translations

[jkdove_gamergod]

I've been following this thread on my own forums and the topic keeps coming up about rule sets and how closely they should be followed. What I'm most curious about is if the 3rd edition core rules are applied in a virtual setting, which rules are actually "CORE" to the game. I mean, what game was ever played that wasn't subject to being broken down, often in a ridiculous fashion (we know we've all seen some really stupid games, and gamers), but the ever dreaded and occasionally really cool "HOUSE RULES"

My real question is, what are "core" rules and what should never really be changed. I remember a time back when G.G.'s Unearthed Arcana introduced to Weapon Specialization and we all thought it was the greatest thing since sliced gnomes. Then the Fighter's Handbook came along and BAM, we realized that there was a much more balanced and fair system to be used. There are of course naysayers on both ends, but either way, balance is the key to a good game and balance is found by adhering a non-changing set of the CORE.

What do you all think?

 

[Li Shenron]

My real question is, what are "core" rules and what should never really be changed.

Not as obvious as it may seem

In theory, core rules are what belongs in the core books: PHB, DMG, MM.

However, in many occasions those rules were changed ("updated", to make it sound more legit) in supplementary books or even by the FAQ.

Furthermore, the content of the core books is not fully rules, but it contains flavor, and often rules and flavor are bound together in a way you cannot separate. However, flavor should always be freely changeable when the DM decides how the setting should be.

What should always stay the same is even a more complicated question, and no two people will likely agree on the same set of "sacred cows".

There are of course naysayers on both ends, but either way, balance is the key to a good game and balance is found by adhering a non-changing set of the CORE.

Mmm, nowadays it seems to me that the chosen key to a good game and balance is rather by adhering to an ever-changing set of rules

Anyway, one principle I'd like to keep is the following.
General rules should be stable, for example about how combat works, how spellcasting works, how skill work, crafting rules, equipment functionality (as a whole, not the specific weapons), proficiencies, multiclassing, monstrous races etc.
A DM can change these as a VARIANT, but IMHO it's best only if using a version which is generally known what consequences it can have in your setting. Better to use the version from a common book than from an obscure source or home-made.

Another thing that should be stable is, at a higher level, how subgroup works: bows, reach weapons, grapple rules, conjurations, mind-affecting spells, undead qualities.
Changing these group rules still have important effects, and as such they could be done for a setting, but the DM still has to take some responsibility.

Then, at an even higher level, it may be acceptable to refine the rules for specific things: specific weapons, specific feats, specific spells, etc...

Now all this with regard to setting design. In the worst case, the setting goes awry, but if instead those changes are done to all settings (D&D as whole), it causes a lot more pain. IMHO the FAQs or rules update should only touch specific things to "fix abuses", but never the underlying rules (including "groups"), which usually results in popping up other new abuses to fix.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In theory, core rules are what belongs in the core books: PHB, DMG, MM.

This isn't a theory, it's a fact. They are the only ones explicitly called 'core' by anyone, not just WotC.

As to what never should be changed: nothing. Change whatever you darn well please. Just make sure you understand how your changes impact other, existing rules and adjust appropriately.

 

[Jdvn1]

As to what never should be changed: nothing. Change whatever you darn well please. Just make sure you understand how your changes impact other, existing rules and adjust appropriately.

Right. There are even houserules to using the d20 on every roll. Some people like 2d10, some like 3d6, etc.

 

[Nail]

...my players are currently on a Lawfully aligned plane- all d20 rolls are actually made by : d12+4

all d6 are: 1d4+1

etc.

 

[Bad Paper]

...my players are currently on a Lawfully aligned plane- all d20 rolls are actually made by : d12+4

all d6 are: 1d4+1

etc.

That is a fascinating idea, and one that I may yoink.

Oh, and as for OP: I would put as "Core" a subset of the rules that everyone considers core. I think my most basic sacred-cow concepts are: six ability scores, three saving throws (which I consider an improvement over 1st ed), and attack rolls. I think everything else is up for tweakage.

 

[Infiniti2000]

...my players are currently on a Lawfully aligned plane- all d20 rolls are actually made by : d12+4

all d6 are: 1d4+1

etc.

I'm not sure I follow the logic on this, quite honestly. All rolls on the lawful plane suck? No auto success or failure?