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

[Remathilis]

I used to be a near-kitchen sink 3.5-er (Towards the end, I didn't allow new systems like ToB or ToM) but switching to Pathfinder has given me a new respect for core. In fact, Core + APG playtests IS my current PF game.

In 4e, I found I couldn't stay core for long. Too many options were missing. No bard, monk, gnome, half-orc, or druid. V shape classes ALL looked the same (your choice for powers was: which one is my prime. I'll take that one) and those who weren't still felt very samey and flat. Oh, and the MM lacked 1/3rd of the monsters I wanted, the magic-item selection in the PHB was a joke (I called AV the 4th core book) and the game felt, for all purposes, 1/2 done using just the 1st set of books.

Things improved after PHB2, MM2, and AV2, but by that point I'd have sunk $200 into the game to make it feel "playable", and I'd need another 100 to get the -Power books to give a character any sort of diversity. :-/

Granted, I found 3.5 core dull as dishwater also, but it was a functional dull. I didn't feel I was missing anything, I just knew there was "more interesting" stuff out there. In 4e, I always felt I was missing things.

PF did an even BETTER job of making 3e feel "complete" (though I think it could use more cleric domains) and the proof is so far, no one (save one player) has complained about the "core only" thing yet. My players using just the PHB would have balked months ago...

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

The thing about 4E is that the game is built on a really small core set of rules that are well balanced, and it's really, really, really easy to change or expand on them yourself if you don't like what the RAW say.

The core mechanic, the golden rule, is so elegant. If your character has a chance to fail you roll a d20. Add modifiers as the DM rules and compare the result to the DM's target DC. If the result is equal to or greater than the DC you succeed.

Boom! The core of 4E.

For characters, you can just give them six ability scores using the standard array, let them add +2 to two of the scores (or use the human rule), and you are able to calculate defenses and HP (I'd say HP equals twice Con score). Roleplay powers as you see fit using the expected damage table (with Rules Updates or not).

Boom! You have the character rules in a paragraph. Races, Classes, Powers, Skills, Feats, Combat are all just extrapolations of that paragraph and the golden rule.

For challenges and monsters, use page 42 for expected DC and damage.

Accuracy for characters and monsters should be 2-5 higher than the target defense.

Boom! You basically have the DMG and MM in two sentences and a couple tables.

I just don't think you can do anything similar with 3rd, and this is why I love 4E so very much.

All that said, my favorite character and campaign of all time came from my time playing 3rd as Tikkchik Fen Tikktikk, Gnome Sorcerer, and I only used the 3.5 PHB1 to create and play him. I never ran 3rd and haven't played 4E.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

I should add that I think the 4E DMG1 and DMG2 are so good they should be owned and read and reread by anyone who referees RPGs.

 

[Rolflyn]

I've played both 3.0 and 3.5 games where the only non-core elements were some monsters. And I would gladly do it again. In fact, the 3E kitchen sink games seemed to fall apart quite quickly, so I'd rather do core than kitchen. I'd prefer a limited book set maybe slightly larger than pure core.

I can't imagine playing 4E without PHB2 as either DM or player. 4E kitchen sink games seem to be the norm, and work out okay. With the character builder, it seems harder to remove large amounts of books.

 

[Obryn]

The issues which led me to declare Core-Only (or, much more commonly, Core + Setting Book only) games in 3e have mostly disappeared in 4e. I'll grant that there's still the economic issue, but DDI nets you about 95% of the mechanics without the huge cash burden.

I didn't want to lug around and cross-reference books, and deal with rules scattered all over the place which I'd have to look up during play. DDI and Character Builder have taken care of almost all of this. Power cards have taken care of the rest.

There could be balance issues with some combos or options, if I allowed everything. (*cough* Yak-Men as PCs *cough*) The dedication to updates and errata has largely fixed this for me.

New options tended to make spellcasters - especially divine ones - disproportionately more powerful. With the power system, this isn't much of a concern for me. In 3.5, my most problematic book was the Spell Compendium, for example.

While 4e PHB-only is definitely workable, I think it contains some mechanics which, in hindsight, are pretty bad. I'd pity someone who wanted to play a Strength-based Paladin. 4e is simply a much better game, when non-core* books are allowed.

-O


*Here, I'm using "core" to mean "The initial rulebook release of PHB, DMG, and MM."

 

[Kobold Boots]

So not really related to anything and just putting 2 cents in.

I ran 1e AD&D for 8+ years. I considered myself a systems master of that system because I grew up with it.

I ran 2e AD&D briefly because my campaigns never took off as I was doing long-haired band stuff or long-haird SPO stuff. I considered myself a luddite with those rules but I heard and felt that they were good regardless.

The whole GM feel/gut thing developed here.

I ran 3e and 3.5 for 5+ years with some very large and diverse groups (multiple) because I had some time to do it and access to run things at a good sized game store with ample players. I was also larping so I had some real rpers sitting at my home table when I wasn't at the store.. I felt that 3.0 and 3.5 were impossible to master efficiently as there was always another way to unbalance any attempt to balance a game.

Therefore I accepted the kitchen sink approach, minimized combats to only the ones that furthered plot and kept people busy letting them all be cool. It resulted in good times but other than rolling a d20 and the level progressions it didn't feel like I was playing D&D

So I took some 3 years off from D&D when that campaign ended and I got drawn into 4E after being asked to DM again and finding that a new edition had been released. Here's the logic thread.

1. F*** they put out a new edition. I have all the 3.5 books. What's the sunset on 3.5?
2. F*** it's not being continued. Double F*** there's this Pathfinder S*** out.
3. My buddy is into Pathfinder.. This means there's no way that it's cool.. at all.*

*Note the above is not intended as a slant against PF, it's just my buddy in question is a major prop (Prop: Definition, looks like a tool, but has no use or purpose, is useless, hence a stage prop.. shortened to prop.). If I had been turned on to PF by a lesser tool then maybe I'd have a different reaction.

4. Lets look at 4E, I'll dl an illegal copy and erase it once I have an opinion.
5. Read the copy and deleted it. I already had a copy of D20 Everquest. That stated, something stuck with me in the way the combats and powers worked.

6. Realized that the power progression was just abstracted Vancian and grabbed a copy of the PH. Rolled up some characters and fought them.
7. Bought the DMG and MM1.. invited friends over. The rest is history.

Now here's my take after all that.

1. 4E is a dream to run and easy to pick up much like other editions were.
2. Players can't mess up game balance without really trying hard. I can go kitchen sink without fear and have tested this theory privately with crazy character combos via DDI. This makes me happy like no edition of 3 could.

3. This edition feels like 1E to me and will likely moreso once Essentials comes out.

Your mileage may vary. I'm converted. I'm a grognard playing 4e.

So the core question:

1E - entirely playable as core only but no one did once they had Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures.
2E - entirely playable as core only but no one did once they had a splatbook.
3E - entirely playable as core only but no one did once they had the second phb or a complete handbook.
4E - not meant to be played with just the core, can be played but is advanced greatly by the other books.

Considering the trend in the first three editions, do you blame them in 4e for building what the players were doing anyway?

 

[Greg K]

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?

I have no problem with the DM declaring core only for any edition. It is their choice. My only real issue for 4e would be that several things from past editions (e.g., certain races and classes, domains, familiars, illusions) are introduced in various supplements as are some interesting builds for cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord.

* for DM to tailor the divine classes to the campaign's deities.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've played core only in both editions, and I don't think either was any more or less 'complete' than the other. I do think that 4e DMs have much less reason to stay core than 3e DMs do.

4e is getting a bit of the inevitable power creep, but all options are essentially viable and balanced. So the only reason to ban a source wholesale is "this doesn't belong in my campaign." The CB makes doing that feel a bit icky though.

3e on the other hand, has balance issues all over the place. The best and worst may very well be in the PHB, but at least one book is easier to familiarize one's self with than a dozen splats. 3e splatbooks also tend to fundamentally change how PCs work in a way that even 4e psionics don't. Especially when it comes to magic; a core only DM only has to know vancian casting. But a splat DM might have to know psionics (to avoid the infamous psionic supernova problem that causes all the "psionics is teh broken!" complaints). S/he might also have to know incarnum, all three magic systems from the Tome of Magic, or any of a dozen other minor variations. It's no wonder that no 3e kitchen sink DM stays that way for long! (I speak from experience.)

I never understood why they didn't fix that with 3.5. Could it have really hurt Monte Cook's pride so much to give Rogues Weapon Finesse for free at first level, to remove their complete uselessness in melee combat!?

Amen!

Feat taxes aren't just a 4e problem.

 

[Stalker0]

Imo the Core 3e books are more of a complete set than the 4e ones, and that mainly stems from their different models.

In 3e, you can build any character you want with a combination of classes and feats. The flexible multiclassing allows you to build a great number of archetypes. However, the flip side is that some combinations may be particularly powerful or weak.

4th edition attempts to build each individual archetype as a particular class build. While there is some multiclass flexibility, it is far more limited than 3rd. 4e's style allows the potential for more balanced archetypes....but by its very nature it requires more material to fill in the archetype gaps.

 

[Aegeri]

IMHO the most broken stuff in 3.5e was in the PHB.

The most underpowered stuff was in there, too.

In all fairness, this is true of 4E as well as the most powerful elements in 4E are also in the PHB (Bloodmage, Daggermaster, Pit Fighter, Archmage, Twin Strike and similar). The difference is the "overpowered" elements in 4E are not as directly game breaking as those in 3.5. While "underpowered" stuff isn't utterly irredeemably terrible.