Trying again: What would it take to get _you_ to use core only?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted None, but there is an explanation due.

While I prefer to have as many options as possible, PC choices all depend upon the campaign and the strictures defining its limits- if the DM says Core only, and I want to play in his campaign, I play Core only. My current main group plays 3.0 with class splatbooks, so I'm almost there right now.

But even in a wide open campaign, its not unusual for me to play somthing completely (or nearly completely) core.

 

[blargney the second]

It'd take some serious bribing to tear Book of Nine Swords out of my hands. Some of the options would be enough though!

 

[pallandrome]

Errr, well, since I usually play core-only already, I suppose I can't answer your poll.

 

[kolikeos]

It would take nothing to get me to use core only, since i almost always use core only anyway.

 

[Felon]

There are still some problems with how this poll was presented.

My recommendation would be to simply ask folks which of the first five or six options players thought were most appealing, and just don't bother incorporating the part about them being carrots to sway them into playing a core-only campaign (which seems to inevitably drag many folks away from providing constructive input).

Also, number your options so folks can easily refer to and reference them.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I voted the last option, but if I were to play a druid I would consider core only. But that would be the only class I would do so with. I like the options and feats taht really allow me to go beyond the base class into more interesting areas, whatever the class.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it.

Core only fighter. Not gonna do it.

Core only paladin. Again, not gonna do it.

Core only rogue. Again, not gonna do it.

Core only bard. Probably not (but mostly because I'd need enticement to play a bard to begin with).

Core only barbarian. I could get behind that with the appropriate incentives.

Core only druid. I could easily get behind that. On the other hand, it suffers the same problem as bard--I don't want to play a druid. Nothing to do with power in this case--I just hate the class.

Core only cleric, sorceror, or wizard? You got yourself a deal.

It depends. I don't think I could be enticed to play a core-only fighter, but a core-only wizard isn't set back much.

 

[Felon]

Core only cleric, sorceror, or wizard? You got yourself a deal.

Aside from fighter, I think those three classes would actually become the most constricted by a PHB-only campaign.

 

[Enchelion Derabdur]

I'd be perfectly willing to play a Core-only, bonuses or not. If other characters are allowed external stuff it might get a little annoying... But a Core-Wizard isn't that much weaker than an Expansion-Wizard, you still get all those useful little tidbit spells that everyone will be quite thankful for when their Iron-clad Lead-skinned Bruce-Lee dwarf encounters that pesky river and a cliff combo.

Core-Rules may not have all the overpowered combo's that the later books have, but it has just as many options... And plenty of tricks up it's sleaves.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Aside from fighter, I think those three classes would actually become the most constricted by a PHB-only campaign.

I agree. If you said Core only cleric with Divine Feats I would be all over that.

Otehr classes, more options helps soo much, and spellcasters without Spell COmpendium are just not the same for me.