Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6223654" data-attributes="member: 1465">I like their current presentation choice of races in the latest playtest packets: the classic 4 being presented as Common, and the rest basically as examples of races that may or may not be available for PCs, largely dependent on the DM's choice of fantasy setting.If they stick with this presentation for the final product, it makes races beyond the classic 4 more acceptable.Where really "Core" has some meaning, is in how all the subsequent published books assume it is available at the gaming table.In 3e, non-setting-specific supplements would directly reference core material only. It's a safe choice to assume that every gaming group owns at least the PHB, DMG and MM (there are only rare cases of groups where the DM decides not to buy the DMG for instance) and therefore all the material in ONE supplement can directly reference "core" material or build upon it.In 4e, I remember that "everything is core" was often quoted, but I don't know what it meant in practice. When this is meant that every book can reference every other books (and not only the 3 core), then the whole can become a mess. There will be people buying a book and discovering that they cannot use part of its material unless they also buy another book and so on. This might still work fairly well within a specific campaign setting, at least if the number of books for that setting is not too large.OTOH, cross-referencing material can be a good thing for the game, but obviously only if you own both books. IMO this should rather be made available online.</blockquote>

Verification