What's the best and worst D&D book you own from any edition?

[Manabarbs]

I'm surprised that the Epic Level Handbook is the worst book for so many people. I thought I would be alone in that being people's worst books, especially given how many horrible 3rd party books were released during the 3.0E era (looking at you Fast Forward Entertainment!). Thankfully I was wise enough at the time to not actually buy any of those books.

I singled out ELH over random terrible 3PP because I've actually put time into trying to bash ELH into something that even kind of works, while most bad 3PP products barely register with me enough for me to remember their names.

In undergrad, one or two of the campus houses and maybe the TTRPG club had these boxes of supplements that had been donated mostly by graduating students over time that were sort of community property, and while some of it was okay, a lot of it was some of the most confusing nonsense that I'd ever seen. I'm not even talking so-bad-it's-good; I'm talking just, like, mishmashes of AD&D and 3e/3.5 stats and presentation in the same product, references to non-existent action types, new made-up bonus types for every bonus (A +2 Greater Seelie bonus to AC! A +4 Titania's Favor bonus to Bluff and Persuasion, which is presumably supposed to be Diplomacy or something?), that kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure that at least one of the box benefactors really, really liked fae stuff, because that sort of material was not only overrepresented (although to be fair, that was a pretty common well for 3PP to go to in general), but seemed to have the least quality control. I'm pretty sure you could have an entire fairly large party made up of people playing different takes on a stock Faerie PC race just using stuff from those books. And they'd almost all have at least one confusing ability that doesn't work quite right or be just hilariously unbalanced for a LA+0 PC race, or else "balanced" with infuriating RP things. Lots of trademark 3PP nonstandard templating, that sort of thing.

 

[Keldin]

Personally the MIC is one of my best books.

Likewise here. But, then again, one of my characters is an artificer, which makes this book particularly relevant.

 

[Scorpio616]

Why do you say the MIC wasn't compatible with the base game? Because many of the items seem better than the DMG magic items?

Uh, yeah. Either they changed the standard, or it's blatant power creep. I don't remember a chapter updating the DMG guidlines, though I certainly remember the huckster's spiel of

with interesting items at every price point, and with exciting, aggressively priced options for every class and character level. Combining hundreds of revised and repriced items from previous sources with a wagonload of brand-new, never-before-seen-or-even-imagined magic items, this book is your D&D character's key to the candy store.

DMG items had pricing issues, and sadly the very book that should of fixed that didn't.

 

[gamerprinter]

Best: UA 1e, Pathfinder Advanced Players Guide.
Worst: toss up between - Book of Vile Darkness, Epic Level Handbook, Tome of Battle (Book of 9 Swords).

The reason for no 3PP listed, is I didn't buy much 3PP before Pathfinder, perhaps only 1 or 2 books and they were decent books. Since PF, I've purchased a ton of 3PP and have had nothing but good luck there as well. I will more than likely purchase products from some PF 3PP before even considering other Paizo PF books.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Why Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords? Power creep?

Personally I like it. When it came out it made melee guys "cool" again. In hindsight it was obviously a test case for 4E mechanics.

So far in my games I've had a PC take levels in Warblade and Crusader. They are definitely stronger than a fighter, but I think that is a good thing as the generic 3E fighter was the poor cousin to most other classes.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Best: Ptolus. Several lifetimes of great gaming in there. Honorable mentions: 1e DMG, 3e Manual of the Planes.

Worst: 4e MM 1. Never has a core book been made so completely obsolete. There's almost nothing in there that's even usable, let alone inspiring. Dishonorable mentions: Book of Exalted Deeds and Unorthodox Bards, which managed to take an underpowered class and make it weaker. Also the worst-edited thing I've ever purchased.

 

[Hussar]

Dishonorable Mention: When one of my group's resident power gamers got his hands on a copy of Tome of Magic and cleared it with the DM, the game just went straight to hell. This book is emblematic of the power creep that cemented, IMHO, the necessity to kill 3.5 and take its stuff

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-you-own-from-any-edition/page3#ixzz2kTmng7w5

Really? I loved this book. Fantastic art and caster classes that were, if anything, underpowered. What power creep did you see in Tome of Magic?

 

[gamerprinter]

Why Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords? Power creep?

Personally I like it. When it came out it made melee guys "cool" again. In hindsight it was obviously a test case for 4E mechanics.

So far in my games I've had a PC take levels in Warblade and Crusader. They are definitely stronger than a fighter, but I think that is a good thing as the generic 3E fighter was the poor cousin to most other classes.

Just not the direction I want to go in my games. I prefer the existing melee guys when I play - I almost never play casters, so I never 'needed' improved melee-ers, I was always happy with the way the were (I never thought they lost their 'cool'). I bought the book only to see what the stink was about, to be better informed, not for any need to bring it in my game. Of course I prefer ranger or paladin only, and never play fighter nor rogue.

I've never got the ToB fan's argument that this improved fighters. Fighters still exist, they didn't get improved, rather a bunch of bizzaro martial adepts showed up who weren't fighters in any sense of the word. If the word 'melee' characters were opted instead of 'fighter', the argument would have more meat, but ToB fans never say melee, they always say "it improves the fighter..." (a statement that makes no sense at all...)

 

[Greg K]

Worst: toss up between - Book of Vile Darkness, Epic Level Handbook, Tome of Battle (Book of 9 Swords).

I own BoVD. For myself, if I view it, entirely, as a DM supplement and, as such, I don't find it to be that bad and find more usable content than most WOTC non-setting or non-monster books
If I was looking at it as a player resource, however, I would find it very disappointing. However, I don't allow evil PCs. I do, however, allow one or two spells in my game for PCs.
So, viewing it as a DM supplement, I find it to be one one of WOTC's better books despite me feeling it to be just an "average" D&D supplement- far below Unearthed Arcana or Fiendish Codex I

 

[Greg K]

Just not the direction I want to go in my games.

I've never got the ToB fan's argument that this improved fighters. Fighters still exist, they didn't get improved, rather a bunch of bizzaro martial adepts showed up who weren't fighters in any sense of the word. If the word 'melee' characters were opted instead of 'fighter', the argument would have more meat, but ToB fans never say melee, they always say "it improves the fighter..." (a statement that makes no sense at all...)

Personally, I didn't like the direction ToB took either. I prefer Mearls's Book of Iron Might from Malhavoc one I got a major error in how they built one of the maneuvers (it was designed using the wrong base component)