Idea for 5E

[malraux]

As near as i can see, the high fantasy, magi-tech, points of light styles of play are best supported by multiple campaign settings rather than core rules. I'd be kinda pissed off at multiple sets of core rules, as that's extra cost to get a complete set of the base rules.

I also don't see what's so horrid about half-dragons or competent bards.

 

[doctorhook]

Count me in for, "No go, bro." It's not a terrible idea in terms of what it could offer, but neither is it spectacular, and it's certainly not feasible. Moreover, it's pretty clear that this strategy wears the OP's biases on its sleeve, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it wasn't so inherently subjective. In short, I can't help but get the feeling that the OP wants WotC to publish a PH that caters specifically to his own preferences.

Now, here's an idea to make this workable:

1. Start with a "core Player's Handbook", which offers fairly generic race and class archetypes, along with all of 150-ought pages of important rules for the game.
2. Rather than publishing additional PHs which would be approximately half-full of reprinted basic rules material, identical among each book, each book could be entirely focused upon its "theme mechanical elements" (new classes, races, feats, powers, items, and rituals).
3. Folks could buy the "Psionics Handbook" or "Player's Handbook II" when they wanted to use material from either sourcebook in their game, although only the Core PH would actually be essential to run a game.

Oh wait, that's exactly how WotC is doing it and has been doing it!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Count me in for, "No go, bro." It's not a terrible idea in terms of what it could offer, but neither is it spectacular, and it's certainly not feasible. Moreover, it's pretty clear that this strategy wears the OP's biases on its sleeve, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it wasn't so inherently subjective. In short, I can't help but get the feeling that the OP wants WotC to publish a PH that caters specifically to his own preferences.

Now, here's an idea to make this workable:

1. Start with a "core Player's Handbook", which offers fairly generic race and class archetypes, along with all of 150-ought pages of important rules for the game.
2. Rather than publishing additional PHs which would be approximately half-full of reprinted basic rules material, identical among each book, each book could be entirely focused upon its "theme mechanical elements" (new classes, races, feats, powers, items, and rituals).
3. Folks could buy the "Psionics Handbook" or "Player's Handbook II" when they wanted to use material from either sourcebook in their game, although only the Core PH would actually be essential to run a game.

Oh wait, that's exactly how WotC is doing it and has been doing it!

The problem lies in what is treated as "core". Some people would prefer the lizards with bewbs in another sourcebook.

 

[garyh]

The problem lies in what is treated as "core". Some people would prefer the lizards with bewbs in another sourcebook.

Yes, so I've heard. But does that expired equine need to flogged every day from now till 5e?

 

[mmadsen]

Especially if those 31 flavors contain 150+ pages of the same exact rules content. One of the biggest complaints about oWoD was that playing multiple games gave you the same content again and again (sometimes just slightly different), and that was for multiple game lines. Doing the same thing to a single game line would cause more problems than it would solve.

I've noticed that gamers are often under the illusion that a 300 page book with 150 pages of reused content would cost half as much if they didn't have to buy those 150 unwanted pages -- which, of course, isn't true.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Especially if those 31 flavors contain 150+ pages of the same exact rules content. One of the biggest complaints about oWoD was that playing multiple games gave you the same content again and again (sometimes just slightly different), and that was for multiple game lines. Doing the same thing to a single game line would cause more problems than it would solve.

Of course, the opposite isn't any better. D20 Apocalypse is a small book, but it does things like having a list of mutations available to characters but providing no rule text for them beyond "Buy D20 Future to use these!" Yeah, that does me a lot of good, thanks.

On a side note, I kind of think D20 Modern/Past/Future/etc. did this (OP's suggestion) already?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, so I've heard. But does that expired equine need to flogged every day from now till 5e?

...................Nah. Not worth it. 5E won't have any RP stuff in it to define as core or anything else.

 

[doctorhook]

...................Nah. Not worth it. 5E won't have any RP stuff in it to define as core or anything else.

Respectfully, what the heck are you talking about? Or are you baiting?

 

[doctorhook]

The problem lies in what is treated as "core". Some people would prefer the lizards with bewbs in another sourcebook.

I've no doubt about this. Unfortunately, the same can be said about probably every single rule element in the book, so where do you draw the line? At some arbitrary point that "Person A" determines based upon his or her preferences? The reality is that people generally want "More" more than they want "Less", and the anti-mammary are a minority. (...And apparently a minority which will either buy the books or not buy the books regardless of the inclusion of dragonboobs, at that.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Respectfully, what the heck are you talking about? Or are you baiting?

Its from another thread. I hope to be proven wrong. Ignore and move on.