What does "Core" mean?

[Egres]

I have seen many times this term referring to the three base manuals:the PHB, the DMG and the MM.

In many threads, most of the posters say that if a rule comes from a non core book, it must be considered "optional"(note: not variant: optional).

My question is:how "official" are the non-core books rules?

For example, in a rules debate, can we base our reasoning on these non-core books?

Example:the CD states that the subject's soul can't be affected by any means.

But we know that we can Raise dead creatures.

Just to sum all this up:can we consider non-core rules official or not?

Thank you for your attention!

 

[Angel Tarragon]

As official as the DM wants them to be.

 

[Egres]

As official as the DM wants them to be.

Anything more "accurate"?

 

[Ferret]

Nope. Check rule 0.

A Rules lawyer might say that the core rules are all that matter. Sometimes date precedes coreness, but not always.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Okay, to be specific, anything from the three core rulebooks is as official as it gets. The DM has final say as to what other books are used in the campaign. However according the world of D20, all WotC books are official with a capital O. So to answer your question, the true official books are the core rulebooks. After that the DM has the last word, although house rules may apply that change things from the core rulebooks.

Hows that?

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Also any errata that has been published for the core rulebooks is official as well.

 

[Sejs]

The main three books define the rules as set down. Any other books expand, and in some cases reinterpret the rules, but like you said, are optional. You don't -have- to use the interpretations of good and evil as they're described in the BoED and BoVD, but you can if you want. The core rules don't say about not being able to affect a soul in any way, but CD does - however, since CD isn't a core book you're free to ignore anything it has to say.


Ultimatly, it boils down to what the DM says, goes. If the DM says that in his game souls can't be affected in any way, ala CD, then that's the official rule as it stands for his game. If the DM doesn't say one way or the other, then by default whatever the core rules says would be correct.


That all make sense?

 

[Sejs]

And yeah, as Ferret pointed out - Rule 0. What the DM wants to be official, is official, core or not.

But in a particular DM-less vacuum where there is no Rule 0 to be applied, core is your foundation.

 

[Egres]

Ok.

Does this mean that in a rules debate something like "nope:the CD states that..." is meaningless, if we are talking about core rules?

 

[blakwind]

That's a matter to be settled between you and your DM, or you and your players if you're the DM.

My 3 year+ campaign is core only -- PH, MM, DMG -- plus houserules. In those houserules, I selectively introduce some material from other sources.

Some campaigns take it to the other extreme, and enfold everything that's ever been published. My players and I have found that we don't enjoy that style of game.

Based on the postings on this and other forums, I've observed that most campaigns fall somewhere between "core" and "anything goes". DM's typically establish which books are allowed up-front at the beginning of a new campaign, then revisit that decision from time to time as the campaign evolves. The books that you allow will greatly impact your game world in every way.