of an adventure.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Maybe that's actually the most decent approach - decide what kind of focus you want for the book:
- Martial Combat
- Spellcasting
- Divinity and Gods
- Stealth & Intrigue
- Exploration
- or other (more exotic: Comedy, Music?)
and then build on that idea.

Maybe it would also be best to ensure that every class (not those that naturally fit into the theme) gets something out of the book.
So, a book on martial combats would contain feats, spells and prestige classes that support primary spellcasters like wizards becoming more engangd in this. Maybe even offer alternate core classes, a spellcaster with weaker spells but better martial prowess.

I'm beginning to think that this is what needs to be done. You take a concept, build it out, and expand on, for example, martial combat for everyone. The problem then becomes, mechanically, how to perform this for every class. Prestige classes are not the answer. Feats, although a possibility, also dilute the main class's focus, making a wizard, for example, less powerful of a spellcaster before being a credible martial threat.

So, let's say I'm writing a martial combat splatbook. What would you like to see?

• Prestige classes with martial feels for different characters
• Martial feats
• Spells that can increase characters' martial prowess
• New weapons
• New combat rules
• New armors
• New magic items
• How to build an army or mercenary company
• Discussions of the role of environment in combat
• How a DM can adjudicate war
• How to duel
• Wrestling, intimidation, and other nonlethal forms of combat
• Gladiatorial combat
• The uses of combat throughout history
• How demi-humans fight
• Siege combat

Note that I've got limited space, so I'm also interested in what would interest you more in the splatbook and what interests you less.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think, and this is purely gut feeling/hunch, gathered from various boards, that book of 9 swords is not super-popular simply because it hasn't sold so well, because a lot of people rejected the idea up front. On the other hand, it seems to have a high degree of customer satisfaction, as in most people who had bought it, are very satisfied with it.

True. In addition to which, it hasn't been out for as long as many of the other books in the polls (or 3e books in general, IOW) - and the time between its official worldwide release and the announcement of 4e wasn't amazingly long either, in the scheme of things. Plenty short enough for a lot of potential sales to become not so, most likely.


As for what makes a good splatbook, well IMO, it would be relevance and balance. And the first of those is rather subjective. So, in objective terms, I'd go with balance.

 

[Greg K]

Maybe it would also be best to ensure that every class (not those that naturally fit into the theme) gets something out of the book.
So, a book on martial combats would contain feats, spells and prestige classes that support primary spellcasters like wizards becoming more engangd in this. Maybe even offer alternate core classes, a spellcaster with weaker spells but better martial prowess.

A book focusing on stealth & intrigue could grant fighters and spellcasters feats or spells that make them better at this stuff, so a stealth & intrigue campaign isn't the most fun for the Fighter only.

Isn't this the approach taken by the 3.5 Complete Books? They focused on combat, divine, and arcane while providing options for various classes. I'd prefer to only have to look through one supplement for the class that I am playing or, as a DM, the class of the NPC I am creating. One book on the Warlock that examines the different sources and options is convenient. Having to search through multiple supplements Complete Arcane, PHB2, Complete Mage, and Fiendish Codex II (did I forget any sources?) to look over all of my options for building a warlock is annoying. The same goes for sorcerors or any other class
and why I found the 3.5 class splats annoying and less satisfactory than Green Ronin's Master Class series, Mongoose's Quintessential Books, Malhavoc's class books and even most of the 2e Complete Handbooks.

I think the Complete Champion (which seems underrated on this thread) seemed to have focussed on this a little more, supporting people other then Clerics to have a relation to the gods.

I don't consider the Complete Champion underrated. I thought that too much space was wasted on organizations (the usual complaint that I have read. I also thought the information on Greyhawk deities and worship to be embarrassingly poor when compared to Sean K Reynold's Core Belief articles.

Pretty much the only Complete Champion material that I found worthwhile were the spellless Paladin and Ranger variants. Both of those variants imo, should have been included in the first round of Complete Books since they are very similar to common variants found on both ENWorld and the WOTC boards prior to 3.5

Groups that prefer any of these play concepts could choose the books that fit them best. Even if the group varies its style a lot, it can still benefit considerably from such a book, because everybody knows where to look for an abilty depending on the current style/focus of an adventure.