Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3780603" data-attributes="member: 158">Maybe at WotC's site, but honestly, I've really never seen gamers anywhere else use it that way. Besides, if one were using &quot;core&quot; in that sense, what makes Complete Warrior different from Player's Guide to Eberron, anyway? I see no difference, myself. If one can justify a Hexblade, one can justify a Valenar Revenant Blade by giving it history and background appropriate to the world - it's only mechanics, and the balance thereof, that really make the difference between the 3 base books and anything else.The stuff in the PH/DMG/MM is intently designed to be well-rounded, balanced, and usable for almost all campaigns - which isn't always the case with all other supplements turned out. Considering the core stuff the &quot;conservative&quot; stuff, and everything else the &quot;new, innovative, pushing the envelope&quot; stuff, it's a natural divide that 99% of gamemasters can usually agree on - both the ones wanting a plain vanilla campaign without hundreds of options to keep track of, and the ones who want to add in certain things to a known, stable base. Calling everything &quot;core&quot; means that a HECK of a lot of stuff nowhere near playtested as well gets added to the mix of what is considered &quot;basic&quot; game material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 3780603, member: 158"] Maybe at WotC's site, but honestly, I've really never seen gamers anywhere else use it that way. Besides, if one were using "core" in that sense, what makes Complete Warrior different from Player's Guide to Eberron, anyway? I see no difference, myself. If one can justify a Hexblade, one can justify a Valenar Revenant Blade by giving it history and background appropriate to the world - it's only mechanics, and the balance thereof, that really make the difference between the 3 base books and anything else. The stuff in the PH/DMG/MM is intently designed to be well-rounded, balanced, and usable for almost all campaigns - which isn't always the case with all other supplements turned out. Considering the core stuff the "conservative" stuff, and everything else the "new, innovative, pushing the envelope" stuff, it's a natural divide that 99% of gamemasters can usually agree on - both the ones wanting a plain vanilla campaign without hundreds of options to keep track of, and the ones who want to add in certain things to a known, stable base. Calling everything "core" means that a HECK of a lot of stuff nowhere near playtested as well gets added to the mix of what is considered "basic" game material. [/QUOTE]

Verification