Core Rules Only

[Rystil Arden]

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.

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. I'm cool with that. Now, my concept wasn't "suave", but if it had been, mechanics would have really shown that I wasn't suave at all here.

 

[Aaron L]

Sure. I'd prefer more options than just the core books, but thiers still enough material in the PHB and DMG to work with.

 

[iwatt]

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.

I understand were youre' coming from. But nothing is stopping you from using the Sorceror and saying his powers are psionic. It isn't optimal, but doable.

I do agree that it becomes unplaybly bad, It still doesn't mean it isn't possible with the core.

Basically I see a collection of mechanics and disregard the fluff. I can shoehorn most of the classes mechanics and just give them a different flavor.

 

[Crothian]

However, they didn't listen as I failed the Diplomacy check. I'm cool with that. Now, my concept wasn't "suave", but if it had been, mechanics would have really shown that I wasn't suave at all here.

Suave doesn't mean always successful. Suave characters are allowed to fail.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And a right good playable game can be made from these. And it'll have Gnomes too...

It will NOT have:

Races outside the Tolkien/epic fantasy mold,
Generic spellcasters who can either heal or blast depending on their particular expertise.

No great loss in either case.

Healers whose secondary focus is skills, not combat.
Fighter/mages (until mid-high levels).
Light armored fighters.

These can all be done. A light fighter needs only to follow the archery feat track and stay out of front line; a skill-based Healer can be built from a stock Cleric, and so on. Multi-classing spellcasters are kinda hosed, though...

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.

We're back to the no-great-loss categories here, except psyonics which I've always had an odd liking for.

Lanefan

 

[Rystil Arden]

I understand were youre' coming from. But nothing is stopping you from using the Sorceror and saying his powers are psionic. It isn't optimal, but doable.

I do agree that it becomes unplaybly bad, It still doesn't mean it isn't possible with the core.

Basically I see a collection of mechanics and disregard the fluff. I can shoehorn most of the classes mechanics and just give them a different flavor.

You can't be a psionic if you're a sorcerer though, as you lack the appropriate psionic powers and you are using all the rules for an arcane caster (unless the GM lets you cop out on those). You are making arcane gestures, saying incantations, and carrying around a bag of bat feces, among other things.

I do agree that it becomes unplaybly bad, It still doesn't mean it isn't possible with the core.

Although the argument of 'you can do it, theoretically, so it is possible with the core' is cute, since you agree with me about some combinations being unplayably bad, you must know it is a bit of a strawman.


Here's an example: D'Artagne, my new fifth-level character, disdains armour and thinks that wearing a christmas tree of magic items is gauche (though he does have a cool magic sword!). He uses his Swashbuckling wiles, wits, and panache to fight on the front line against the evil cardinal's heavily-armoured guards, and he still always comes out on top. Now, core rules only, I try to build D'Artagne. Let's say the GM does what many of the vanilla-core-rules-only GMs do and limits us to the standard array for stats. Build me a level 5 D'Artagne that won't be a mockery and a laughingstock when fighting toe-to-toe on the front lines against the Duke's guards. You can only use the core rules.

 

[Crothian]

A core rules only game WILL have:

It will NOT have:

Except that is not always true. A skillful DM can not include many of your haves and include many of your have nots without leaving the core rules. Granted, there are not a lot of skillful DMs out there.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Suave doesn't mean always successful. Suave characters are allowed to fail.

And a character whose Diplomacy bonus is half that of a bard of the same level is going to fail a LOT more often than he succeeds.

Such a character may THINK he's suave, but in terms of his effectiveness in-game, he isn't. He might be fun to play as someone who tries (and fails) to be a smooth-talker, but if he's played as a successful smooth talker, that's really no different than having an Int 5 barbarian always act in the most tactically astute manner possible.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Suave doesn't mean always successful. Suave characters are allowed to fail.

But if you consistently fail at trivial tasks for a suave character, then you weren't really suave at all, right? I'd find it hard to justify that a character was suave if all I had was a track record of failing at basic common suave-sweet-talking tasks.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except that is not always true. A skillful DM can not include many of your haves and include many of your have nots without leaving the core rules. Granted, there are not a lot of skillful DMs out there.

If a GM did that, they would be houseruling things in though. By the way, a skillful GM with well-thought-out house-rules to help define a setting + core rules? Count me in! My reservations of being constrained are only for the "nothing will happen that is not exactly written in one of the core books. Ever. No new monsters. No new feats. No new items."