Core Rules Only

[EyeontheMountain]

I would be ok with playing in a core-only game, but it would not be my preference. In an ideal campaign, I owuld liek to see Core + psionics+ complete + races + environment+ MMI-IV and FF, and little else. I feel those have enough weirdness to keep a game on its toes, as well as provide the DM with a lot of options for challenging a party, without bringing in a lot of the truely weird and hard-to-keep-up-with 3rd party stuff.

I am ok with 3rd party adventures, though.

 

[Odhanan]

I hate to say this, but whether I'd play in a core-only game would depend a lot on the DM and his motivations to have a core-only game in the first place. If that's for flavor but s/he's imaginative and responds to player input positively, I'll play. If that's an issue of control around the game table, I won't.

 

[Gold Roger]

If you know what the correct non-core options are, you can create a frighteningly-effective front-liner tank with no armour and no christmas tree of magic items. I once let a player do this with his cohort. He wound up getting her somewhere in the 40s by pumping Charisma with a build based on an LA 3 race that gets Charisma as Deflection to AC, a mobile unarmoured combatant base class that gets Charisma bonus to AC unarmoured, and a PrC that gets Charisma as a Divine bonus to AC. And he never really gave her any magic items, as he was too cheap to get equipment for his cohort.

So you'd be happy to make D'artagnan into a bizarre coglomerate that is bound to some divine order, follows a unusual fighting style no one else might use and belongs to a unseen race rather than make the small confession of wearing a mithral chain (which he won't even feel and he can keep unseen under his clothing) and some minor magical charms (which he doesn't wear out of some strange sense of style that is borne from a pure metagame consideration/preference).

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So you'd be happy to make D'artagnan into a bizarre coglomerate that is bound to some divine order, follows a unusual fighting style no one else might use and belongs to a unseen race rather than make the small confession of wearing a mithral chain (which he won't even feel and he can keep unseen under his clothing) and some minor magical charms (which he doesn't wear out of some strange sense of style that is borne from a pure metagame consideration/preference).

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Since I completely divorce fluff from mechanics, I, personally, wouldn't play it as such. IIRC, I've used that build or something very similar for an NPC foe who had none of those traits. Mind you, the character in question was described as a 'frighteningly-effective front-liner tank.' Not 'good enough to hang with a party of core PCs (assuming they weren't all pre-nerf druids),' but 'frighteningly-effective.'

Of course, you could just play an Arcana Unearthed/Evolved unfettered and have a perfectly effective swashbuckler who matches up with a core fighter one to one, without ever multiclassing.

Or a Swashbuckler 3/Unfettered x, who is a match for all but the most effective core fighter with a single multiclass between classes that mesh perfectly.

 

[IcyCool]

On the point of D'artagnan, if you fiddle with the class abilities a little (as the DMG allows you to), the Monk would make a pretty effective non-armored fighter.

And I'll second the poster upthread who said that it seemed like bad form to require D'artagnan to be from one setting (rapier wielding and unarmored) and put him up against "the Duke's men", but making them from another setting. Why stop there? Why not make "the Duke" be Leto Atreides from Dune, then D'artagnan is really in trouble.

That said, while you can do several concepts with the core rules, you can do some of those same concepts better with the supplements.

Anecdotal note: In the last D&D 3.5 campaign I played in, we had a sorcerer, bard/enchanter, ninja, rogue, monk, bard, and a fighter/battle sorcerer/master thrower. The fighter/battle sorcerer/master thrower wore a chain shirt, everyone else was unarmored (which is unsurprising for some of those classes). I don't think anyone's AC went much over 20. We did quite well (played from 3rd-12th level).

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

That depends on if your GM uses Diplomacy checks for simple social interactions. There are very good arguments both for and against this, and I'd prefer not to stir up the debate on that here. To give you an example, though, we had beaten the boss of some hired thugs in a recent game, and my PC, who was from the same minority group as the mercenaries, mentioned to them that their boss actually wanted to destroy all living beings and that we would let them go if they just stopped fighting, or they could fight and might die. This is after we killed their boss on the first action of the first round and took out one of their guys too. I even offered to heal the fallen thug if they stopped fighting. An eminently reasonable offer. However, they didn't listen as I failed the Diplomacy check.

The disappointing thing about this, though, is that your roleplaying didn't count for anything. All that mattered was the Diplomacy roll.

You may as well have said, "I'll try to be diplomatic with the dude." [roll]

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The disappointing thing about this, though, is that your roleplaying didn't count for anything. All that mattered was the Diplomacy roll.

You may as well have said, "I'll try to be diplomatic with the dude." [roll]

It's a classic 'dice write the script, player interprets' vs. 'player writes the script, dice hopefully cooperate' situation.

Some players prefer to Roll first, Act second to avoid this problem. Others act first and don't roll at all. Both of these work fine.

The only problem comes when you act first, roll second... and the dice don't applaud your performance.

 

[Mercule]

It's a classic 'dice write the script, player interprets' vs. 'player writes the script, dice hopefully cooperate' situation.

Some players prefer to Roll first, Act second to avoid this problem. Others act first and don't roll at all. Both of these work fine.

The only problem comes when you act first, roll second... and the dice don't applaud your performance.

As a DM, I tend to give modifiers to such die rolls to "encourage" an appropriate response. I prefer the dice to give the results because I've discovered two things: 1) sometimes shy or ineloquent players like playing the party face, and dice give them a chance to do so effectively; and 2) sometimes bold or charismatic players can "play against" the role they've set for their character and step on the toes of group 1 (heck, I'm guilty of this).

Die modifiers for effort still encourage players to try their best to RP the speaking.

Edit: It's a similar situation to the clever players who try to work out traps on their own or describe Heal checks. I appreciate the descriptions, but your character doesn't have the same knowledge as you do.

 

[painandgreed]

It will NOT have:

Races outside the Tolkien/epic fantasy mold, except for gnomes, which are hardly far outside it.

Not true. The MM has plenty of information for playing many other races as PCs. My homebrew is non-core resistant but makes good use of those.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Not true. The MM has plenty of information for playing many other races as PCs. My homebrew is non-core resistant but makes good use of those.

Depends on if 'core' means the PHB is for players and the DMG and MM are for DMs (as several posters said on the 'define core only for your game' thread). But, I'll give you that the Monster Manual is, indeed, officially part of the core.