Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kerbarian" data-source="post: 3814279" data-attributes="member: 40393">That was the first thing I thought of when listening to the podcast bit about frost giants being left out.&nbsp; He pretty much outright stated that that's what they're doing -- intentionally leaving out iconic monsters so that people will be more likely to buy the subsequent MMs.After thinking about it a bit, I'm still annoyed by the approach, but I'm not too concerned about it.&nbsp; I've always thought of &quot;core only&quot; as a constraint the DM places on the players, not a constraint the DM places on himself.&nbsp; It's not nice to let the bad guys use rules that you're not giving the PCs access to, so generally the DM wants to stick to core only in those cases, too, but monsters are an exception.&nbsp; If I were playing a core-only campaign and the BBEG had levels in a non-core prestige class that I had wanted to use, I'd feel a little cheated.&nbsp; OTOH, if I were playing in a core campaign, and we ran into some creatures from MM3, I wouldn't bat an eye.Basically, I'm fine with treating core as PH1, DMG1, and as many MMs as the DM feels like using.&nbsp; In practice, that's what it's always been for me anyway.The problem is, of course, that this strategy probably isn't limited to the MM.&nbsp; We'll probably be missing some iconic magic items from the DMG1, and we know we'll probably be missing some previously-core classes and races from the PH1.For the PH1 in particular, though, they're not going to try this stunt to any significant degree.&nbsp; They're not going to leave out dwarves or wizards just so you have to buy the PH2 for their rules.&nbsp; The PH1 will determine the momentum (or not) of 4e, and they're going to make it the best book they can, to hook the largest possible number of 3e (or earlier) players on the new cycle of books.&nbsp; As such, I suspect the PH1 will serve pretty well as &quot;core&quot; for players who don't want to deal with an endless stream of new books (i.e. the same people who play core-only in 3e).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kerbarian, post: 3814279, member: 40393"] That was the first thing I thought of when listening to the podcast bit about frost giants being left out. He pretty much outright stated that that's what they're doing -- intentionally leaving out iconic monsters so that people will be more likely to buy the subsequent MMs. After thinking about it a bit, I'm still annoyed by the approach, but I'm not too concerned about it. I've always thought of "core only" as a constraint the DM places on the players, not a constraint the DM places on himself. It's not nice to let the bad guys use rules that you're not giving the PCs access to, so generally the DM wants to stick to core only in those cases, too, but monsters are an exception. If I were playing a core-only campaign and the BBEG had levels in a non-core prestige class that I had wanted to use, I'd feel a little cheated. OTOH, if I were playing in a core campaign, and we ran into some creatures from MM3, I wouldn't bat an eye. Basically, I'm fine with treating core as PH1, DMG1, and as many MMs as the DM feels like using. In practice, that's what it's always been for me anyway. The problem is, of course, that this strategy probably isn't limited to the MM. We'll probably be missing some iconic magic items from the DMG1, and we know we'll probably be missing some previously-core classes and races from the PH1. For the PH1 in particular, though, they're not going to try this stunt to any significant degree. They're not going to leave out dwarves or wizards just so you have to buy the PH2 for their rules. The PH1 will determine the momentum (or not) of 4e, and they're going to make it the best book they can, to hook the largest possible number of 3e (or earlier) players on the new cycle of books. As such, I suspect the PH1 will serve pretty well as "core" for players who don't want to deal with an endless stream of new books (i.e. the same people who play core-only in 3e). [/QUOTE]

Verification