3e Core Viability vs. 4e " Core " Viability

This is not meant to be an edition war type of topic; only a comparison between the basic three books from each edition as a " complete package " in comparison to their expanded forms.

Let me begin by saying that I have yet to actually purchase the 4e Books, though I have played 4e and am familiar with how it works. A problem I am feeling though, when I think about eventually getting to the point where I buy in, is that it seems that it is a lot harder to say, " Screw it, we're just sticking with Core, " in 4e. That is, 4e is more of a " complete package " rather than a kernel with optional additions.

Regardless, I think the problem is likely more pronounced with veteran players rather than new ones. My question, I guess, is: If you were playing 3e, would you feel less hard done by if the DM decided to call Core only than if you were playing 4e and the DM said the same thing?

As I said, this is not meant as an edition war. I am rather committed to 4e myself, it just seems that the " buy in " is more substantive than it used to be. Especially since, as a big Eberron fan, to get all the elements from the 3e version of the setting I am going to need like, PHB1, 2, 3, DMG 1-?, MM 1-?, Metallic Draconomicon, and the Eberron books themselves. Plus, you know, a spattering of whatever else because of how spread out 4e is. And, if any of the stuff that used to be in 3e Eberron is only on DDI, then DDI ( and I am not a big fan of electronic content ).

(Well, maybe not PHB 3. I never got the XPH, though that was because I could use the SRD. I probably should still pick it up at some point, if I could find a copy in good condition.)

Kaodi said:

If you were playing 3e, would you feel less hard done by if the DM decided to call Core only than if you were playing 4e and the DM said the same thing?

Click to expand...

DM side of the table:
In my last 3.5 campaign, I allowed kitchen sink in, and regretted every moment I did. I vowed next time that I would lock it down to core. Right now we are playing Pathfinder, which is pretty much core only as there aren't any options.

In my last 4E campaign, I allowed kitchen sink in, and had no problems with it at all. I can't say if it was DDI because I wasn't using it, but the players all used the Character builder, had their sheets with all the data printed out and nothing seemed game breaking to me.

Player side of the table:
3.x: Heck yah I would want to be able to play my psionic warrior if I felt the story called for it, or a prestige class I wanted, or a spell... but the DM gets to say no if they want, and I would respect it.

4e: Heck yah, I would want all the options opened to me. Core only (by your definition, the first three books... not what I consider core btw), is too limiting in terms of choices. If I were to define Core 4e, I would say all the printed books are core, and the dragon magazine stuff not... but that is my definition. Didn't WoTC say "Everything is core"? I can't recall.

I think it's largely one of perception, although not entirely so. The feeling I get from the 4E books is that the designers are really getting a better handle on the game as they go along, so that newer books are often very desirable. The core books were somewhat conservatively written; the newer books show them testing out the boundaries of the system and moving into new areas of design space.

Could I run a campaign of 4e using only the core books? I certainly could, but a lot of the richness that 4e has gained would be lost. Supplements work because they do enrich the experience.

Going from 3.5E + all books back to just 3.5E would also be a strange experience. I think there's no doubt that in base 3E, the wizard and cleric are richer characters than in base 4E, just due to the number and variety of spells available. Contrariwise, the fighter and thief are richer in 4e... However, you tend to concentrate on what the magic-using characters are doing.

When my 3.5e Ulek campaign finished at about 16th level, we had characters from a wide variety of sources: XPH, Magic of Incarnum, Complete Adventurer and so on. If I'd started a base 3.5e campaign directly afterwards, yes, it definitely would have not felt as rich.

Likewise, I could run a 3.5e Eberron campaign with just the Eberron book and the base three 3.5e books, but again, I'd know that there was a lot of other great material out there.

Cheers!

Me personally?

Yup.

But that is quite possibly just because I find most of the core options so exceptionally tedious in 4e, whereas I didn't feel that way in 3e.

If I was brand spankin' new to RPG's, I might not find 4e's core set tedious.

It also doesn't help that 4e's secondary and tertiary things add much-needed improvements onto the core. In 3e, there was a truckload of new options, but those didn't change the dynamic of the core books much.

Kamikaze Midget said:

It also doesn't help that 4e's secondary and tertiary things add much-needed improvements onto the core. In 3e, there was a truckload of new options, but those didn't change the dynamic of the core books much.

Click to expand...

I'd say 3e's option books changed it in very fundamental ways -- from the early errata to Druid Wildshape, to adding various ways you could stack up the high criticals, to the god-spells that were harm, disintegrate and mass haste - some were good, some were god awful, a mixed bag really. If you look at the errata of the two, both were pretty extensive in terms of how they affected their respective game play.

As for which one stands better core-only? Still original 3e - mainly because of the array of player options in the PH alone.

3.5, on the other hand, I think was a better balanced set of core, except for the druid errata, which (once again) unbalanced druids at the time. I still haven't seen a version of 3E that made druids "just right." I like the 4e druid's shaprechanging because it's not unbalanced, but I don't like the flavor of their spells. I'd rather he just have killed the shaman and took his stuff somehow.

There are two elements here that we should not confuse:

A) Restricting PC options for story integrity ("No elves in my campaign world")

vs.

B) Restricting PC options for game balance reasons ("Psionics is teh broken!")

Whenever you limit your players, make sure that you are clear about which one of the reasons you have.

A) depends very much on your game, some DMs like very classic Tolkienesque fantasy with elves, dwarves and hobbits, others like to experiment more. Even others like to do something completely different and ban classic archetypes like elves. It's important that you try to encourage your players to come up with creative, interesting PCs. Try to guide them to working within your vision of the campaign world.

B) has two elements to it: First of all, if a player comes up with an unusual PC, say, a 3rd edition binder, the DM has to have a general idea how a Binder works. It's perfectly understandable if a DM doesn't want to have that kind of hassle. If it's a player you trust, you could probably let him play one and figure things out by himself, but if he's Steve the munchkin, feel free to say no.
Of course, if Steve is the munchkin he is, he can play a "core" druid, wizard or cleric and wipe the floor with anything anyway.

4th edition is somewhat more easy on the DM because there is less experimentation within the rules (yet). Classes are better balanced to each other to begin with, and even classes from later splatbooks don't come up with completely new subsystems in the same way as 3rd edition.

Henry said:

3.5, on the other hand, I think was a better balanced set of core, except for the druid errata, which (once again) unbalanced druids at the time. I still haven't seen a version of 3E that made druids "just right." I like the 4e druid's shaprechanging because it's not unbalanced, but I don't like the flavor of their spells. I'd rather he just have killed the shaman and took his stuff somehow.

Click to expand...

It's worth noting how much of a power boost Fighters got in PHB2 in 3.5e; it was very noticeable at the higher levels as it got incorporated into my Age of Worms campaign. Above 10th level, PHB2 became something of a "must-have".

Cheers!

Core 3e, never a problem.

Core 4e, just couldn't do it.

Core 3e ok but I would have to ask what the DM meant by core 4e as it would be obvious that the DM wants to restrict option but not how.
I think that restricting 4e is not nexessary by the way, I have not done it and so far have not had any problems.
I did not restrict 3e either, my way is the let the player try anything and if it becomes a problem discuss it with the group.
That said I was never comfortable DM'ing 3.x and even though I enjoyed it as a player I did not have fun as a DM.

I would be happy to play in a good game with either system as core only and equally happy to play any edition prior to these with core only.

Extended menus of mechanical options are not required for a good game IMHO.