Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 1942820" data-attributes="member: 22882">I strongly prefer a one-book core system.First, it's a huge cost-saver for new players.  True, you only "need" a Player's Handbook if you play a character without summoning spells who begins play at first level and doesn't have any input into the magic items he acquires and doesn't take a Prestige Class.  I can count on no hands the number of 3.x campaigns I've played, run or seen in which that was true for everyone in the party.Second, it's a space saver.  I use enough non-core books as a GM already; lugging three books to every game just to cover the basics doesn't help.  It also makes indexing simpler, although I can see that being a point of contention: more books vs. more pages in a single book.  If the whole group knows what book to find info in (such as the out-of-place Leadership feat and MM feats), having smaller books may actually speed referencing.  In general, though, I think a single index, single book makes this gigantic time-waster go faster.Third, it would likely cut down on extraneous monsters, spells and magic items.  The yrthak and ethereal filcher get plenty of hate.  A single core book would likely see this pair excised, along with some of the monsters that probably shouldn't be "core" even if they have a clear place in the game, for example the chaos beast.  Some of the essentially duplicate attack spells and extraneous wierd spells could certainly be cut, but my unmitigated loathing of D&D magic colors that.  Certainly the magic items could be cut down considerably, and doing so might have the pleasant side effect of reducing equipment dependency.  For instance, Brilliant Energy doesn't need to be a core ability.  Neither does Fortification.  The elemental and alignment attributes could easily be consolodated into a single entry.All of the cut content could be moved to other books: excess spells in Complete Arcane and Divine, excess monsters to Monster Manual II, which would become Monster Manual I in this case.  Excess magic items would require either a much-expanded Arms & Equipment guide or a new book.  Surprisingly, considering the importance magic items play in core 3.x, they've been underrepresented compared to spells and feats in the splatbooks.As for players having access to the monsters... how many players, aside from complete new players who've yet to either imagine DMing or play a summoner, don't end up with a Monster Manual at least?  How many GROUPS don't have at least one player who has a Monster Manual and as such can share his with the group if they want to metagame the monsters?Now, obviously it doesn't make sense for Wizards of the Coast to rerelease 3.5 as a single core book, and 4.0 is presumably several years away.  Even then, D&D will probably come in three books as long as WotC can sell three books.  Unlike a lot of players, I don't begrudge WotC the effects of supply and demand, but I do think a single core book improves the game: that's why I suggest new players pick up d20 Modern or a single-book OGL system, like Conan.</blockquote>

Verification