D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[CM]

What is this about everything is core?

Basically, 5 years ago some of the 4e developers stated that in 4e, everything will be core. One of the first examples of this was the Swordmage class, which appeared in the FR Player's Guide. Despite the fact that it appeared in a campaign setting book, it still received support (new powers) in generic supplements such as Arcane Power. In the end, it didn't really amount to much more than a marketing gimmick, but as you can see there are still a lot of people offended by it.

Here are a few threads on the subject that are more chronologically relevant:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246500-what-meant-saying-d-d-4th-edition-everything-core.html

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[slobster]

I find it funny we are having a debate about whether something is considered "core" or not in a thread about choices.

To my knowledge, nobody from WotC inspects games to make sure that you are using everything they labelled "core". Never has anyone stopped by and told me "hmm, no playable warforged for PCs in your game . . . wait, that's in the Eberron campaign setting, you're ok. Wait, you have a chaotic neutral monk?! Did you even read the PHB? Give me your DM license!"

I mean if the contention is that houseruling out alignment or race restrictions is so easy that we might as well include it (or its inverse, it's so easy to bring them in that we might as well omit them), I see it as kind of absurd to argue over the application of a simple word to books that we even more easily can use, ignore, or modify.

Nothing about the designation "core" makes the rules therein harder to mess around with. The same with the words "supplement" or "optional".

 

[underfoot007ct]

I can't find an exact quote from WotC, though there was a dust-up when it was first announced because it was (rightly) perceived as a moneygrab from WotC. I can, however, quote Amazon.com:




If you doubt the veracity of this, it is printed on the front of the books themselves.

Yes some books are core but others are NOT. The PHBs. DMGs, & MMs are indeed core. Yet all the other book have the word supplement. So please examine ALL those other books.

No amount of WOTC bashing will change what it has printed on the covers of those books. Please put on your reading glasses then read the word S U P P L E M E N T, then notice the word core is NOT printed on the cover of this this book & most others.

S-U-P-P-L-E-M-E-N-T not core

 

[herrozerro]

Basically, 5 years ago some of the 4e developers stated that in 4e, everything will be core. One of the first examples of this was the Swordmage class, which appeared in the FR Player's Guide. Despite the fact that it appeared in a campaign setting book, it still received support (new powers) in generic supplements such as Arcane Power. In the end, it didn't really amount to much more than a marketing gimmick, but as you can see there are still a lot of people offended by it.

Here are a few threads on the subject that are more chronologically relevant:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246500-what-meant-saying-d-d-4th-edition-everything-core.html

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Im not quite sure how a suppliment giving a suppliment support makes it core.

 

[Piratecat]

Please put on your reading glasses then read the word S U P P L E M E N T, then notice the word core is NOT printed on the cover of this this book & most others.

S-U-P-P-L-E-M-E-N-T not core

Guys, chill. Stop getting angry. If someone disagrees with you or posts something you think is incorrect, politely make your point. Getting rude and sarcastic solves nothing and irritates everyone -- including your moderators. Best to avoid it.

 

[Mika]

Basically, 5 years ago some of the 4e developers stated that in 4e, everything will be core. One of the first examples of this was the Swordmage class, which appeared in the FR Player's Guide. Despite the fact that it appeared in a campaign setting book, it still received support (new powers) in generic supplements such as Arcane Power. In the end, it didn't really amount to much more than a marketing gimmick, but as you can see there are still a lot of people offended by it.

Here are a few threads on the subject that are more chronologically relevant:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246500-what-meant-saying-d-d-4th-edition-everything-core.html

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

"Core" has a variety of meanings and has evolved over time:

1) In the earliest editions, "core" meant the basic rulebooks that every player and DM could be assumed to own. "Everything is core" automatically fails here unless you seriously limit what you publish.

2) In 3rd edition, "Core" became the material reproduced in the SRD and thus freely available for 3rd party publishers to make use of. "Everything is core" can work here if the SRD is routinely updated.

3) In 4th edition, "Core" became whatever the Character Builder supported. "Everything is core" followed automatically once the Character Builder was available and updated on a reliable schedule.

 

[The Shadow]

For me, the entirety of the game rules define setting. I don't feel I need to use them all, but they are there to speak of the world. As such they restrict by defining, but in another light they define ability and so create more freedom by defining.

I grant that the rules can't help but speak to setting. The very existence of the game presumes the existence of dungeons (not an easy thing to explain, really) and of dragons.

The Monster Manual has tons of setting info. The PHB has weapon lists. The existence of a cleric class at all speaks to setting. The fact it can turn undead is a setting point. And so on.

But that can't be helped. Where it can be helped, I want the rules to stay neutral. I don't need or want the rulebook to make assumptions about deities, or about planes of existence, or about the history of my world.

 

[eamon]

The Monster Manual has tons of setting info. The PHB has weapon lists. The existence of a cleric class at all speaks to setting. The fact it can turn undead is a setting point. And so on.

But that can't be helped. Where it can be helped, I want the rules to stay neutral. I don't need or want the rulebook to make assumptions about deities, or about planes of existence, or about the history of my world.

How much setting do you want in your crunch?

For instance: if it were up to you, would the cleric's rules to assume the existence of undead?

 

[Mallus]

I'd like to see the core book(s) address how restrictions can be used to increase flavor/interest/coolness/whatever.

ie, start with the default, traditional LG-only paladin, then list a few variations on the theme, like a CG liberator paladin or a Sith-like CG anti-paladin, plus some sidebar text on ways of combining different sets of restrictions/benefits into new classes (and don't get stuck on "balance" --make it clear these are just suggestions for creating variants). I recall Savage Worlds does something like this, and its a terrific way to write a rule book.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

NO RESTRICTIONS DARNIT!

If I want to play a Wookie accountant/finger-painter/nematologist in a game of Arthurian Chivalry I MUST BE ACCOMMODATED!

(That was irony in case anyone missed it)

Yeah, restrictions are good. They make for a coherent game.