Core Rules Only

[Mercule]

Okay, then let us try this on for size we take the fighter and switch out some class skills. We can do that by the core (DMG 174 modifyng character classes). And their examples of doing this are much more extreme then altering a skill list. So, saying it is not possible using only the core rules is not exactly accurate.

I can see what you're saying, and you're technically correct. I really think it's a matter of following the letter of the scenario, rather than the spirit. Just because the rules say it's okay to make houserules doen't make games with houserules "core only".

Of course, I'm coming from a perspective where I've considered using core-only specifically because I'm sick of doing little tweaks, along with the volumes of official supplimental material I can't keep track of.

On the other hand, if I did run core-only, the one exception I could see me making would be to dump paladin, replacing it with swashbuckler. I see the swashbuckler as being an archetype much, much more distinct from rogue/fighter than the paladin is from cleric/fighter. (In fact, I could probably come up with three or for good, non-overlapping arguments for why the paladin should be eliminated as a base class, but that's a completely different discussion.)

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Misunderstood what? There are things in the Wizards own books that can break the game.

I said regularly, and I meant it.

There are people who believe that Wizards of the Coast's products are undergoing "power creep". They are wrong, according to the definition of the term; there are unbalanced elements in official D&D material, to be sure, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as some people think it is, and they're isolated.

People who believe that the Dungeon Master's Guide prestige classes are all good yardsticks for prestige class power; people who think the warlock is unbalanced; people who think the core-rules fighter is competitive with other classes: these are the people I'm talking about, who don't understand the game.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I said regularly, and I meant it.

There are people who believe that Wizards of the Coast's products are undergoing "power creep". They are wrong, according to the definition of the term; there are unbalanced elements in official D&D material, to be sure, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as some people think it is, and they're isolated.

People who believe that the Dungeon Master's Guide prestige classes are all good yardsticks for prestige class power; people who think the warlock is unbalanced; people who think the core-rules fighter is competitive with other classes: these are the people I'm talking about, who don't understand the game.

If anything, the warlock is weak. There is power creep, but only if you allow in the few broken things, as each time you do that, it makes the game more and more broken. If you look at things like Wraithstrike and Divine Metamagic and immediately excise them like the cancers they are, then there is not appreciable power creep (although by definition more options means more versatility, of course, but nowhere near what the creep was like in the 2e days)

 

[drothgery]

I think I might play in a core-only game as a change of pace, if everyone had been playing non-standard characters for a while. But I wouldn't want it to become the "normal" way I play D&D; I like playing with new toys. If my PC dies, I tend to make his replacement as different as I can manage while making sure his role in the party is mostly covered (I've replaced a archery-focused human scout with a TWF halfling rogue with a warforged artificer in one game, and a Silver Pyromancer with a Bard in another).

 

[Papewaio of The Org]

A DM tinkers the challenge of an adventure to suit the characters.

If they are all combat gods he will naturally up the ante with the opponents to provide an interesting combat with higher stakes attached.

If they are all diplomatic gods he will naturally provide more social encounters and make them more meaningful in the game.

On the other hand a DM will tone down various encounters to match the powercurve of his players. He might keep a few encounters that have aspects they are not good in... "oh gees you don't have a rogue who could open the chest which might have had the nice loot."

Essentially a DM will tailor a campaign to match the characters. The DM should highlight the strengths of the characters and occassionaly show the weaknesses of the group this helps to provide highs and lows.

Now if you want to be Suave it will depend on how hard the DM makes it for you. It is the DM who will set the challenge rating, it is the DM who will show how the NPCs react to the PC. You could have a maxed out Cha and skills but they won't mean anything if the DM ups the DC to far.

So it is an arms race, but the DM is supposed to adjust it to meet the characters abilities.

 

[Thanatos]

Yep...I'm going against the grain.

Core rules only games hold no interest for me these days.

 

[Melan]

I would prefer a core-only game to one with all the options - both as a player and as a DM. Actually, I'd probably take the restrictions further than the core allows, especially in qualifying for PrCs and multiclassing. And maybe I'd reduce the racial options to human only.

 

[Gold Roger]

You know Rystil, your proposed Swashbuckler will be a really weak character even with non-core options.

No armor? No christmas tree? On a front liner in D&D? He's going down, core or non-core.

Now, an actualy playable swashbuckler- like Iwatts Rogue/Fighter (which is imho more viable than a Complete Warrior Swashbuckler)- I can do that with Core Rules only. Infact I've once used a rather nasty one against my players.

Besides, you break your own setting. You put your character under restrictions that ignore the realities of the game system, but adjust the guards- but in traditional Swashbuckling the evil guards are usually unarmored rapier wielders as well (who also neatly line up so there's never more than two fighting the hero).

 

[DragonLancer]

Assuming the DM was of acceptable skill, would you play in a game that restricted Players to the core rules only?

Core Rules = PHB, DMG, MM

Absolutely. I would have no problem with that.

 

[iwatt]

As to the one at level 3, he's getting 20 AC how? AC is 10 + 1 Padded +2 Dex + 3 Fighting Defensively +2 Expertise = 18, or 17 if he doesn't have padded.

My bad. Don´t do sums after a b-day I tell you.

Still, why would Dartagnan be sticking to fighting someone he could run circles around? He could as well wait for the warrior to close in (in difficult terrain so no charge), hit him and then move away again. And anyways, shouldn't D'artagnan first shoot him with a pistol (he is a musketeer after all .

The greatest problem with this build has got to do with the ruleset: dex fighters suck in D&D*. His greatest problem, IMO, lies in his decision to gimp himself by going unarmored. How exactly is the swashbuckler superior within these same limitations? I'm guessing that is the Non-core variant you're talking about.

Still, I think the formal disagreement comes from something else. I don't see needing a specific mechanical rule as necessary to play a concept. I can shoehorn anything and let it be good enough. But maybe I'm biased because i'm an inveterate (sp?) House Ruler and Tinkerer. Finally, if someone is having fun with a subpar character, I say let them be. IMC one of the players has this crappy combat machine bard/rogue duelist. I've pointed him at spells and PrCs which he consistently ingnores. as long as he get's to Spring attack and use expeditious retreat, he has fun. and the character is useful outside of combat as well.


*If your concept for Dartgnan hinged on going unarmored, I'd have given you weapon Finesse and Improved Initiative in exchange for the armor feats.