for the "core only" purists - availability of PrCs by class

[pogre]

I'm pretty much core only and restrict PRCs. I do allow PRCs designed by players that fit a specific vision within the campaign's context. These PRCs are invariably the flavor variety and also weaker than the core classes in nearly every instance.

I don't think a core-only game is silly at all. It's the best play-tested rules we have in d20. I'm not putting down the "kitchen sink" style campaigns, they're just not my preference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I've been playing core only since 3Ed was released...not by choice, mind you- I just have some rather closed-minded (IMHO) fellow gamers running campaigns. Actually, even the later 2Ed stuff was pretty vanilla.

(And, for the record, MY campaign ideas don't fly- the majority of guys in the group aren't interested in trying anything unusual.)

Yes, a Core campaign CAN be fun and rewarding, but after 10 years of this, I'd LOVE to try something new.

 

[Timeron Malachi]

My thinking on this is: After playing with a bunch of house rules and AEG/Mongoose books, I've decided that it's more fun to do Wizard's only.

But, *my* Rule 0 is: The game should be fun for players and DM alike. The way I see it, when I DM, is that I'm having fun just setting up scenarios or crazy things for players to, and the players enjoy doing crazy things. If they want to use Str instead of Cha for Intimidate checks, that's fine, just make it make sense to me. I'm a pretty loose DM, and I just want people to have fun. In return, I appreciate, when I play, being able to do all kinds of crazy things that fit my cinematic idea of RPing.

I feel that, ultimately, rulings should be made in player's favor, and classes should be allowed or disallowed based on "Will the players enjoy the game more?"

Unless you're one of those DM's who doesn't feel they're "winning" unless the PC's are dying. I've played in games like that before, and it isn't much fun at all.

Let them have whatever class they want, just remind them that your NPCs are just as able to take the same feats.

 

[NimrodvanHall]

I'm sorry, but can you give me a page number where this rule is stated? I don't seem to have that sentence in my books.

Quasqueton

Rule 0 was included in the 3.0 DMG its omitted in the 3.5 dmg

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't mind that the PrCs in the core books don't cover a wide variety of character types because there are all sorts of other options out there. But I do think it means that "core only" games are biased towards certain classes and character concepts.

Of all the things in the core books, the prestige classes are the ones I see as "non-core core things"

More seriously, the examples you made (Druid and Monk) are of characters which are since the start less "standard" concepts than other base classes. It's kind of natural IMO that Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers have more customization options than Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Druids and Bards which are already sort-of narrow.

 

[Quasqueton]

Rule 0 was included in the 3.0 DMG its omitted in the 3.5 dmg

You should probably go back and read what that "Rule 0" actually says, and what it actually refers to (and which book it is actually in). It is not what most people claim it to be. Rule 0 is not even directed at DMs.

It says nothing about the rules being optional.

Quasqueton

 

[Belen]

I'd still call it misleading to say only that you have a 'core rules only' game and then find out later that it also has no PrC.

In other words:

Core rules only game - means all the core rules, including PrC
Core rules only game minus Prestige Classes - means all core rules except PrC

Etc.

Except the the DMG is the "DungeonMaster's Guide." Core-only means that they players are free to use anything available in the PHB. The DMG is for the DM not the players.

It's that simple.

 

[Belen]

You should probably go back and read what that "Rule 0" actually says, and what it actually refers to (and which book it is actually in). It is not what most people claim it to be. Rule 0 is not even directed at DMs.

It says nothing about the rules being optional.

Quasqueton

I keep expecting you to issue warrants of arrest for people who do not play 3e correctly.

 

[Quasqueton]

I keep expecting you to issue warrants of arrest for people who do not play 3e correctly.

I don't know why you keep perpetuating that incorrect concept. I do not care how anyone plays D&D.

For instance, since this thread is about core-only vs. more-than-core, you should note that I've never said anything against anyone using more-than-core. (Although I do note there are insults hurled at core-only players. I don't understand why.) Core-only, official-only, 3rd-party-stuff-included, everything-ever-published, whatever, its all good if the players enjoy it.

I'm just correcting someone when they spout off incorrect "rules". BelenUmeria, you know what Rule 0 actually is. Why do you give me junk for pointing out someone is "quoting" it wrong?

How about laying off the Quas bashing, hmmm?

Quasqueton

 

[Grimstaff]

Um, because it doesn't have rage, bardic music, bardic knowlege, perform , survival or the skill ranks of either?

if you are asking if you can qualify for the eldritch knight prestige class through bard/bararian sure, but the class doesn't by any stretch of the imagination continue the concept. I'm looking at them just fine, don't worry.

Continue the concept? You may be looking at the PRCs just fine, but you're missing the point entirely.