Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Playtesting in Detail
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6046381" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>I think part of the problem is that there are at least four different definitions of core, at least two of which are used in the article.</p><p></p><p>There's a definition where 'core' simply means "non-setting specific". So, the Cavalier is core because it's not associated with Eberron or Dragonlance. (Of course, in that case the Bladesinger should also be core. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> )</p><p></p><p>There's a definition of 'core' which means "appears in the Core Rulebooks". In which case the Paladin has been core since AD&D 1st Ed, and the Barbarian in 3e. The Cavalier, having come in in UA, has actually not ever been core. But 5e could change that.</p><p></p><p>There's a definition of 'core' which means "the vital elements of the game". Mearls mentions this in his post as some sort of "true core game". In which case it's entirely possible that none of the Paladin, Barbarian, and Cavalier will actually be core - there will likely only be 4 truly 'core' classes under that definition.</p><p></p><p>And there's your definition that core represents "close to original".</p><p></p><p>To be honest, though, I think perhaps it's a bit of a "Humpty Dumpty" term - it means whatever the writer means it to mean when he writes it. I don't really have a problem with that.</p><p></p><p>I do know that WotC have previously mentioned that they want 5e to include all the classes that were core in all previous versions of the game. Technically, that wouldn't include the Cavalier, but I recall that I did find it a little jarring that 3e included the Barbarian but not the Cavalier, so I don't think including it is particularly outrageous. Whether they include it as a class in its own right, as a sub-class of Paladin, as a parent class of Paladin, or as a Fighter build (or even as something else), is open to discussion. My preference would be for fewer, broader classes, but I won't particularly object if they go in the opposite direction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6046381, member: 22424"] I think part of the problem is that there are at least four different definitions of core, at least two of which are used in the article. There's a definition where 'core' simply means "non-setting specific". So, the Cavalier is core because it's not associated with Eberron or Dragonlance. (Of course, in that case the Bladesinger should also be core. :) ) There's a definition of 'core' which means "appears in the Core Rulebooks". In which case the Paladin has been core since AD&D 1st Ed, and the Barbarian in 3e. The Cavalier, having come in in UA, has actually not ever been core. But 5e could change that. There's a definition of 'core' which means "the vital elements of the game". Mearls mentions this in his post as some sort of "true core game". In which case it's entirely possible that none of the Paladin, Barbarian, and Cavalier will actually be core - there will likely only be 4 truly 'core' classes under that definition. And there's your definition that core represents "close to original". To be honest, though, I think perhaps it's a bit of a "Humpty Dumpty" term - it means whatever the writer means it to mean when he writes it. I don't really have a problem with that. I do know that WotC have previously mentioned that they want 5e to include all the classes that were core in all previous versions of the game. Technically, that wouldn't include the Cavalier, but I recall that I did find it a little jarring that 3e included the Barbarian but not the Cavalier, so I don't think including it is particularly outrageous. Whether they include it as a class in its own right, as a sub-class of Paladin, as a parent class of Paladin, or as a Fighter build (or even as something else), is open to discussion. My preference would be for fewer, broader classes, but I won't particularly object if they go in the opposite direction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Playtesting in Detail
Top