maneuvers which become .... magical

right now the monk has some maveuvers that if you spend multi dice on become magical. In the googal hang out mike mearls did saay we may see a more anime/high magic fighter in a modual.



Could it work if we gave fighters extra weird optional maneuvers


Ex;


Throw anything

spend 1 die and make a melee attack at a 25ft range, but your weapon falls after hitting target.

spend 2 die and as above but wepon bounces and you catch it

spend 3 die and as above but it bounces and hts a second target before bouncing back


Leap attack

Spend 1 die and make a str check to jump, if you hit after the jump deal extra damage and knock target prone

spend 2 dice and make a str check but jump twice as far, if you hit it is double ddamage



Dessert wind flurish


spend 1 die and your weapon ignites and you deal 1/2 normal weapon damage and 1/2 fire damage


spend 2 die and as above and set target on fire

spend 3 die as above and flame burst hitting all adjacent creatures who take 1w of fire damage dex save for half.


what do you think, and please remember this would be a mod for people who want it, not core                                      

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

a mod= fine, anything is ok in a mod. core not fine.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
core not fine.

Why?
If you don't like fighters getting a Hadouken, then don't add that maneuver to your character.

core not fine.

Why?
If you don't like fighters getting a Hadouken, then don't add that maneuver to your character.



Because the CORE, by definition, is that which can't be dropped out and still have D&D.  That's the entire point of the modular design - it's opt-in, not opt-out.  Otherwise, the core books would bloat to become incredibly expensive 1,000+ page monstrosities which would be impossible to use as you searched for those few modules or bits you wanted in your game. 


So this manga stuff is fine, in a module, where it belongs.  Not Core. 

core not fine.

Why?
If you don't like fighters getting a Hadouken, then don't add that maneuver to your character.



Because the CORE, by definition, is that which can't be dropped out and still have D&D.  That's the entire point of the modular design - it's opt-in, not opt-out.  Otherwise, the core books would bloat to become incredibly expensive 1,000+ page monstrosities which would be impossible to use as you searched for those few modules or bits you wanted in your game. 


So this manga stuff is fine, in a module, where it belongs.  Not Core. 




Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

Dessert wind flurish

spend 1 die and your weapon ignites and you deal 1/2 normal weapon damage and 1/2 fire damage

spend 2 die and as above and set target on fire

spend 3 die as above and flame burst hitting all adjacent creatures who take 1w of fire damage dex save for half.

what do you think, and please remember this would be a mod for people who want it, not core

I bet that's one tasty attack.  Is it made with cinnamon?

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

The man has a point.  All wizards really need is like Magic Missile, Tenser's Floating Disk, Fire Ball, and some Cantrips to be magical enough for D&D.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

Actually, yes.

Thus far, "Core" is any nine spells, with up to eighteen depending on overlap between Divine and Arcane.  Which ones, specifically, really doesn't matter.  In fact, "Core" could even be one spell, if it scaled by spell-level.

Similarly, "Core" is four maneuvers.  It doesn't matter which ones.
The monk class points out that for some its maneuvers if you put 2 or more dice in to them they are explicitly create magical effects.

Maneuvers arent even core...  some just want others to not get what they like...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

some just want others to not get what they like...




This whine is getting so old it is turning into vinegar. 

You'll get whatever you desire.  just not in the Core, for the reasons stated above.  Claiming that this is somehow mean spirited ignores the realities of publishing a game which can actually be played.  Slapping in every single person's desires into the Core would be like putting wings, floaties, bench seats, and helicopter blades on a bicycle.  It's not mean-spirited - it's recognizing that if you did so, the bicycle would be ugly, expensive, and immobile.

  

some just want others to not get what they like...


 



I repeat manuevers probably are not even core... ie not required to play... so duh... you wont get maneuvers which become magical in core.

Sorry but if your meaning sounds to be nothing about what WOTC considers core
but rather some sort of stick it in another book so I dont have to look at it assertion.

If so... eat the mean spirited label its yours.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

core not fine.

Why?
If you don't like fighters getting a Hadouken, then don't add that maneuver to your character.



Because the CORE, by definition, is that which can't be dropped out and still have D&D.  That's the entire point of the modular design - it's opt-in, not opt-out.  Otherwise, the core books would bloat to become incredibly expensive 1,000+ page monstrosities which would be impossible to use as you searched for those few modules or bits you wanted in your game. 


So this manga stuff is fine, in a module, where it belongs.  Not Core. 




I agree, the PHB just won't have enough space to do it justice anyway.    The game should be first balanced without it so not including it doesn't create gameplay issues for the DM.



Sorry but if your meaning sounds to be nothing about what WOTC considers core
but rather some sort of stick it in another book so I dont have to look at it assertion.

If so... eat the mean spirited label its yours.



Could you please rephrase this in English? 


Because the CORE, by definition, is that which can't be dropped out and still have D&D.



Well the first thing I've ever dropped in my games was the monk class.
Not having a "shaolin kung fu master" in the middle of a western-medieval campaign makes the game seem much more like D&D to me, actually.

And I suppose western-medieval fantasy is what mostly defines D&D, what it's always been about from the start.
There have been several Official Settings and Suplements with different approaches using the D&D basic rules, but well that's supposedly not core.

So the Monk as a core class has always felt extremely out of place to me. I would never, ever, include it in the game unless there was actually oriental-flavoured stuff in the setting I'm running.
Core martial characters should be able to accomplish super-human feats, especially at paragon-tier levels. A mind-over-matter monk ability that allows an incredibly hard punch that knocks back, a fighter that is so tough he can literally tear the arrow out of his chest and keep going like it's nothing, these things should be core.

I can agree with blatently-magic martial stuff being relegated to other classes, inside or outside of core. When your martial expertise is a back-up to the fire you can blast out of your fists, you're really just an arcane caster with a different schtick and flavor.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

So the Monk as a core class has always felt extremely out of place to me. I would never, ever, include it in the game unless there was actually oriental-flavoured stuff in the setting I'm running.



The thing here is, there should be support for core-only games set in something other than Middle Earth or Neverwinter.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

The man has a point.  All wizards really need is like Magic Missile, Tenser's Floating Disk, Fire Ball, and some Cantrips to be magical enough for D&D.



Why would he have a point?  Spells are part of the core wizard.  Non-magical maneuvers are part of the core fighter.  Magical maneuvers are not part of the core fighter and should be a module.  Some other wizard type abilities are not part of the core wizard and should be a module.  There isn't a double standard happening.
I think we need to be clearer what we mean by "core."

It looks now like there will be a "basic" set called Dungeons & Dragons with only four races and classes in it, no skill system, and no specialties. (Or rather, specialties pre-built into the classes.) If there even are maneuvers in that edition, they'll probably be very limited and maybe even preselected. I certainly wouldn't expect magical maneuvers in "basic."

There will be another book, probably the PHB, which will have the rest of the starting classes (monk, warlock, etc) and races (half-elf, gnome, etc), along with the specialty/feat system and the skill system. It may well also have prestige classes. Could THAT book contain some "magical" maneuvers? Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Finally, there's every other book WOTC will publish. I'm guessing they'll go 4e-style and say that "everything is core" in their later publications. So if those magical maneuvers don't make the cut into the PHB, should they be included in a later book? Certainly. 
The answer is: They should be in the PHB or it didn't happen.

Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

The man has a point.  All wizards really need is like Magic Missile, Tenser's Floating Disk, Fire Ball, and some Cantrips to be magical enough for D&D.



Why would he have a point?  Spells are part of the core wizard.  Non-magical maneuvers are part of the core fighter.  Magical maneuvers are not part of the core fighter and should be a module.  Some other wizard type abilities are not part of the core wizard and should be a module.  There isn't a double standard happening.



I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer.   That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed.   Lets continue to empower the DM.



I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer.   That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed.   Lets continue to empower the DM.


I think that Next's design goal is exactly what you are saying here. I really and honestly do. It is "your", the DM's, table, who allows or disallows. And that DM really does need disclaimers to rely on. I think I have come to the conclusion that Next caters to that - not any less viable than any other, really - style, in which somewhat magical and somewhat superhuman maneuvers for fighters even at high levels or for any class that does not have "divine", "arcane", "psionic" or "ki" attached to it can be extremely glad and very thankful if they make it into the PHB at all.

And all of a sudden I am scared again for the future of this game. Because I think this is so (for lack of other words)... not cool.
Core martial characters should be able to accomplish super-human feats, especially at paragon-tier levels.


Or at least have the option to, if there's people who don't want theirs to.

At a level where a Wizard can make it rain meteors, stop time, and grant himself wishes, if I don't have any options for superhuman manuveurs as a Fighter, no buy.

I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer.   That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed.   Lets continue to empower the DM.



Then should there be a disclaimer on every single... well, everything in the book? Because it's possible for the DM to say "That's not in my game" to pretty much everything. What if my game world has no magic users? Should every caster class and spell in the game come with a disclaimer that your DM may not allow them? What if my game world only has humans? Should every race have a disclaimer saying that your DM may not allow them? Hell, what if my game world has no HUMANS?

This garbage isn't about "empowering the DM". The DM is already empowered by the rules to pick and choose game elements. They just have to say so. All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense. Just have the orbs to tell your players you dislike anything thought up after the 80's instead of forcing us all to jump in our time machines.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Does this mean that 75% of the wizard's spells should also not be core and instead put in a module?

The man has a point.  All wizards really need is like Magic Missile, Tenser's Floating Disk, Fire Ball, and some Cantrips to be magical enough for D&D.



Why would he have a point?  Spells are part of the core wizard.  Non-magical maneuvers are part of the core fighter.  Magical maneuvers are not part of the core fighter and should be a module.  Some other wizard type abilities are not part of the core wizard and should be a module.  There isn't a double standard happening.



I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer.   That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed.   Lets continue to empower the DM.



Well, all modules by default have a "disclaimer".  Modules aren't a part of the game unless the DM includes them.  As for players showing up at the table with abilities that aren't allowed, this is going to happen in a large number of cases.  DMs are going to have to just have people roll up characters specifically for their game and not allow characters from others games in......unless the DM wants to go through a lot of work to true up the character.
Then should there be a disclaimer on every single... well, everything in the book? Because it's possible for the DM to say "That's not in my game" to pretty much everything. What if my game world has no magic users? Should every caster class and spell in the game come with a disclaimer that your DM may not allow them? What if my game world only has humans? Should every race have a disclaimer saying that your DM may not allow them? Hell, what if my game world has no HUMANS?

This garbage isn't about "empowering the DM". The DM is already empowered by the rules to pick and choose game elements. They just have to say so. All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense. Just have the orbs to tell your players you dislike anything thought up after the 80's instead of forcing us all to jump in our time machines.



Hey. You.

I like your style.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

 All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense.




That's hogwash when Garthanos posts this for the umpteenth time, and it's hogwash when you post it too. 
Repeat, for the hard-of-seeing: you cannot publish a book with every option in it.  Such a book would cost $500, be 2,000 pages long, and be bought by precisely nobody.  So you are going to have to have some options be in, and some out.  If you are a publisher of games trying to make a buck, you choose those options which are most popular up to the point that the inclusion of more will (a) cost too much (b) make printing difficult (c) cause vendors not to stock your work (d) make it difficult for players to use because they have to search through too much material to find what's really useful.

Follow it this time?  I get tired of repeating this obvious point to those who think WotC can magically shoehorn every crazy-buns idea into the Core materials.


Then should there be a disclaimer on every single... well, everything in the book? Because it's possible for the DM to say "That's not in my game" to pretty much everything. What if my game world has no magic users? Should every caster class and spell in the game come with a disclaimer that your DM may not allow them? What if my game world only has humans? Should every race have a disclaimer saying that your DM may not allow them? Hell, what if my game world has no HUMANS?

This garbage isn't about "empowering the DM". The DM is already empowered by the rules to pick and choose game elements. They just have to say so. All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense. Just have the orbs to tell your players you dislike anything thought up after the 80's instead of forcing us all to jump in our time machines.



Hey. You.

I like your style.


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

It's true that some stuff will just have to wait for splat if we want an affordable book :P I don't want D&D to be like FF games where every book feels like buying a long term investment, lol.
My two copper.

Follow it this time? 



They put it in the play test already for the monk... its something they came up with already... note the maneuvers are still useable with only one die per and not magical when you do so... ie you get your thing and so do I. You can look your players in the eye and say they can only spend 1 die on the move aand when they come to my table I can say have at it spend as many as you like.

Maybe you are right and there wont be room... for both of us, nice of you to assume I will be ejected.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


They put it in the play test already for the monk...


Somewhat.  Whether the monk will be in the core, in such a form, is questionable.  Mearls has already declared thatwon'e be part of the basic game.
 Maybe you are right and there wont be room... for both of us, nice of you to assume I will be ejected.


If your tastes run to the outre, on the fringes of traditional D&D tropes, that's what you can expect.  WotC needs to move product.
When tradition has run up against the manga-haired balance brigade, the Design Team has sided with tradition, thus far.  Them's the breaks.

I just hope that the non-magicky powers at high levels match up to the magicky powers in terms of power and coolness. (It bugs me a little that in the current release the monk's Hurricane Strike is literally 2-12 times more powerful than the fighter's Shove Away, plus it knocks the target prone, apparently all because the monk maneuver is "magical.")

This doesn't require that fighters smash through mountains or anything. Just let them reliably do the kind of cool stuff that Conan and Legolas and other epic martial fantasy heroes do, and balance it numerically against the combat effects that casters can achieve. And for Pelor's sake, don't cut off new martial abilities at level 10 when caster spells scale up to level 17. An action point is not equivalent to a Wish spell.
 
If your tastes run to the outre, on the fringes of traditional D&D tropes, that's what you can expect.  


Some day we may be able to build characters like the legendary and mythic ones mentioned in the 2e phb ... without going to a different game. Till then Beowulf and CuCulaine, Herakles (as well as Gilgamesh and Roland)... get to be lame or item dependent Atlanteans... overwhelmed by the spell casting supremacists pretenses that balance is meaningless.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

"Slapping in every single person's desires into the Core would be like putting wings, floaties, bench seats, and helicopter blades on a bicycle. It's not mean-spirited - it's recognizing that if you did so, the bicycle would be ugly, expensive, and immobile." - Professor Daddy
Nice.
Also I have now become confused. What is considered Core in the current playtest, and what is considered Advanced? I’m assuming from what I am reading, in Core, your abilities: Maneuvers or Spells, specialties et cetera are all determined for you at character creation. There is a default choice, for new players. Although they have included some extra material there like other choices for advanced players. Does that sound right? I know the specialty thing is, because it was stated in a Legends and Lore Article, but I don’t know about the other abilities that, currently if you took the playtest as is, have choice (like spells). I haven’t looked at the playtest packet in a bit. So if that’s all true, then can we put neat-o maneuvers that are even less Corey then the other listed maneuvers. Are maneuvers and Spells equivalent? Can’t be, can they? Or how else would a wizard do anything, where as a fighter could still, although boring weapon attacks. Assuming no one uses any improvisation. How does a wizard improvise without a spell to improvise with? I haven’t even talked about the Orisons and Prayers a Cleric gets (they would be cantrips and spells if they were arcane). And no a Tome for Core would be insane and expensive. But if it combined all the typical three starting books into one then it would also be weird for doing so, but would be an interesting read, to see how they link it all together. Although it would not make sense for it to all be smushed together considering they are catering to different aspects of the game. Although I don’t have a problem with the DMG and MM being smashed together since I believe they share similar purposes, unless MM is useful only for self-created adventures in which case there you go again, another reason to have it separate. WOW Rasta Popoulos that was crazy what you said, I’ve said it before in another post, the Monk being out of place in a western medieval RPG. +7 awesome points for you man. Seriously I’m going to take your quote and drop it in a message on the Oriental Adventures, that is a perfect encapsulation of how I feel. “Well the first thing I've ever dropped in my games was the monk class.
Not having a "shaolin kung fu master" in the middle of a western-medieval campaign makes the game seem much more like D&D to me, actually.

And I suppose western-medieval fantasy is what mostly defines D&D, what it's always been about from the start.
There have been several Official Settings and Suplements with different approaches using the D&D basic rules, but well that's supposedly not core.

So the Monk as a core class has always felt extremely out of place to me. I would never, ever, include it in the game unless there was actually oriental-flavoured stuff in the setting I'm running.” – Rasta Populous. Thanks man.
I should mention I have never liked spells that have some other character’s name attached to them based solely on the fact that without real-life research there is no way to know why it’s there. I only vaguely know. Otherwise it would make sense that some spells have their original creator’s name attached to them. Clockwork Necktie that is exactly what I just said, bingo. Haven’t read page 3 or 4 at time of post.

AD&D 1st Edition Character (Simplified)

BIOGRAPHY
Name: Brother Michael
Adventuring Class: Cleric
Adventuring Experience: 1446 out of 1501
Bonus Experience: 10%
Languages Known: Common, Orc, Elven.
Alignment: Lawful/Neutral Good
ABILITY SCORES
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 10
Intelligence: 11
Charisma: 11
Constitution: 14
Wisdom: 16
WEAPONS: HIT; MEDIUM; LARGE
Footman’s Flail: 1d20; 1d6+1; 1d4
Hammer (Thrown): 1d20; 1d4+1; 1d4
Sling: 1d20-3; 1d4+1; 1d6+1
MAGIC
Today’s Prepared Spells: Cure Light Wounds x2, Command x1
Spells Spent: Cure Light Wounds x1
Other Cleric Abilities: Turn Undead
Spell Failure: 0%
Magical Attack Adjustment: +2
DEFENSES
Armor: 5 (-4 Armor, -1 Shield)
Maximum Health: 10
Current Health: 9
CONSUMABLE ITEMS
Water Skin
7 Days of Trail Rations
7 Pints (Flasks) of Oil
1 Ounce (Vial) of Holy Water
4 Parchments
12 Sling Bullets
6 Pieces of Silver
8 Pieces of Twine


I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer.   That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed.   Lets continue to empower the DM.



Then should there be a disclaimer on every single... well, everything in the book? Because it's possible for the DM to say "That's not in my game" to pretty much everything. What if my game world has no magic users? Should every caster class and spell in the game come with a disclaimer that your DM may not allow them? What if my game world only has humans? Should every race have a disclaimer saying that your DM may not allow them? Hell, what if my game world has no HUMANS?

This garbage isn't about "empowering the DM". The DM is already empowered by the rules to pick and choose game elements. They just have to say so. All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense. Just have the orbs to tell your players you dislike anything thought up after the 80's instead of forcing us all to jump in our time machines.




IMO, the removal or inclusion of races and classes shouldn't break the game.     Such things don't require a disclaimer unless that class only caters to one particular playstyle (ie. 4e warlord).     In that case, the player should be informed that the group's playstyle might not find the class acceptable.     Elements that are playstyle specific like healing surges, resting rules, magical -martial powers should be optional.  If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM.   The game should be playable without them in the exact same way that the game is playable without humans.      

I fully support modules for all playstyles, I just don't see why the core of the game must contain playstyle specific elements.      Sure I might want to play "old school" but I wouldn't want those "old school" elements to be part of the core either.     Therefore I don't understand why some "new school" players are trying to force their playstyle on the core.     Maybe they want the core rules to be written in such a way that it subjugates the DM's role to that of cog in the mechanics.   Perhaps, they want the authority to show up at the table and slam the PHB down like a fundamentalist preacher.     Therefore, setting player expectations is a big part of DM empowerment. 

So far the designers are doing a good job at identifiing elements that are contentious. In fact, the optional resting rules are a great example.   



  If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM. 


 


piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? Are you both talking about the first PHB? If so, bear in mind that there will be an explicit new magic-sword-guy class in that book, somewhat based on the mechanics of the draconic sorcerer from a previous playtest, specifically designed to do magicky sword things. So the fighter can remain pristinely mundane (unless you multiclass or take dabbler feats) while this new class does magicky stuff. 
@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? . 


Professordaddy means the concept should not be appearing in the PHB because it will offend him... or it will take up space reserved for boring traditional things... something in the middle of that. Even under the banner of the monk.

I pointed out his misuse of the term core (according to the Next definition). But you have to respond to peoples use of terms in the manner which they reveal there intent is. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

  If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM. 


 


piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced. 



yes it would be bad design.    Playstyle options can be balanced within their own context.    Spells that are overpowered (save or die) and magical-figther powers  would be playstyle options.   The core wouldn't include either.   


@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? Are you both talking about the first PHB? If so, bear in mind that there will be an explicit new magic-sword-guy class in that book, somewhat based on the mechanics of the draconic sorcerer from a previous playtest, specifically designed to do magicky sword things. So the fighter can remain pristinely mundane (unless you multiclass or take dabbler feats) while this new class does magicky stuff. 



Core could be the PHB with all the options excluded.    Of course, in some cases you might be forced to pick an option, which would make the core rules something that each game simply derives from.          


  If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM. 


 


piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced. 



yes it would be bad design.    Playstyle options can be balanced within their own context.    Spells that are overpowered (save or die) and magical-figther powers  would be playstyle options.   The core wouldn't include either.   


 
The core has wish spells  -- And the monk examples are not actually over powered at all just not the style of the very people that want to ensure over powered casters 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

One of the best elements of 4E that I found was that most non-PHB options were still pretty balanced when compared to the core options. That means that I can go outside of PHB and grab a feat or class or maneuver and incorporate it into ANY existing game and it should be wihin a pretty reasonable level of power with others at the table. 3E was pretty much the exact opposite of this with their splats and most 3PP splats as well. The balance was SO swingy that DMs HAD to be leery of anything non-core (and heck, had to be leery of stuff IN core) to run a game without the balance becoming all out of wack.

I don't want to see DDN fall to this imbalance monster just because it's not in the core PHB.