Misconceptions about 3.5...Answers

[Imaro]

Well, what would you need the material in the PHB2 for? For creating player characters, nothing else. If there are any NPCs in published adventures and whatnot that make use of powers listed in that book, then they will reprint the powers and include them directly in the NPC stat block. Leaving them out and forcing DMs to refer to other books would be a radical departure from how they are doing it now - and it would be utterly pointless, too.

Well... this thread has really gone of track, but I guess this is an interesting tangent in and of itself. Well as far as new rules in 4e... aren't the new DMG's going to introduce new rules to the game on a yearly basis? Are the rules that pop up in these new books (like alchemy in AV) not part of 4e's rules? If the DMG adds a new subsystem of rules to handle aquatic adventurers are these new rules subsequently intelligible to discuss when speaking of 4e?

I think it goes much further than a new class or powers as far as what is being released through DDI and supplemental books, especially since the core lacks many rules one may desire for certain things in one's game. I mean I remember when the complaints about what were missing in 4e were continuously answered by "it's coming in future books"... so the only difference I'm seeing is WotC gave "permission" to everyone to use "core" in describing these books... but the structure and premise is the same.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Well... this thread has really gone of track, but I guess this is an interesting tangent in and of itself. Well as far as new rules in 4e... aren't the new DMG's going to introduce new rules to the game on a yearly basis? Are the rules that pop up in these new books (like alchemy in AV) not part of 4e's rules? If the DMG adds a new subsystem of rules to handle aquatic adventurers are these new rules subsequently intelligible to discuss when speaking of 4e?

That's a good question. So far, they have been good at putting all the information you need into the adventure books. I would assume that if they publish (for example) an adventure that partially takes place underwater, they will also reprint the relevant portions for underwater adventuring within that adventure. But we can't say for sure until such additional rules are released.

Nevertheless, the fact that NPC stat block contain all the information needed to play them is a huge source of relief for me.

I think it goes much further than a new class or powers as far as what is being released through DDI and supplemental books, especially since the core lacks many rules one may desire for certain things in one's game.

True. Nevertheless, the adventures so far seem to include truly everything you need to run them without constantly having to refer to other books. You don't need to look up spells, special attacks, and so forth. You don't even need to look up monsters if they are also listed identically in the MM.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I kinda think this entire thread is an attempt to settle on the ground rules.

This is pretty much the point for me. Say we were talking about Soccer instead of D&D. Say there was a popular variant on soccer where you picked up the ball and ran with it instead of kicking it.

Now, we try to have a discussion about the disadvantages of soccer and someone says, "I hate the fact that you have to kick the ball all the time, it's no fun for me" and you get a response from someone else saying, "No you don't, there is no kicking the ball in soccer at all, I don't see how you could think that is a problem."

Well, the problem here is that we are actually talking about different games. They come from the same root, but they are fundamentally different. The question was posed how we talked about our games in the past when 1e and 2e had SO many house rules and were so different from one another. I, personally, found it so difficult that I avoided conversations with gamers outside my group.

An example brought to mind was that back in high school I ran into someone and the topic of D&D came up. He thought it was so cool to meet someone who played the game as well. He launched into a tirade about how the game was so awesome. Like the time him and his friends attacked hell in order to kill Asmodeus. They waded their way through over 500 Balors in order to eventually reach him. There was so many of them, they all couldn't fit in their map. They beat them pretty easily, since they all had swords which were +10 swords that did a 20d6 fireball centered on themselves whenever they rolled a 15-20 on the attack roll. The fireballs bypassed all fire resistance or immunity of their enemies and all of them were completely immune to the effects. Instead, if they were hit by one of the fireballs, they healed the damage instead. Also, on a crit, they automatically killed all enemies within 100 feet of them.

I listened to him go on an on about his game. He had a look in his eyes and a tone about him the whole time that said, "But, of course you know everything I'm telling you because you play D&D as well." Meanwhile, the entire time I was listening, my only thought was, "What the heck game is he playing? It doesn't sound like ANY D&D I've ever heard of. The rules say weapons only go up to +5, fireballs are supposed to hurt everyrone in the area of effect, they don't heal people. Even with all of that, Asmodeus is a god and impossible to kill according to the rules(this was 2e)."

It was about that point that I made a vow to try to stay away from other D&D players, since I couldn't relate with them it seemed. I invited people who had never played before into my games and taught them the rules, but most people who already knew them had nothing at all in common with the way we played.

It wasn't until 3rd edition, with its emphasis on rules that I began to see a trend where MOST people played the game pretty much the same and had enough in common to have real conversations about the game without it breaking down. But when you start bringing UA into the discussion, it causes the same disconnect I used to see back in 2e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Majoru, that was probably a series of the most erroneous comparisons I have ever seen on these forums yet. Yeaaaaahno, two books, one of them the second Players Handbook, are really not comparable to "A rule some kids hypothetically use while playing soccer" or "This thing this weirdo at my highschool did while playing D&D"

 

[Phaezen]

Majoru, that was probably a series of the most erroneous comparisons I have ever seen on these forums yet. Yeaaaaahno, two books, one of them the second Players Handbook, are really not comparable to "A rule some kids hypothetically use while playing soccer" or "This thing this weirdo at my highschool did while playing D&D"

I think Majoru was refering to Federation Football (Soccer) vs Union Football (Rugby) which started as the same game, but developed in differet directions by basically rules variants and houserules.

Phaezen

 

[Hussar]

But, PC, there in lies the rub. How far does it go. If PHB 2 is considered "core", then how about AEG's Secrets? I have that book. I rather enjoy it actually. It has loads of alternative rules for various classes, races and spells. It includes a non-casting healer type, variant druids and monks, and a blatant rip off of The Matrix.

Are the rules there considered "core"? Are any and all d20 rules up for consideration? What is the cut off line?

For me, it's a scale, some things are closer to "core" than others. But my scale is likely different that other people's. That's fine. We simply find a common ground and go from there. But, I don't think you can simply assume that a given book is "core" outside of the actual core books.

Me, I love PHB2, but have not used anything from, say, psionics. So, for me, psionics isn't really core. It's not really part of my D&D experience. OTOH, I love the heck out of Tome of Magic (3.5). I think it's an excellent resource. But, I'm sure there are other people out there who have never cracked the covers. Should I consider TOM core?

My whole point, and I think Majoru's point as well, is that until you establish that baseline, you cannot proceed to have any meaningful conversation.