4E "Core"

[malraux]

Are you allowed to play using only the first three books, and if so, what is the term for this type of game? If not, why not?

Yes, you can play with any reasonable combination of books you want. The PHB I contains everything a player needs to make a character and rules for pretty much any situation. The player's don't really need either the DMG or the MM, but the DM can limit himself to those sources and not really have an issue. Since the DMG has rules for monster creation, including it gives the ability to add in new monsters.

As for a term for this game, why does that need a term? Should there be a term for a game that has the PHB I, DMG I, MM I and the AV I? Does each permutation of the combinations of books get its own word? Why not just say that for this game, we are only using the PHB I for characters?

 

[Hussar]

Looking back, there's a very specific reason why 3e had to demark Core so strongly: the OGL. With the HUGE volume of books out there, almost instantly, they had to be able to say, "This is the base of the game, everything else is optional" and then fence that off, to the point where you were not allowed to say Core on any of the extra rule books (ahem Sword and Sorcery Press ahem).

2e, OTOH, as was said, didn't have this. You were expected to have a library of books to play. As each book came out, it was referenced by later books quite often. There was no core. Everything that had the "Official Dungeons And Dragons" seal on it was "core".

1e as well never fenced off any idea of "core". The Unearthed Arcana is referenced in later modules (Isle of the Ape forex) because the assumption is, you are playing with official TSR books, therefore, you should have this book.

4e appears to be going back to the 1e/2e model since there isn't a huge library of 3rd party books that confuse players as to which rules should be followed and which shouldn't. Time will tell if they can keep up the quality to the point where it doesn't cause conflicts and exploits.

 

[malraux]

Looking back, there's a very specific reason why 3e had to demark Core so strongly: the OGL. With the HUGE volume of books out there, almost instantly, they had to be able to say, "This is the base of the game, everything else is optional" and then fence that off, to the point where you were not allowed to say Core on any of the extra rule books (ahem Sword and Sorcery Press ahem).

But core and OGL are not the same thing. Obviously some core stuff was not OGL, like the XP by level vs CR chart or mind flayers. Less obvious though was Unearthed Arcana or Psionics, yet those are clearly not core.

 

[Thanee]

According to WotC, only the first PHB, DMG, MM are Core Game Products (and the dice ).

So the obvious definition of Core is the minimum of official products needed to play.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

For me, the D&D4 Core is made up of all the PHB, DMG, MM books (I, II, ...), plus all the <POWER SOURCE> Power books (and the classes that are listed in those, if they are not from the PHB line; i.e. the Swordmage class), plus all the Adventurer's Vault books.

So, basically the same (equivalent) as with the 3rd Edition.

Bye
Thanee

 

[AllisterH]

Actually, I don't think that 2E refrenced much material outside of the first 3 books.

Campaign specific products would assume you had the BOXED set but until late into Tome of Magic, I don't remember any product say referencing a kit or spell from another book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, I don't think that 2E refrenced much material outside of the first 3 books.

2E materials often referenced spells from every book under the sun. I still don't know the full capabilities of the NPCs in some of the modules I read.

 

[Cyronax]

I think casualoblivion's suggestion that everything produced by WotC in 4E is considered "core" is true in two facets:

- The original 3 books in 4E do not feel complete enough compared to the same 3 books in 3E and so more material was required so that it would feel "core".
- 4E is so mathematically "safe" that it is difficult to conceive of things that work within this framework that are not safely compatible enough that they should not be considered "core"./QUOTE]

1ST:

What is Core? Some now think that 'Core' includes a provision that many DM's provide their players with free feats -- some form of Expertise (melee/implement). I never liked that provision. This has filled previous threads with much vitriol, but I think that its becoming a part of the 4e Core mindset. (i.e. Give your players a feat that makes the 4e math work better with newer supplements, not the RAW).

2ND:

But another factor of core is that DM's probably have a lot less headache with paragon paths, than they did prestige classes. I can generally allow nearly all paragon paths on their faces, because as Herremann the Wise mentiond, the math at least works out right. I might not like how 4e always performs, but I have to admit that I don't have to sit there and comb all the books to create a list of paragon paths that I think are 'rules safe' (like I did with 3.X prestige classes).

C.I.D.

 

[AllisterH]

2E materials often referenced spells from every book under the sun. I still don't know the full capabilities of the NPCs in some of the modules I read.

Strange...Never noticed that other than in the Faith & Avatars series of books. Without Tome of Magic, some specialty priests pretty much lose access to half their spells.

Oh yeah, the Bladesinger kit comes to mind as something I remember seeing outside of the Complete Book of Elves.

You know, I wonder about 1e fans. I never DM (only played, starting DM with 2e) but did the Survival Guides and UA become "core" for them?

 

[Kafen]

But core and OGL are not the same thing. Obviously some core stuff was not OGL, like the XP by level vs CR chart or mind flayers. Less obvious though was Unearthed Arcana or Psionics, yet those are clearly not core.

Yup yup, "Core" was a prefix for a license term more than anything else in the end. So, 4e perception of the word will be subjective for everyone. And, everyone has a take on it. However....

Just a quick food for thought type thing... WOTC terminated the STL. “Core Rulebooks” defines the new IP content under the GSL. Obviously, WOTC can not enforce terms of a contract they voided. How does the STL being void leave "Core Books" as a term?