|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 8:45PM
#211
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2007
|
Well I think we can safely say that the Deva won't be in MoTP since we know now it is the Bladeling. So that is one more point toward Deva being in PHB2.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 9:36PM
#212
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2007
|
What Wizards wanted to do was to make all the PHB/DMG/MMs the main CORE, and then the other books a Core part but not needed for the average player.
DDi is not Core, but is instead material that is optional, and of course has stuff that can be used with the Core rules.
Uh, no. DDI is just as core as the other books. Well, the end of the month compiled articles are at least.
There is an MM like write up, I think, that I have not seen. (It's on DDi, right?)
I had thought it could be large, but wasn't sure
Yes, the Minotaur was in last month's Dragon. It is Medium, has no Oversized (and Mearls has said that no other PC race, ie Bugbear, will either), and it is Core.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 9:49PM
#213
|
|
|
Yes, the Minotaur was in last month's Dragon. It is Medium, has no Oversized (and Mearls has said that no other PC race, ie Bugbear, will either), and it is Core.
And if PC races aren't getting Oversized, I don't think there's a snowball's chance that there'll be a large PC race.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:01PM
#214
|
|
|
Ok, I think we're running around with 3+ definitions of CORE/core and we can't agree on anything (none of us are convince-able anyways, we all think we know for sure, and will wait; thats how I feel anyways).
The least we can do to get on the same page is make an agreement of what we mean when we say CORE. It's what I've called Tier 1 core, the PHB 1 MM and DMG
now I like to tag PHB2 mm2 and DMG 2 as Tier one (my personal opinion), I can agree that things like phb2 are actually tier 2, leaving things like the campaign settings tier 3.
I also acknowledge that the power series goes into detail on genasi, drow, and etc. in vigorous detail. They don't just get brief mention, they are well done.
4th edition does everything different, I acknowledge this. So we'll see a precedent with phb 2. At this moment, until we see more spoilers, we can determine no more.
My idea of the balanced 4 class in 4 sources is broken now by the way. It would have required the druid to be a defender to work out perfectly. My theory behind the class selection was that we'd end up with 4 of each class type, from 3 different power sources. This would make a balance amongst the classes, and make things more laid out for each role. (see the effects of only having 1 controller until a few days ago).
As for DRA/DUN, they are the least core of all. I think we can agree on this. Just because I say something is less core doesn't mean I'm insulting it. So don't think I'm insulting the amazing work done by DRA, but it's core is on a different level. (IMO, perhaps I should tag everything with this?)
and by the way, I acknowledge the no hostility, I respect that and hope my post comes of just as friendly.
to end this post, read up above, and let's decide what we mean when we say CORE (I think my tier system works well, weather you put the PHB 2 and campaign settings on a different level is up to you, explain why.)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:09PM
#215
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2007
|
In case anyone's still in doubt about the Shaman or Warden being confirmed (though I don't see how at this point), the new Ampersand specifically mentions them as Primal classes.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:10PM
#216
|
|
|
to end this post, read up above, and let's decide what we mean when we say CORE (I think my tier system works well, weather you put the PHB 2 and campaign settings on a different level is up to you, explain why.)
Everything that isn't tied directly to a campaign setting is Core, because that's what the Wizards reps defined Core as when they released 4e.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:18PM
#217
|
|
|
Everything that isn't tied directly to a campaign setting is Core, because that's what the Wizards reps defined Core as when they released 4e.
So you think that for the rules system, there is 1 core, and no distinction between core sources?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:23PM
#218
|
|
|
So you think that for the rules system, there is 1 core, and no distinction between core sources?
Basically. Being Core doesn't give it any kind of special treatment or obligation to include; you can ban or alter core as much as non-core as you need to fit your campaign. The opposite of core is 'setting specific'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 10:27PM
#219
|
|
|
Ok, when I say core, I never try to cross into setting material (classes in setting books don't count as setting material for this).
I mean core (no tier) as a way of expressing a base framework of rules introduced in the PHB. Then there are expansion packs to that framework. I like to emphasize a difference between "grid filling" and balancing the playing field. I feel the future PHB's do more to balance the playing field, where as classes released in setting books are released more for fan service to a given setting (hence I don't put them on the same level). I do not deny them core status, I just place them on a lower level.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 11:12PM
#220
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2005
|
Why must there not be standard terms to describe the things we're talking about? I suggest the following terms:
- Base -- PHB 1, DMG 1 & MM 1 ONLY
- Staple -- All PHBs, DMGs & MMs ONLY
- Surplus -- All PHB's, DMG's and MMs plus the ____ Power series & Adventurer's Vault series
|
|
|
