Core Rules Only

[iwatt]

That said, I would still play in a core-rules only game with a good GM--I would just have less fun than I would if I was allowed to try more creative character concepts.

I disagree with this. You can build any character concept with the core rules. Now, they won't be as effective as I'd probably like, but that doesn't invalidate the point that it's possible to do with Core only.

And I'm talking about class combos, not specific non-core races. Of course you can't explore a racial character concept when said race isn't core.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Nope.

There are games that I'd do this with, but not any version D&D. I'm not interested in the kind of setting you could create with 'core rules only.'

Exception: I would play core rules only Rules Cyclopaedia D&D because, well, that pretty much includes everything player-oriented published for basic D&D.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I disagree with this. You can build any character concept with the core rules. Now, they won't be as effective as I'd probably like, but that doesn't invalidate the point that it's possible to do with Core only.

And I'm talking about class combos, not specific non-core races. Of course you can't explore a racial character concept when said race isn't core.

I disagree with you. Also, and you may not agree with this, there is a point where a class combination becomes 'unplayably bad' (that is to say, so terrible that its efforts in any area are completely worthless to the party. For example, a Wizard1/Sorcerer1/Cleric1/Druid1/Monk1/Psion1/Commoner1/Expert1/Adept1/Aristocrat1/Wilder1 is an unplayably bad level 11 character). I can name a few concepts that you simply can't duplicate with the core rules without at least the GM allowing for a few house-ruled changes. An easy one is Psion, though there are many more.

 

[Crothian]

Nope.

There are games that I'd do this with, but not any version D&D. I'm not interested in the kind of setting you could create with 'core rules only.'

How does core rules only limit the type of setting?

 

[wayne62682]

I voted "maybe". I would PLAY in a Core Only game, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much as one that allows the entire gamut of WotC books. This isn't because I'm a powergamer (although I am) its because despite what some people say, there are certain concepts that CANNOT be realized Core only. Actually, let me rephrase that: There are certain concepts that cannot be realized using Core Only in the same fashion as they can be realized using non-Core supplements. I could make a feasible Swashbuckler character with levels of Fighter, Rogue and Duelist, but this forces me to A) Multiclass and B) wait until I'm around level 8 or higher to finally realize my concept of a "suave, charismatic swashbuckler", instead of being able to do that very concept from day one, 1st level using the Swashbuckler class.

So in short: I would play, but I don't think I would enjoy it as much.

 

[Crothian]

An easy one is Psion, though there are many more.

Psionics is a bad example since there are enough D&D games that allow lots of books and just don't allow psionics. It would be like saying a gun fighter or any other concept that people don't like in their fantasy.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Psionics is a bad example since there are enough D&D games that allow lots of books and just don't allow psionics. It would be like saying a gun fighter or any other concept that people don't like in their fantasy.

Oh, it's completely cool if the GM just doesn't allow psionics due to flavour issues. The point is that core-only, you can't play one.

 

[Crothian]

"suave, charismatic swashbuckler", instead of being able to do that very concept from day one, 1st level using the Swashbuckler class.

The first two adjectives are all in how you role play it and not dependant on the rules. A swashbuckler can be a rogue or fighter that just calls themselve a swashbuckler, uses light armor, welds a rapier, and acts the part.

 

[wayne62682]

Normally I would agree, but when D&D has mechanics for being "suave, charismatic" and a Fighter gets neither of them, it kinda shoots the concept.. it doesnt impact it GREATLY, but to me its still an impact. Maybe I am just spoiled.. I looked through just the PHB the other day after normally pawing through 5+ books, and it felt far too boring.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

How does core rules only limit the type of setting?

A core rules only game WILL have:

Elves, dwarves, hobbit/kender hybrids - er, halflings - and orcs - the Tolkien races, albeit stripped of their thematic weight and dialled up to 11.
Wizards and sorcerers who can't heal and clerics who can't blast (as well) but can wear heavy armor.
Magic divided between spells and items, with no supernatural abilities available to, say, a high-level fighter.
Lots of magic items.

It will NOT have:

Races outside the Tolkien/epic fantasy mold, except for gnomes, which are hardly far outside it.
Generic spellcasters who can either heal or blast depending on their particular expertise.
Healers whose secondary focus is skills, not combat.
Fighter/mages (until mid-high levels).
Light armored fighters.
More than one oriental-themed class.
Magical abilities that don't fit the mold of either spells or items, such as warlock invocations, Bo9S maneuvers, and the supernatural abilities of some warrior PrCs.
Psionics.
Firearms. (Technically, the DMG does have these, but not in a fleshed-out form, and they're presented as optional in any case)
Steam or higher tech.
Non-magical (or only semi-magical) airships.

Now, if you're giving the GM the option to homebrew any or all of these features, either adding in races, classes and subsystems of his own design or removing existing ones, you might end up with something I would like better, but I don't consider 'core + extensive homebrewing' the same as 'core rules only.'