DI and other Supplements are not "core" Core

charlesatan

Explorer
Just to clarify and cut off the weed before it spreads, the recent podcast was summarized in the boards and one point mentioned was that "The meaning of "Core: will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books."

Before everyone quotes Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan on that, I'd like to clarify the context before everyone starts ranting "they're out for our money!" or "WotC is getting greedy!"

The question asked was this: What classes and races can you confirm will be in 4th Edition?

They then proceeded to say that people have two definitions of core. One is the three initial books (PHB, DMG, MM). That definition is fine. The other definition is that core means all non-setting specific supplements. Obviously, not everyone uses the latter definition but some do to different extents. It's occurred in 3.0/3.5 and some people's definition of "core" include the Psionics rules or "anything in the SRD" (which includes material from the Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Deities and Demigods).

What the designers are basically saying is that if you're looking forward to Race XX or Class XX, it might not be initially in the first three books released next year, but they might pop up in future supplements like the DI or some other product (PHB II perhaps?) so it's "core" if your definition of core happens to include the non-setting specific supplements and not just the first three books released.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think around here "Core" generally refers to the basic three books - the stuff you know all groups have, that all groups pick up in order to play the game. That, by extension, is the material developers can feel absolutely free to refer to and assume is understood when building a supplement.

If, for example, Warforged are included in the D&DI, if a developer then refers to them in the PHB3, then you have the problem that anyone who isn't a D&DI subscriber can't fully use the PHB3, and that's bad. Over most of the life of 3.xE, WotC was very good about this. I think if they start referring to supplemental as "core" there's going to be a lot of confusion, and perhaps a tendency to allow these cross-references to slip in.

Incomplete cross-book references may sell comic books, but I think in RPG materials they'll cheese folks off something fierce. I really suggest WotC become disciplined about how they use terms like "core".
 

Don't worry, they are simplifing everything . . . this should all make sense in about six months or so, after they figure out other terms to use for core, and then playtest them.
 

It sounds like their definition of "core" is closer to what I (and many others) would call "official." I'm a little bothered by this.

-Will
 

wgreen said:
It sounds like their definition of "core" is closer to what I (and many others) would call "official." I'm a little bothered by this.

-Will

Yes. What if I am not subscribing to everything? Now I have to go get access to something "core" because a player wants it? I'm still waiting to see on this.
 

Varianor Abroad said:
Yes. What if I am not subscribing to everything? Now I have to go get access to something "core" because a player wants it? I'm still waiting to see on this.

Why?

This whole thing about "player wants it so I have to buy it" blows my mind.

Before the campaign starts, sit down as a group. Decide on the following:

- What style of game
- Who will GM
- What rules set to use
- What rules sub-sets will be used
- What themes do we want
- What environments will be fun

Just because something is in a rule book does not mean it is in the rules sub-set everyone will play by. There's no rule in any of the rule books that says you must use every rule in your games. There is a rule in the rule books that says you can pick and choose and change and modify and drop and add rules at your discretion.
 


It doesn't sound like this is any different than how 3e works. Right now, there isn't a universally understood term for "non-setting specific D&D books," and they happen to be using the word 'core.'

This doesn't suddenly make anything beyond the three main books required to play the game. It's just the same word with a different definition.
 

Varianor Abroad said:
Yes. What if I am not subscribing to everything? Now I have to go get access to something "core" because a player wants it? I'm still waiting to see on this.

How is this different from a player wanting to use something from a book you don't own?
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top