Why core only?

[Tainted_Scholar]

True, but the whole sinking in lava seems like ignorance on the game designer's part.

Actually, the rules don't say you can sink in lava like water, just that you can be submerged.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Actually, the rules don't say you can sink in lava like water, just that you can be submerged.

I suppose that could still happen with lava being solid.

[Cosi]

The Player's Handbook II might be a better pick.

I think there's certainly virtue to the idea of a game that operates on a curated set of allowed options. I'm not convinced that doing that on the level of books is an especially good idea, and I'm certainly not convinced that "only Tome of Battle classes" is the best path.

That said, I don't think Player's Handbook II is a super good choice. The power spread there is super wide. A Beguiler can plausibly adventure in a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Sorcerer as companions without anyone feeling left out. The other classes ... can't. The only class that is really on the level of the ToB classes is the Duskblade. Also, the book has a big pile of spells that no one is going to be able to use if the only options are ToB + PHBII.

Of course, this sort of curated game experience often ends up veering towards homebrew rather quickly ("If only there was an Abjuration specialist caster! If only there was a Bard-level Artificer variant! Hey wait a minute..."), and in any case Core is a rather bad example of the notion.

The two spells combo really well; bind something with Wish and get it to emulate Simulacrum.

Once you have access to wish from a bound creature, you've won and I don't care what you do with it. When you have SLA wish you can use your infinite castings of every spell ever to summon an infinite army than no one can defeat with summon monster, or just have stats that are large enough to punch any opposition to death.

I'd expect most parties at those levels to be packing Hero's Feast, acid sounds like a good bet, though.

Was this in the context of attacking the players? I haven't been paying attention to the thread as a whole, and sort of assumed this was a discussion of offensive uses of shadow conjuration by way of major creation for a pile of nasty stuff.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I think there's certainly virtue to the idea of a game that operates on a curated set of allowed options. I'm not convinced that doing that on the level of books is an especially good idea, and I'm certainly not convinced that "only Tome of Battle classes" is the best path.

That said, I don't think Player's Handbook II is a super good choice. The power spread there is super wide. A Beguiler can plausibly adventure in a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Sorcerer as companions without anyone feeling left out. The other classes ... can't. The only class that is really on the level of the ToB classes is the Duskblade. Also, the book has a big pile of spells that no one is going to be able to use if the only options are ToB + PHBII.

I suggested using ToB, Magic of Incarnum, and the Expanded Psionic Handbook for classes.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I think there's certainly virtue to the idea of a game that operates on a curated set of allowed options. I'm not convinced that doing that on the level of books is an especially good idea, and I'm certainly not convinced that "only Tome of Battle classes" is the best path.

That said, I don't think Player's Handbook II is a super good choice. The power spread there is super wide. A Beguiler can plausibly adventure in a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Sorcerer as companions without anyone feeling left out. The other classes ... can't. The only class that is really on the level of the ToB classes is the Duskblade. Also, the book has a big pile of spells that no one is going to be able to use if the only options are ToB + PHBII.

Of course, this sort of curated game experience often ends up veering towards homebrew rather quickly ("If only there was an Abjuration specialist caster! If only there was a Bard-level Artificer variant! Hey wait a minute..."), and in any case Core is a rather bad example of the notion.

Fair enough, I just remembered the Player's Handbook II having more classes than the ToB.

Once you have access to wish from a bound creature, you've won and I don't care what you do with it. When you have SLA wish you can use your infinite castings of every spell ever to summon an infinite army than no one can defeat with summon monster, or just have stats that are large enough to punch any opposition to death.

True, I'm just of the opinion that minions that obey me absolutely are better than those who don't.

Was this in the context of attacking the players? I haven't been paying attention to the thread as a whole, and sort of assumed this was a discussion of offensive uses of shadow conjuration by way of major creation for a pile of nasty stuff.

Some of the posters were talking about dumping Wizards in lava pits.

[Cosi]

I suggested using ToB, Magic of Incarnum, and the Expanded Psionic Handbook for classes.

Why are you allowing Soulborn (too crap), Soulknife (too crap), Psion (too good), and Wilder (maybe too good), but not Binder, Rogue, and Warlock? There are very few books which have all their classes on a tight power curve, and fewer still where that power curve overlaps with other books.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Why are you allowing Soulborn (too crap), Soulknife (too crap), Psion (too good), and Wilder (maybe too good), but not Binder, Rogue, and Warlock? There are very few books which have all their classes on a tight power curve, and fewer still where that power curve overlaps with other books.

It really would be easier to just allow classes on a case by case basis than to pick specific books.

As for the Psion, I was under the impression that they weren't super powerful when limited to XPH material. The Soulborn and Soulknife were unfortunate tag alongs.

[Cosi]

It really would be easier to just allow classes on a case by case basis than to pick specific books.

That's my point. I'm not saying there's no value in a curated experience, I'm saying that carving things out at the level of the book isn't terribly effective at creating a good curated experience.

As for the Psion, I was under the impression that they weren't super powerful when limited to XPH material. The Soulborn and Soulknife were unfortunate tag alongs.

IDK. Largely, the Psion is "a Wizard, but different", which is substantially better than what ToB classes are likely to be doing (though obviously, the floor is lower).

[The Eye]

You say too many classes out of core, I say too few classes in core. Besides, what's wrong with having options?

Additionally, you didn't even use any real classes in your example, you just made those up.

I meant the other way around, my dear.

And that's what they all are in the end, made up, the core classes are based on real archetypes, the other ones are just a meta, balance optimal thingys.

[Luccan]

I meant the other way around, my dear.

And that's what they all are in the end, made up, the core classes are based on real archetypes, the other ones are just a meta, balance optimal thingys.

What do you mean by archetype? Kind of important, because I'm tempted to disagree, but I want to be sure I understand what you meant.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I meant the other way around, my dear.

And that's what they all are in the end, made up, the core classes are based on real archetypes, the other ones are just a meta, balance optimal thingys.

Knight isn't an archetype? What about Psions? Archivists are definitively an archetype, they collect knowledge. You are just flat out wrong.

[RoboEmperor]

I meant the other way around, my dear.

And that's what they all are in the end, made up, the core classes are based on real archetypes, the other ones are just a meta, balance optimal thingys.

I gotta agree with others here.

The additional books are not for balance reasons (wtf, seriously, wtf, how can you possibly come to this conclusion?). They are there to increase customization options for both the DM and the player, so that every campaign and character are unique and incredibly fun.

[Luccan]

Knight isn't an archetype? What about Psions? Archivists are definitively an archetype, they collect knowledge. You are just flat out wrong.

I was going to say Swashbuckler, but yeah, this is why I want to know what's meant by archetype.

[Keld Denar]

The reason I said just ToB and MIC is because I like the fact that MIC has lots of low cost magic items that are neat, but generally not as overall "strong" as the +2/4/6 stat items that typically dominate most slots and/or budgets. Plus, there are a lot of magic items in there that are swift/move action activated, while nearly all of the DMG items are either continuous or standard action activated. With boosts, counters, swapping stances and swift activated magic items, not to mention recharge mechanics, there is a real action economy to play around with that is lacking in core that also happens to draw a lot of the focus away from full attacking without completely eliminating it.

You don't have a true high fantasy game with Elminster buying you drinks at the local pub, but you do end up with a more dynamic miniature combat game with more of a mundane + extraordinary augments feel kinda more along the lines of Tolkein. Gandalf himself didn't ever use much in the way of magic. He was mostly just a badass with a magic sword and a fancy pair of pajamas.

Some day, maybe I'll run that game. Probably not.

[Cosi]

If I wanted a dynamic tactical combat experience and nothing else, why would I not just play DotA/LoL/TF2/Overwatch? The advantage of playing tabletop games is that you can interact with the world, instead of just set-piece combats. If you give that up for a "dynamic miniature combat game", why not go for the real thing?

[Luccan]

If I wanted a dynamic tactical combat experience and nothing else, why would I not just play DotA/LoL/TF2/Overwatch? The advantage of playing tabletop games is that you can interact with the world, instead of just set-piece combats. If you give that up for a "dynamic miniature combat game", why not go for the real thing?

Social aspect? I think we can all agree, there's a difference between playing a game with someone online vs in person. Besides which, I think the point was, you get that on top of the usual DnD interacting with the world bit.

[The Eye]

Knight isn't an archetype? What about Psions? Archivists are definitively an archetype, they collect knowledge. You are just flat out wrong.

No, a psion or an archivist are not archetype, name one fantasy character who can be easily classified as one. You can't.

[JNAProductions]

No, a psion or an archivist are not archetype, name one fantasy character who can be easily classified as one. You can't.

Professor X seems like a Psion to me.

Ivy could be classed as an Archivist.

[Luccan]

No, a psion or an archivist are not archetype, name one fantasy character who can be easily classified as one. You can't.

So, you agree knights are an archetype?

[Tainted_Scholar]

No, a psion or an archivist are not archetype, name one fantasy character who can be easily classified as one. You can't.

Please explain why psion isn't an archetype but sorcerer is.

And archivists are definitely an archetype, they're gatherers of lost knowledge. They're basically Indiana Jones with magic powers.

[Knaight]

No, a psion or an archivist are not archetype, name one fantasy character who can be easily classified as one. You can't.

Even putting aside fantasy thinly disguised as science fiction (Star Trek, Babylon 5) where it's pretty easy to rack up these characters, there's the small matter of the Deryni series - very much fantasy, of the medieval history plus magic sort, where there's a few different schools of magic floating around but psychic powers is by far the largest, being the abilities of the titular Deryni. So there's a few dozen right there. As for archivists they appear to be a pretty standard scholarly magician for a setting where the magic is tied into the divine/spirits somehow. This fits the Alkahestrists from Fullmetal Alchemist well enough.

[awa]

i also got to say the core classes being based on archetypes seems pretty iffy to me. Druid and cleric and paladin and cleric have a ton of overlap.

[Tainted_Scholar]

i also got to say the core classes being based on archetypes seems pretty iffy to me. Druid and cleric and paladin and cleric have a ton of overlap.

Don't forget Ranger which is basically Druid lite.

[ColorBlindNinja]

i also got to say the core classes being based on archetypes seems pretty iffy to me. Druid and cleric and paladin and cleric have a ton of overlap.

Not to mention things like "Fighter" which are so generic they can barely be called an archetype.

[awa]

I actually feel the ranger has enough stuff with the tracking, and favored enemy that it can stand on its own. Its a bounty hunter, its a ranger, its a hunter, its a scout, at least in my opinion there are enough things that it does that are not basically nature cleric that it can stand on its own.

Fighter on the other hand only makes sense if classes like ranger and barbarian dont exist

[johnbragg]

I actually feel the ranger has enough stuff with the tracking, and favored enemy that it can stand on its own. Its a bounty hunter, its a ranger, its a hunter, its a scout, at least in my opinion there are enough things that it does that are not basically nature cleric that it can stand on its own.

Fighter on the other hand only makes sense if classes like ranger and barbarian dont exist

Well, 2E did break it down into groups. Paladins and Rangers were subclasses of Fighter, Bard was a subclass of Rogue, Druid was a subclass of Priest.

[Max Caysey]

Why do people choose to use core only when playing 3.5? That seems incredibly limiting and takes a lot of the fun out of the game. For me it would anyway. The whole point and a big draw of 3.5 over other editions is the range of customization. Taking that away is like playing chess with all pawns. You can still play but it's gonna be a lot less fun. Just trying to figure out other perspectives here.

Is it that DMs can't deal with the cheese munchkins will try and pull out? Just don't let them make broken characters.

Is it that DMs are unfamiliar with all the books? Read them. Even if it's in response to something happening in game in the fly. Better to keep the depth and have to pause to look up a rule than to neuter the game.

I dunno. Someone explain it to me because I'm slow.

Considering that some of the most unbalanced or abuse-able spells are in PHB, I dont see balance being the reason. I would venture its because DM's cant be bothered! Maybe they mistakenly think that more is less and less is more, when in fact its more is more and less is less. Perhaps even they think that more books equals more power... Which is only true in a few specific books... Something about psions comes to mind...

Lastly and that is what I do myself, is limiting the speed and range of spell procurement. I remember as a teen I had so much fun finding a spell book... who knew what dangerous or powerful spells were hidden there. If all spells from all books a available, the people will probably choose the coolest and thus that mystic feeling disappears... at leas tit does for me... So I enforce that by saying that you can choose spells from PHB as a standard and all other spells I introduce when I think its cool.... A lot of times I introduce home-brew spells that way too... Then they get really interested. So perhaps that's the reason for limiting... wanting to introduce mysterious classes along the way!???

[Mutazoia]

The thing is, no one needs to fully read every book. When a player shows up with something the DM doesn't know, just read that part. It'll take, like, five minutes. Everyone always acts like allowing other books opens the floodgates or something, but it's simply not true.

Actually, yes...you DO need to fully read every book you allow into your game. Otherwise you can wind up with a totally broken God character that leaves every other character in the dust, inta-kills everything he/she fights, and generally ruins the game for all but that player. If you have trouble grasping this concept, just think of any number of "build" threads on this board alone. How many truely broken builds have you seen pop up over the years, that you didn't even know were possible until some one posted it here. Now imagine finding out about that build during your own game, when a player springs it on you mid campaign. You didn't know about it, and didn't plan for it, now you've got your campaign in tatters because of Captain OverPower.

Splats are not written with other splats in mind. Most are barely written with core in mind. Mixing splats into a game is like doing chemistry...if you mix the wrong things together (especially if you don't know much, if anyhting at all about them), the results can be lethal.

A core only game takes that hazard off the table, and brings the game back to it's base settings, and takes a lot of possibly needless complications out of the mix.

[Dancingdeath]

Considering that some of the most unbalanced or abuse-able spells are in PHB, I dont see balance being the reason. I would venture its because DM's cant be bothered! Maybe they mistakenly think that more is less and less is more, when infact its more is more and less is less. Perhaps even they think that more books equals more power... Which is only true in a few specific books... Something about psions comes to mind...

Lastly and that is what I do myself, is limiting the speed and range of spell procurement. I remember as a teen I had so much fun finding a spell book... who knew what dangerous or powerful spells were hidden there. If all spells from all books a available, the people will probably choose the coolest and thus that mystic feeling disappears... at leas tit does for me... So I enforce that by saying that you can choose spells from PHB as a standard and all other spells I introduce when I think its cool.... A lot of times I introduce home-brew spells that way too... They they get really interested. So purhaps thats the reasn for limiting... wanting to introduce mysterious classes along the way!???

That's one of the best responses yet and, to me at least by far the one that makes the most sense.

[Max Caysey]

Actually, yes...you DO need to fully read every book you allow into your game. Otherwise you can wind up with a totally broken God character that leaves every other character in the dust, inta-kills everything he/she fights, and generally ruins the game for all but that player.

This only happens if you have a major douche bag of a friend. Who would deliberately ruin the fun? This has absolutely nothing to do with content/books and everything to do with the player!

That's one of the best responses yet and, to me at least by far the one that makes the most sense.

Happy to hear that!