Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vocenoctum" data-source="post: 4624254" data-attributes="member: 2477">I've only got the 4e PHB, have no plans on DMing 4e so don't need the other stuff. So, yeah, I don't know how they're doing stuff, I was just referencing the &quot;stated goal&quot; or 3e vs (AFAIK) no such policy for 4e.As I said in my other post, the inanity of the &quot;reprint all&quot; stuff is that it pads the word count with repetition. 3.5 reprinted the Immediate action half-page block in nearly every book after introduction.The flip side is the 2e method of having books that reference other books and lead to a lot of bloat. 4e seems to be going this way, but without the release schedule to really bloat things up. Actually I think it'll just be a few &quot;core&quot; books each year followed with other stuff that won't be referenced or whatnot.I lack the book, so no first hand knowledge, but in general Warlock's were written up with &quot;eldritch bolt, this attack has blah range and does bleh damage&quot;. Not total writeups, but you could use them in play.I think &quot;splatbook&quot; has drifted from it's original use, and is being used so murkily that it's lost all meaning, especially in this thread.Back in the day, WW produced tribebooks, clanbooks, tradition books, what have you. On the internet, someone started referencing them as *books to ease things along, which was &quot;splatbook&quot; after a bit. Eventually it just meant &quot;cheesy padding of books&quot; type of deal, to refer to low-quality addons tossed at the fans for money. (Though, I liked plenty of clanbooks and creedbooks...)PHB2 isn't really a splatbook, and UA certainly isn't. The big difference is that PHB2 will be building on stuff from core and will be integrated into the core system, whereas UA is alternatives to core assumptions.When you're discussing &quot;rules support&quot; for a concept though, I'd say both are open for discussion. It's not like we're discussing &quot;what is canon&quot; or &quot;what is core&quot;, and I think we all accept that UA is not &quot;core&quot;. Some of us might debate whether PHB2 is also core though.(For example, if PHB2 has grappling rules in it, can you argue that grappling is core or no? Well, who cares except the internet? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vocenoctum, post: 4624254, member: 2477"] I've only got the 4e PHB, have no plans on DMing 4e so don't need the other stuff. So, yeah, I don't know how they're doing stuff, I was just referencing the "stated goal" or 3e vs (AFAIK) no such policy for 4e. As I said in my other post, the inanity of the "reprint all" stuff is that it pads the word count with repetition. 3.5 reprinted the Immediate action half-page block in nearly every book after introduction. The flip side is the 2e method of having books that reference other books and lead to a lot of bloat. 4e seems to be going this way, but without the release schedule to really bloat things up. Actually I think it'll just be a few "core" books each year followed with other stuff that won't be referenced or whatnot. I lack the book, so no first hand knowledge, but in general Warlock's were written up with "eldritch bolt, this attack has blah range and does bleh damage". Not total writeups, but you could use them in play. I think "splatbook" has drifted from it's original use, and is being used so murkily that it's lost all meaning, especially in this thread. Back in the day, WW produced tribebooks, clanbooks, tradition books, what have you. On the internet, someone started referencing them as *books to ease things along, which was "splatbook" after a bit. Eventually it just meant "cheesy padding of books" type of deal, to refer to low-quality addons tossed at the fans for money. (Though, I liked plenty of clanbooks and creedbooks...) PHB2 isn't really a splatbook, and UA certainly isn't. The big difference is that PHB2 will be building on stuff from core and will be integrated into the core system, whereas UA is alternatives to core assumptions. When you're discussing "rules support" for a concept though, I'd say both are open for discussion. It's not like we're discussing "what is canon" or "what is core", and I think we all accept that UA is not "core". Some of us might debate whether PHB2 is also core though. (For example, if PHB2 has grappling rules in it, can you argue that grappling is core or no? Well, who cares except the internet? :) [/QUOTE]

Verification