Should there be 3 core books?

Crothian said:
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
I think the only problem with that is that 3/3.5 characters progress a lot faster than AD&D characters. You'll end up at that 10th level, then have to spend more money. If it was the old days, I might agree with you.

As for there being 'too many' core classes. Hmm. Not sure. Personally, I'd prefer a more flexible, 'kit' approach to building classes, or something along the lines of d20M -- which only works, IMHO, due to its lower magical power -- it'd require a bit of fiddling to get it to work with D&D.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think that the D&D Rules Cyclopedia is the best presentation of the D&D rules ever. I don't see why WotC could not combine all core books in a single volume. They already done it in The Wheel of Time RPG, Call of Cthulhu d20 RPG, and Star Wars d20 RPG, so they know how to do it. Quite frankly, D&D is the only game I have in which the core books are spread in several volumes. As a matter of fact, I intentionally avoid game lines like that, as I think they are more the result of greed than real necessity.

Although I would cut the Barbarian (that's a culture not a class), I think all core classes should remain. However, there is no need to the huge list of spells (most of them are hardly, if ever, used by most players), which is the largest portion of the PHB. Regarding the DMG, after you remove the endless tables of NPCs (just leave a link to Buick's NPC generator) and chop part of the prestige class chapter and the near useless essay about dressing dungeons, there is nothing much after a huge list of magic items, which can be greatly reduced (the extra material can go to a supplement). Also, they can reduce the number of monster to what the Cyclopedia carried, all the rest can go to the Monster Manual series. Finally, they could follow the Cyclopedia and add an abstract system to rule mass combat and schematic information about the core setting (Greyhawk).

In this way, they would have a single volume (Dungeons & Dragons RPG), although they could sell extra supplements such as Monster Manuals, Magic Items Folios, and Spells Compendiums to satisfy those who want more goodies in their games.
 

tetsujin28 said:
I think the only problem with that is that 3/3.5 characters progress a lot faster than AD&D characters. You'll end up at that 10th level, then have to spend more money. If it was the old days, I might agree with you.

As I dislike high level games I usually decrease the rate of character advance in such way that my campaigns can end in a satisfactory way. This is an easy fix.
 

I like the 3 book format, it lets the players use their own book while I keep the other two for my self.
merging the MM and the DMG would create one giant realy expensive book, and not every DM uses the MM for their creatures (books like the Creature Collection work just as well as the MM).
 

Ibram said:
I like the 3 book format, it lets the players use their own book while I keep the other two for my self.
merging the MM and the DMG would create one giant realy expensive book, and not every DM uses the MM for their creatures (books like the Creature Collection work just as well as the MM).
And I've never touched the DMG, really. Easily the book I could dispose of, and have it not matter.
 

Also, they can reduce the number of monster to what the Cyclopedia carried, all the rest can go to the Monster Manual series.

I would leave in, though, the info they have on improving, modifying, and creating monsters. That's extremely useful.
 

Alzrius said:
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.
The fact that all the original D&D books put into the Rules Cyclopedia were only about 32-48 pages each springs to mind as being a stumbling block to the format working with the modern books.

I mean would you really want a single 1000 page book to lug around :D
 


I think the current format works fine. As for the idea of a 10-levels PHB... well, no. Many people have no trouble at all playing at high levels, and many do enjoy high level gaming. Why should they have to fork out more money?
 

S'mon said:
I think a ten-level game w standard core advancement rate ought to be fine, giving 6 months' play at 1 4-hr session/week.
One limit fo the 10-level idea is sometimes players start out at higher than 1st (or 10th) level.
 

Remove ads

Top