Should there be 3 core books?

[Elephant]

Yes, well some people consider it too much of a headache to allow players past level 10. Personally I'm going in that direction, although I'm not in that camp yet. Keeping power levels at a "reasonable" medium makes things a whole lot simpler, and it also puts a stop to all that leveling every 2 - 3 session (okay, this is a DM issue, but the core rules strongly support quick leveling). In other words: more roleplaying and less rollplaying / munchkinism / meta-gaming.

The more experienced I get the more I tone down my campaigns. Not having to worry about Core X / Core Y / PrC Z / PrC N -type of characters is a relief.

IMC, we started at level four, and somehow leveled up more quickly during the first few more story-laden sessions than we are now, during a dungeon-crawl sequence from an old module. It's quite odd.

 

[MerricB]

I agree. I even think the current PHB should have the first 20 pages of the Epic Level Handbook in it to show you how things progress after 20th level.

At least they're in the DMG.

Cheers!

 

[Alzrius]

The old Rules Cyclopedia was an incredible product. It really was all three books in one, and everything after that was just supplements. I don't see any particular reason why that format would necessarily fail if they tried it again now.

 

[Thanee]

Considering that there are so many monsters in D&D, a single monster manual makes sense. The other two books are split in a very reasonable way, so yes, I think the format is best for D&D.

An all-in-one-book RPG is good, but D&D needs too much stuff to fit in a single book.

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

There's no need to have Monster Manual separate from DMG - a 300-page DMG w say 80 pages of monsters & 40 pages of magic items would be plenty IMO, you can always have supplemental monster books - or supplemental magic item books, for that matter.

I like having a separate PHB that players can rely on as the default rules, so the DM informs them of any changes to it, while keeping DMG stuff as DM's prerogative.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, I'm also in favour of a 1-book 'starter set', maybe 96 pages, similar to D&D Basic set, with everything you need to start playing PCs up to (I recommend) level 10. It would have a much reduced Feats list, most of the Skills, a much reduced Spells list, possibly simplified combat rules, and 4 classes - Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric (*sigh* - make him Spontaneous caster, at least), and Rogue.
I'd advocate adopting a power-point system for spellcasting, slots have definitely had their day!
It would have say 20-30 iconic monsters, briefly described, and a similar number of magic items.

 

[Belegbeth]

The old Rules Cyclopedia was an incredible product. It really was all three books in one, and everything after that was just supplements. I don't see any particular reason why that format would necessarily fail if they tried it again now.

TOTALLY AGREE! TOTALLY! (Can I agree more??? )

Start with a core book with only the "essentials" (main classes and races, necessary info for DM, and most common monsters).

If 3.x really lives up to its claim that its *your* game, a single Rules Cylcopedia should be enough to start out -- AND run an entire campaign. If you're more interested in plot and character than loads of feats, spells, magic items, and special abilities, you could have a great time with a single stream-lined d20 "Rules Cylcopedia."

If I want to run a campaign that is "common magic" in nature, buy a supplement that has beaucoup de spells. If you want a campaign that has loads of prestige classes, but that book. Want to focus on combat? Heck, buy THAT book.

I mean, including Monks in the core book is just ridiculous -- a class that has all kinds of idiosyncratic rules and does not fit into a European milieux at all. Get rid of that abomination (and the sorcerer while we're at it). Include it in the supplements.

Most of the DMG is complete junk IMO. And most of the MM is useless in my campaign. I'd rather just have a "rules lite" version of the game.

The old "Rules Cylcopedia" is a wonderful model. If only there were a d20 equivalent. :\

The d20 Modern book is the closest to that old model. If WotC can do it with Modern, why can't they do it with fantasy?

 

[diaglo]

while i agree about the RC.

i would say 2 books are probably the best format.

1 player book
1 referee book

just like can be found in the Expert boxed set

tho, i still love my 3 booklets and reference sheet

 

[Crothian]

You're joking, right?

If I bought a Player's Handbook that only went up to level ten, I'd ask for my money back.

Why would I be joking? :\

The first ten levels usually covers a good amount of playing time and is a great way for people to not feel over burdened by levels. Of course there could be expansions that cover higher levels. This would allow it to focus on this lower levels and get people comfortible with them

 

[tetsujin28]

Heck, I dunno. I only own the 3.5 PH. Everything else, I just use my PDF copy of the SRD.