What doesn't belong in the "core"

[Nebulous]

Core races and classes tend to "infect" artwork, supplements, flavor text, examples and settings into assuming they're there, reminding you they're there, and you feel like a grinch telling someone that such and such a class or race doesn't fit your world. Much easier just to make the core classic fantasy type stuff and save the more out there, niche material for a supplement.

that's one (of many) things i hated about the 4e PHB, it was inundated with pictures of Dragonborn, i race i did not care for, yet it was scrawled across half the book, look at our shiny new race, play it and love it! I had to ignore it and disallow it. I'm fine with it being in a supplement.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

WOTC probably don't care, but that would be a dealbreaker for me. I'm secure in the knowledge that I'm not alone though - plenty of people don't share the 4E vision of a D&D world, and might continue to stay away if eladrin and dragonborn make a reappearance. It would bollocks up any attempt they made to reissue FR or GH too - retcons ahoy, again, and goodbye enthusiasts for those settings again.

Dragonborn... ok... but eladrin are a very good addition... maybe better folded into elves... and their teleporting ability stripped off...

 

[The Halfling]

Dragonborn... ok... but eladrin are a very good addition... maybe better folded into elves... and their teleporting ability stripped off...

Then what would be the point of including eladrin? What is so horrible about having an extra-planar, faerie-like being able to teleport short distances that sets people off so much?

Strip that way, and you are right back to the Baskin-Robbins elf.

If that is the case, then take the 4E Deva, and rename it eladrin. Otherworldly knowledge and a penchant for reincarnation, like the LotR's Noldor.

I've played since Basic myself, and I much prefer the mix of old and new that 4e had. The lost of the gnome and half-orc, at least initially, didn't kill D&D. Gnomes were so poorly defined in 1-3E they the hiche they originally filled could be easily filled by dwarves and halflings. 4e and Pathfinder's reimaging when a long way in ging gnomes a reason to exist.

 

[Mallus]

There are two different "cores" here.

The first is the "mechanical core". Things like the assumption miniatures and a battle map will be used. I wholeheartedly agree this should be kept as simply as possible, ie maps and minis are an option, but not required by the combat mechanics. Just like early D&D.

Then there's the "aesthetic core". The default flavor of the game, established by the races, monsters, implied setting details, etc.

This should be nutty kitchen-sink fantasy, with Howard-esque barbarians, vaguely Tolkien-esque rangers, pseudo-Vancian wizards with spells that make them into pseudo-Green Lanterns, and refugees from 1970s kung-fu movies fighting giants, dinosaurs, ninja, 20 different types of mold/fungi, Jello Cubes, floating eyeballs, ghosts, and robots, in baroque, batty underground deathtraps and the occasional crashed spaceship.

Just like in early D&D.

Really, if weird, kitchen-sink fantasy isn't part of D&D's "core", then nothing is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then what would be the point of including eladrin? What is so horrible about having an extra-planar, faerie-like being able to teleport short distances that sets people off so much?

Strip that way, and you are right back to the Baskin-Robbins elf.

If that is the case, then take the 4E Deva, and rename it eladrin. Otherworldly knowledge and a penchant for reincarnation, like the LotR's Noldor.

I've played since Basic myself, and I much prefer the mix of old and new that 4e had. The lost of the gnome and half-orc, at least initially, didn't kill D&D. Gnomes were so poorly defined in 1-3E they the hiche they originally filled could be easily filled by dwarves and halflings. 4e and Pathfinder's reimaging when a long way in ging gnomes a reason to exist.

Sorry, but what?

I have no problems with Eladrin as is... but teleportation at level 1 as default seems like no good idea to me.
I could however accept a "shiftlike power: short trip to the feywild and return on a different place. But not automatically escaping bounds and grabs"
It is the teleportation that rubs people the wrong way...

 

[Andor]

Wacky weapons and equipment such as double-ended swords, spiked chains, glowsticks and gluebags.

I'll buy this. Basically any weapon that would make Jackie Chan stop and cock his head like a german shepard that heard a funny noise should belong in the "Dragonlance gnome engineering source book."

Classes which lack a solid fantasy archetype (e.g. mystic theurge, warlord).

Really? A warlord doesn't seem fantasy enough for you? Or historical for that matter? I'll grant the 4e approach of "I'll yell you healthy" is off for most worlds but "Good Leader" is going too far?

Classes that are setting specific like a FR spellfire weilder should not be in the base book. Classes that depend on non-core, weird, or rarely used mechanics like Incarnum should not be in the base book.

Any class that doesn't break suspension of disbelief for generic fantasy world however is ok, imho, even if none of the 9 Walkers had that title on his name badge.

Races which aren't classic fantasy enough to belong in every D&D world (e.g. warforged, dragonborn).

Self-defeating argument. I've seen D&D games with no race but humans, I've seen games with no humans. There simply is no race list that will please everyone, or fit every campaign.

Statements about the implied setting which don't apply in many worlds (e.g. such and such race is from an empire, the god of jails is evil for some reason without specifying what setting is being referred to etc).

Agreed.

 

[enrious]

Yeah, well, WOTC have a choice as to whether they're making "4E Take 2: Electric Boogaloo" or not, and including the 4E implied setting in the core would more or less ensure that IMO. We'll see.

I'm afraid that if you believe that the inclusion of easily removed items (and ones popular with other players) will be a deal breaker for you in terms of adopting 5e, you may wish to consider opting out now and saving yourself grief and heartache down the road.

Truthfully, that advice is valid for anyone running a game of any edition. The designers are unlikely (and foolish) to cater to any single player's checklist.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm afraid that if you believe that the inclusion of easily removed items (and ones popular with other players) will be a deal breaker for you in terms of adopting 5e, you may wish to consider opting out now and saving yourself grief and heartache down the road.

Truthfully, that advice is valid for anyone running a game of any edition. The designers are unlikely (and foolish) to cater to any single player's checklist.

I don't know that it's a matter of "likelihood" or "foolishness" it is simply an impossibility.

As, appropriately, stated in the "people will be disappointed" thread, there is just no way to create a "new D&D" that will be all things to all players. Or, as you rightly state, include all things that all players want.

We must all revel in the possibilities of what might be and hope for the best.

Anything that anyone is proposing in these '5e" threads is just that, hopes and dreams until we have an actual edition on our tables.

The "edition hate/bolstering" and personal preferences/opinons of these threads is best left...well, just left. We don't know yet...and it's fun to say "what if?" until we have something solid to compare those preferences/opinions to.

I notice a distinct disparity of opinions within the community (even before the edition is done!) with what people hope to see for flavor/fluff and what people hope to see for rules/"crunch". It is, undoubtedly, to be expected. After all, we have 30-some years of different editions, games, preferences, systems, sub-systems, setting, rules, etc. etc. that are being reviewed by everyone.

Neither/None are "correct/wrong." Everything is valid/fair game at this point. One person's "silly" or "forget this" is another person's "must have/be in."

That said, and getting back on point, I don't see anything I disagree with the OP's initial post. But I also am not going to say "I'll never pick it up" if these things don't (or do) come to pass when [EDIT] not "when", until [/edit] we have an actual edition on the shelves.

Have fun and happy gaming, however/whatever that means for you and yours.
--Steel Dragons

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, I think warlord is a solid fantasy archetype (orc warchiefs, bandit kings, dragon highlords from Dragonlance, King Theoden, etc.), but I can agree generally that you should have the most resonant archetypes in the core set.

But some people like crazygonuts options, and if you'd abandon a game just because it gives you an option to play a reptilian humanoid*, or a faerie**, or a magical blacksmith***, well, I think you're overreacting. They're all classic fantasy archetypes. Don't exclude something just because it wasn't in the original D&D rules as a player option in 1974.

* Tons of Conan stories had these, and Dragonlance's draconians were pretty close to dragonborn.
** Just about every culture has creatures that live in the woods and can vanish in one spot and reappear some place else.
*** Dwarves forge amazing weapons and armor all the time. Alchemists make potions. I'm sure there was a sword & sorcery story written with beasts made of iron.

 

[RangerWickett]

Now, that said, I do think aesthetics are VERY important. Weird races should be an option, but should be depicted sparingly. It's fine if there's a dragonborn swordmage wielding a spiked chain in your home game, and even in a particular adventure, but try to minimize the amount of gonzo in the artwork.