|
4 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 11:20PM
#221
|
|
|
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
thats basically what I've proposed to do in my last 2-3 posts here...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 5:43AM
#222
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Like I posted before, there are two definitions of "core" recognized by WotC. The first is "the basics", the minimum required to play 4E, namely the first Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide. The second definition of core is, "Everything is core," and refers to all 4E game elements published in print or online by WotC, as long as those mechanics are compatible with the rules presented in "the basics." (This definition of core was created by WotC for the expressed purpose of stymieing these stupid debates about how some products are "more legitimate" than others, which is obviously not the attitude WotC has.)
To recap: There are exactly two tiers of "core". One is PH1, MM1, and DMG1, and the other is everything else released by WotC for 4E.
That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 5:53AM
#223
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 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
I find your division highly arbitrary, Elf. Some folks won't understand why Adventurer's Vault is "Surplus" instead of "Staple", and other won't get why Martial Power, which develops PH1, is less legitimate than PH2.
Additionally, where do books such as Draconomicon, Open Grave, or Manual of the Planes fit? (MotP, for example, includes several Paragon Paths, and each book contains magic items and rituals which could be used by PCs.)
And of course, where do books like the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide fit? This book presents two new races, a new class, a new build for a PH1 class, numerous Paragon Paths, an Epic Destiny, and numerous rituals. Yes, it's all from this campaign setting book, but it's also easily poach-able for any other setting, including a generic or homebrew campaign.
Why draw your lines where you did, when there's an official stance?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 6:08AM
#224
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2004
|
You know, this might be a bad place for this...but...
Where are my freaking psionics, already? I can't D&D it up properly knowin that psychics aren't made yet...
DMsDelight: It's like Rapper's Delight, but with a friendly D&D twist, sucka! General Quotes "There's a demonic kitty in Danielle's Pants!" said by a friend of a friend about her artwork on his girlfriend's pajamas.... "The dime b*****s aren't the problem. We've got the b*****s." - said by Dragoneye about...NC-17 issues. D&D Quotes "Of course we healed. We prayed at the Temple of Goodness!"-Adam, on why we should have all been at full health. "You can't Handle Animal the Druid."-Dave to Adam, when Dave was Wild Shaped into a panther. "Yes, Necromancers have a HEALTHY love of the dead..."- Me, on the difference between NecroPHILLIACS and NecroMANCERS. "Not STABility....Stability!"-Alex, on the difference between my rogue's style of negotiation and others style of negotiation. Originally Posted by Edymnion--"you want people worshipping their own shoes, go right ahead and throw it in. Heck, they'll even get spells as long as they truely believe their shoes are gods." From the Half-Kobold Files... Originally Posted by DMsDelight--"Interesting creature concept. Other than being all sorts of wrong/disgusting (I mean...ewwwww! )... And who in their right minds would f*** a Kobold!!!" Originally Posted by Grigori--"Congratulations. You've just re-defined 'get your freak on'." Originally Posted by Da Dinictus--"But... humans with pixies? Even with just... what... covering them or such... ehr. Let's just say, they aren't exactly fit for anything the size of their own bodies, eh?"  I am Black/Green Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 8:15AM
#225
|
|
|
I'd split it thusly:
Level 1: PHB, DMG, MM 1
Level 2: Everything 1st Party except setting specific and DDi material
Level 3: Everything 1st Party.
Yes, it has been confirned that there will be Swordmage (level 3) builds in Arcane power (level 2), but that's alright. You don't need to use it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 8:46AM
#226
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
No negotiation. No tiers. No mercy.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 9:03AM
#227
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2008
|
I agree with WotC's stance: anything 1st party published is core. All of it is optional (even the PHB1/DMG1/MM1) but it is all core. Even the 'campaign specific' material like the FRCG fluff sections is core. It's D&D, the DM can use whatever he wants. From a company/business standpoint though it's better to consider all material published core and having the same weight on support.
It also helps them 'sell' DDI subscriptions if they officially declare that the content in there is just as 'core' and supported as the printed books. As already seen there is DDI material that expands on printed material and it gives them a cost-effecient method of putting out new material without bloating the books or forcing 3-4 books to be printed every month just to give the playerbase the content it wants.
Honestly they should of just dropped the whole 'core' term from their official statements and printed material. Let all WotC published (print or online) material be 'standard' or 'official' material and let 3rd party stuff be 'non standard' and 'unofficial'. In every edition people have argued over what is 'core' and what isn't because 'core' is subjective. There is 'base' but with a pnp-rpg even base is subjective because you can have alternate and optional rules that can greatly alter the 'base' rules. Even the PHB1 for 4e has 3 or so methods of generating ability scores.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 9:28AM
#228
|
|
|
WotC uses the word 'core' in two contradictory ways - trying to have its cake and eat too.
On the one hand, 'Core' is a 'product brand', and is just the name for the default points-of-light campaign setting. Here 'Core' constrasts the other campaign setting 'brands': Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc. Also 'Miniatures'.
On the other hand, 'Core' is alternatively a 'product type', in which case it refers only to the first volume of the PH, DMG, MM, plus the gaming dice. Here it contrasts the other 'product types': 'Accessories', 'Adventures', or 'Novels'.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 10:36AM
#229
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
WotC uses the word 'core' in two contradictory ways - trying to have its cake and eat too.
On the one hand, 'Core' is a 'product brand', and is just the name for the default points-of-light campaign setting. Here 'Core' constrasts the other campaign setting 'brands': Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc. Also 'Miniatures'.
On the other hand, 'Core' is alternatively a 'product type', in which case it refers only to the first volume of the PH, DMG, MM, plus the gaming dice. Here it contrasts the other 'product types': 'Accessories', 'Adventures', or 'Novels'.
You're right, WotC needs to stop using the word "core", although they do need to categorize their products. This is part of the reason I've advocated the use of "base" or "basic" (despite its historical roots in D&D) to refer to the PH1, DMG1, and MM1. I think Wizards ought to categorize those three, and products that include them, as "Base-set" D&D. All additional products are categorized as "D&D Accessories", with the exceptions of "D&D Adventures", whose format is more about integrating existing rules elements into a story rather than presenting new ones, and "D&D Novels" which don't present rules elements at all, and which hardly anyone ever considered "core" anyway.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2008 - 11:18AM
#230
|
|
|
I feel strongly, all PHs (Players Handbooks) are equal in 'authority'. All of the PHs should fall under the same catagory. (Same goes for all of the MMs and DMGs.)
The reason is, its just as appropriate for the DM to include or exclude material in the PH1, as any other volume of the PHs.
For example, the DM may wish to exclude all Martial classes for a high-magic 'Harry Potter' campaign setting, or exclude all Arcane classes for a low-magic 'Lord-of-the-Rings' campaign setting.
Moreover, most players feel strongly the Druid, Bard, Gnome, Half-Orc, etc. belong in 'core'. A significant number of players feel strongly the Psi power source belongs in 'core' (tho most agree it shouldnt have sci-fi flavor but emphasize the flavor of 'enchantments', 'illusions', 'force' and 'personal-source' magic). Similarly, many players feel Monk is 'core' too (hence possibly the Ki power source). And so on.
Its all equally important. DMs should *pick-and-choose* which classes in the PHs to emphasize or deemphasize in their own games.
By contrast, the Power books (Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, etc.) seem designed to be 'splat books'. Perhaps they arent as authoritative? Same with the Adventures Vault.
|
|
|
