Core Rules Only

[Kaodi]

Me...

I would play in a Core only game... though I probably wouldn't run one, since Eberron is my setting of choice. That being said, for Eberron I would and could happily limit myself to Core + XPH + Eberron only, the XPH being kind of essential to some elements of the setting. That is exactly what I am doing for my PbP.

I agree with Ari though on the DM. All ways are open to the DM, who should feel restricted only by his or her use of good sense. If you said the DM had to be Core only, that would prohibit them from even making their own monsters or prestige classes.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I suffered massive rules burn-out after the Complete Handbooks and Player's Option series in 2nd edition. Since 3e came out, I've run a game using the core rulebooks only. That's not to say it's definitively core only; my rulebooks have a number of sticky notes throughout them that note house rules and modifications. I also have some home-brewed prestige classes, so that would arguably make it non-core. That said, there are a surprising number of things one can do with the core rulebooks and nothing else. My game has had half-dragon characters, minotaur shamans, ghost characters, steam-powered airships and railroads, and one unfortunate PC who got turned into a bodak. The few times I have been tempted to buy a new rulebook, I've found that most of what I want for my setting can be done with minimal tinkering to the rules.

 

[JoeBlank]

I'm starting to feel some rules burnout myself. I certainly remember the days of reading through the latest splatbook and thinking about all of the cool characters I could make. While I'm not a power gamer, my ideas certainly slanted towards characters that would be as good or better than core-only PCs, at least in their specific areas of expertise.

But I've gotten away from that in the past year or so. I'd rather just come up with a character idea and start playing.

Of course I would play a core-only 3.x game. After all, I play OD&D already.

 

[diaglo]

probably. but it would depend on the group.

if it were a one-shot. no problem.

but if it were a longer lasting campaign... well... the newest editions ain't right imo when it comes to alot of things.

 

[Psion]

I'd play it, but it wouldn't be my preference.

I could see it for pickups or one-offs for the sake of simplicity, since you don't know what everyone has or it familiar with. For longer games, I fail to see the logic in the "screw giving players what interests them" attitude.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

Ah interesting. I will admit that core only plus House Ruling and Tinkering like you describe is a lot of fun (leaps and bounds more fun than core rules only without house rules and tinkering.) With a sufficiently-skilled GM as given by the OP, Core Only + House Ruling and Tinkering would be perfectly fine for me to continue playing without ever feeling constrained (it seems like your games are probably like that based on your discussion, and it also seems like you are an experienced house-ruler and know your way around the block, so I'd bet I would have a lot of fun in them )

 

[iwatt]

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

That should teach me to erad the threads before ersponding. I came up witht he asme reasoning about 3 posts after you wrote this. AMkes me feel like Rystil was maniacally laughing in the background while I was running around like a headless chicken.

Still, I insist that if you're playing D'artagnan you're doing it to run around swinging on chandeliers and balancing on top of rafters. Not standing still and trying to hit as hard as possible.

Lately, I feel like playing Core only (as a player). I've never liked playing anything but humans, gnomes and dwarves (complete book of elves in 2e cured me of any elvish fanboyism I might have had) so I erally never felt the urge to play another race. And digging through additional books to find the right feat and PrC has gotten tiring. Looking things up in the hypertext SRD is much simpler . So basically my preference as a player for Core only comes from the fact that I want to cut down on character statting and just dive into the roleplaying as quickly as possible. It's a pretty strong change from were I statred in 3E, since I was one of those obsessive compulsives using optimal Power attack for AC (with programs, and estimating ACs from statistic analysis of the usual opposition faced), and concerned more with my build than what was actually happening in the game. I was so obsessed with qualifying to a certain PrC at the earliest possible moment I would let pass options that would have been more enriching character-wise. Satting up enough killer-NPCs has cleansed me from that obsession, and now when I get to be the player I choose a character and then decide what classes best fit the concept. My character concepts are no longer rapier-wielding fencer, or gnome master illusionist, or dwarven paladin. They're an aristocrat rake who created an alter-ego for the thrill of it, a genius out to con the world out of all it's money, or an honourable demihuman trying to atone for his father's crimes.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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).

If you know what the correct non-core options are, you can create a frighteningly-effective front-liner tank with no armour and no christmas tree of magic items. I once let a player do this with his cohort. He wound up getting her somewhere in the 40s by pumping Charisma with a build based on an LA 3 race that gets Charisma as Deflection to AC, a mobile unarmoured combatant base class that gets Charisma bonus to AC unarmoured, and a PrC that gets Charisma as a Divine bonus to AC. And he never really gave her any magic items, as he was too cheap to get equipment for his cohort.

 

[iwatt]

Ah interesting. I will admit that core only plus House Ruling and Tinkering like you describe is a lot of fun (leaps and bounds more fun than core rules only without house rules and tinkering.) With a sufficiently-skilled GM as given by the OP, Core Only + House Ruling and Tinkering would be perfectly fine for me to continue playing without ever feeling constrained (it seems like your games are probably like that based on your discussion, and it also seems like you are an experienced house-ruler and know your way around the block, so I'd bet I would have a lot of fun in them )

Sadly, I'm never again running D&D. It's either True20 or Iron Heroes for me as a DM. I'll play any d20 variant though, but for running games my prep time is very limited*. Iron Heroes is my favorite, but down here in Chile my options for running it are nil.

*Iron hereos requires a lot less prep time because of villain classes, no need to equip and balance NPC wealth and because it passes a lot of the work over to the players (PC power is due solely to feats and abilities, not equipment).

 

[Rystil Arden]

Sadly, I'm never again running D&D. It's either True20 or Iron Heroes for me as a DM. I'll play any d20 variant though, but for running games my prep time is very limited*. Iron Heroes is my favorite, but down here in Chile my options for running it are nil.

*Iron hereos requires a lot less prep time because of villain classes, no need to equip and balance NPC wealth and because it passes a lot of the work over to the players (PC power is due solely to feats and abilities, not equipment).

Both admittedly awesome systems indeed. I've been having a lot of fun with Iron Heroes, and my players have liked the change of pace and the high-speed chases and fast-paced stealth and high-octane combat. Mutants and Masterminds and its younger sister True20 are a very elegant system as well