4E "Core"

[thecasualoblivion]

Is it me, or has 4E rather successfully created the acceptance of almost every bit of material released for it as "Core". Between the splats released and 3PP books for 3E, there was a big emphasis on the "Core 3" books. Many people only viewed those 3(PHB, MM, DMG) as core and everything else as an optiona and separatel add-on. Reading comments from people who regularly play 4E, there doesn't seem to be the same line between the first three books and supplemental material. Supplemental material, be it from splats like Arcane Power or from Dragon Magazine, seems to be almost universally accepted among 4E players. When I do see people talking about "4E Core" being limited to the first three books, it is typically by people on the outside as opposed to 4E players.

Its kind of funny where Dragon magazine articles seem more widely accepted by 4E players than Complete Adventurer/Arcane/Divine/Warrior were by 3E players.

There can be many reasons for this, one being the DDI making the management of a pile of books easier, supplemental material being more integrated into the game due to its design, ect.

 

[malraux]

Does it really matter what the definition of core is? Why is core such an important word?

On the more substantive point, I think this time WotC has better balanced mechanics across the product line which helps significantly. Second, yeah, the DDi really really helps manage lots of information. In 3e if a particular splat didn't have its info created into a plug-in for DM Genie I wasn't interested in it, regardless of how cool the splat was. Managing a character sheet via pencil and paper is drudgery to me.

 

[Squizzle]

Every time someone dredges up a topic that was flame warred to death eight or more months ago, that person should have their genitals struck with a cat o' nine tails.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it me, or has 4E rather successfully created the acceptance of almost every bit of material released for it as "Core".

4e has created the impression that every bit of material is "core."

The acceptance of this impression has varied pretty wildly.

4e created this impression by essentially stating that products released in future books would be supported in books further down the line -- that there is potentially supplemental material for everything. This defines "core" as "stuff that will get supplemented," which is a fair enough definition.

The implication of "core" as "essential to play the game as it is meant to be played," is still strong, too. From a business standpoint, this creates a demand for anything that is considered core in the collectors: they'll want it, because the impression is that it is necessary: WotC assumes you have it, so you need to have it, or you'll miss out on this awesome stuff supporting it that comes later!

Now, it's not technically necessary to have books beyond the DMG and PHB to play (the DMG gives you monster design guidelines, so you don't need the MM). In previous editions, you needed the three basic books. This impression of "core" also isn't going away anytime soon. A lot of people still speak of the three main books as prerequisite, and anything else as supplementary. The PHBII is a splat, regardless of what it says on the cover. It's just another book of options, not a "core" book in the original sense of the world.

"Core" is a confused term right now. It means different things depending on the use of the word.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Every time someone dredges up a topic that was flame warred to death eight or more months ago, that person should have their genitals struck with a cat o' nine tails.

I honestly was not aware of this. Must have missed that one. I just brought this up because this whole "core" thing and acceptance of supplemental material was being discussed in threads I have been following here.

 

[Remathilis]

Here's why.

3e was created fresh off the steaming remains of 2nd edition which, by the end of it, was great a cross-referencing itself into virtual obscurity. For example, the second edition book Faiths and Avatars (about the FR gods) routinely metioned not only the FR boxset and 2e core-books, but PO: Spells & Magic, the Magic Item Compendium Series, the Wizard & Priest Spellbook series, Tome of Magic (for new domains) and references to occasional monsters in obscure FR tomes. The references weren't "unneeded" either; it was common for a speciality priest to grant "At X level, a SP of DEITY can cast Y spell (Wizard Spell Compendium) 1/day", without reprinting the spell in question.

By the time they finished, modules, supplements, and setting books cross-referenced so much material (sometimes out of print; hello OA-monk!) that you needed a dozen or so books just to run things as-is!

So 3e began with the concept of "3 books, everything else is optional" as a method of eliminating the piles of cross-referencing. If Prestige X needed Feat Y (printed in supplement Z) we're reprinting Y in the book. (Exceptions came from setting supplements, such as Eberron books that assumed you had the Eberron Campaign Setting and didn't reprint WF everytime). So you didn't need Complete Warrior to run a fighter in Red Hand of Doom, nor would the Courage Domain in CW reference a spell found in Complete Divine.

(At about year 6 of 3e, this trend began to wear down. Too much stuff was designed "in bubble" and didn't take into account stuff from other supplements, creating Pun-Pun like rule holes where supplements crossed over each other. It also lead to some redundancy (two feats doing the same job in two different sourcebooks), some contradiction (check out the community domain; its never reprinted the same-way twice) and eventually a feeling that supplemental stuff was "better" than core stuff. WotC began using cross-referencing at the end (Magic Item Compendium, for example, references Spell Compendium heavily) but overall, it never got to the level of craziness 2e's books did.)

4e is going back to the "everything is fair game" method with two cavaets; 1.) the DDi Compendium/Programs gives easy access to such rules, making things easy to find and 2.) the power-nature of 4e means rarely does a rule have have referenced without the relevant material of it (aka how it works) being next to it. For example, a monster that uses a fireball attack doesn't need to cross-reference the power "fireball", it prints the parameters in the stat-block.

However, after 8 years of "You only need the core 3 to use this supplement", 4e's "everything is kosher" method feels odd to some.

 

[Thasmodious]

Does it really matter what the definition of core is? Why is core such an important word?

It's not.

But I think the central point of relaxedarmageddon's post is this -

"Reading comments from people who regularly play 4E, there doesn't seem to be the same line between the first three books and supplemental material."

Which I think is true. DDI is a big part of why. Everything is available to you, everything is in the CB and presented as options of equal weight. But it's just part. Another big part is just the way the edition is being organized. We knew from the beginning that the PHB would be a numbered series. The books aren't presented as "here's the three you need and a whole bunch of supplements" but as an ongoing collection of essentials. I like the organization, its easy to understand and weight. One series for classes, one series for monsters, one supplement book per completed power source, two books per campaign setting.

 

[JeffB]

I know for my own part I am FAR more accepting of material beyond the "1" series, than I was in 3E. I think it's because:

A) I feel that because powers/PC's/items, etc all work in much more similar way it's easy to "spot check" for problems...

which leads to

B) game is more easily handled on my (DM) side of the table-period.

AND

C) because I think the 4E designers have a FAR better grasp of the rules than the 3E (and 3E 3pp) designers did. They have built a much better framework to work within and even around to a certain extent.

Not to mention-I find most of the "fluff" surrounding the new crunch to be far more interesting to me this time around-it "fits" better into the types of campaigns I run, not to mention much of the new has inspired me to do things I've not done before to incorporate it-especially as regards PC classes.


I'm sure someone will tell me I'm completely wrong, but no doubt thats my story and I'm sticking to it

 

[Dice4Hire]

Very charged topic.

I do not think the OP's impression that it is 'accepted' is really valid. I think those that use the DDI character builder, which lumps Dragon, PHB, etc, etc, etc, etc into one mass of data find it easy to use feats, pwoers, and such from a wide variety of sources, but WOTC's cross referencing things between the DDI and printed books is very annoying to me, as a non-DDI subscriber.

Examples:
Arcane Power. The swordmage section was useless to me as I did not buy the FR book the base class is in.
PHB Miniatures. Those power cards are 'core' for DDI people, but how about for those who did not buy the packs?
Dragon articles: Leaving aside the balance issues of feats there, when will these feats and powers and things be available outside DDI? The dragon compendium was terrible for crunch.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again now, that the DDI is causing a pretty big rift in the 4E community and I forsee it getting worse as more things are available only in the DDI confines, things that will not be printed in books as they are already 'Core'.

But I expect no changes, but it really hurts my liking of 4E and desire to support it. IMHO

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Very charged topic.

I do not think the OP's impression that it is 'accepted' is really valid. I think those that use the DDI character builder, which lumps Dragon, PHB, etc, etc, etc, etc into one mass of data find it easy to use feats, pwoers, and such from a wide variety of sources, but WOTC's cross referencing things between the DDI and printed books is very annoying to me, as a non-DDI subscriber.

how is this any diffrent then If in 3.5 I don't own complete arcane/Complete mage, and Bo9S...but you do...well You have classes and feats and spells I do not... does that me that it will cause a rift if I sit down to play my Necromancer, and you sit down to play your warblade/Warlock... or when you suggest I take reserve feats???

Examples:
Arcane Power. The swordmage section was useless to me as I did not buy the FR book the base class is in.

yes, if you did not have PHB2 the bard would be as well.

PHB Miniatures. Those power cards are 'core' for DDI people, but how about for those who did not buy the packs?

Again does that mean if you don't own Arcane power the summoner wizard build is a problem??

I have said it before, and I'll say it again now, that the DDI is causing a pretty big rift in the 4E community and I forsee it getting worse as more things are available only in the DDI confines, things that will not be printed in books as they are already 'Core'.

so you buy X or not, don't complain becuse you never bought X it should not be used or core...or else again what if you substiute PHB2 for DDI, if you don't buy it you don't have it...

But I expect no changes, but it really hurts my liking of 4E and desire to support it. IMHO

I really wish someone would explaine the diffrence between not owning a book and not buying DDI, both are a choice, both means you lack something someone else may have...