What doesn't belong in the "core"

rounser

First Post
Wacky weapons and equipment such as double-ended swords, spiked chains, glowsticks and gluebags.
Classes which lack a solid fantasy archetype (e.g. mystic theurge, warlord).
Races which aren't classic fantasy enough to belong in every D&D world (e.g. warforged, dragonborn).
Heavy orientation towards use of miniatures to resolve combat.
Statements about the implied setting which don't apply in many worlds (e.g. such and such race is from an empire, the god of jails is evil for some reason without specifying what setting is being referred to etc).

In fact, looking at that list, it boils down to "don't pollute D&D's core with stuff that harms it's ability to conveniently act as a cliched sword & sorcery fantasy world toolkit.". That's what people use the game for in many cases, despite all the obstacles that the core rules may place in the path of that goal.

And I hope they don't hold strong archetypes such as Druid and classic monsters like Frost Giant to ransom. It doesn't make people feel like staying tuned for the next book where they might get what they expected to be in there by default - it just makes them make a snap judgement that this is an incomplete game, missing some of their favorite material. From that point it's easy to walk away from the game to an edition that offers value for money.

Also, rules to make monsters and traps to challenge parties of a certain power level, and maybe guides for designing spells and magic items as well should probably be in the DMG. When people get to make their own material they become personally invested in the game, and at this point I think the DIY hobbyist-enthusiast aspect of the game could do with some resuscitation and help. A 32 page mini-setting like Thunder Rift would be on my wishlist to go in there too, to renew the "common experience" aspect of the game.

Okay I'm done.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Tallifer

Hero
It sounds to me like you are looking for a Starter Box.

I do not want every interesting and new thing left out of the core rules because it was not around in 1978. However I am willing to leave almost everything out of the Starter Box.

Four straightforward classes, four races, six abilities, a few weapons and armour, a few spells and class features. Some mundane equipment like ten foot poles and flasks of oil. That is enough for beginners, casual players and Old Schoolers.

However, I hope that druids, rangers, warlords, dragonborn, feats, powers, themes and crafting skills are in the Advanced Players' Handbook. Let us drink from the fire hose if we want and choose to do so.

I will grant you however that there are many very obscure or extremely controversial things which must be left in separate books of options.
 

rounser

First Post
Druids and rangers have both a fantasy and a D&D tradition and pedigree. They'd be fine; I don't think they belong in the same sentence as "warlords" (in the 4E redefinition of the term) and "dragonborn", both of which are pretty contrived and IMO don't deserve core status. A starter box isn't what I'm referring to - gnomes, sorcerers, dark elves, warlocks, assassins (without spells, please), necromancers, knights etc. would all suit. Strong archetypes, suit most worlds as a common kind of adventurer, neither of which goes for a "dragonborn warlord" or a "warforged artificer"...thus the not belonging in the core rules.

Note that no-one is preventing you from running such characters, just that they need to be optional because they're not part of the mythology that D&D leans on, and worldbuilders use as the archetypal foundation of their worlds. There simply aren't dragonmen hanging around in taverns in most of the kind of fantasy world that gets built with D&D, nor does a D&D party say "gee, we need to hire a warlord" (unless maybe they're talking about staging mass combat rather than adventuring, such a bad choice of name there) and the core game shouldn't clash with that.
 
Last edited:

Oni

First Post
I have no problem with them being inclusive as long as it doesn't come at the cost of something classic being left out. I.E. I have no problem with there being Dragonborn if it's not at the cost of say the Gnome, or Warlords if it's not at the cost of the Druid. In fact I think a certain amount of inclusiveness is going to be necessary if you really want something that will not exclude fans of certain editions.
 

Izumi

First Post
Anything designed, decided, and added by Andy Collins, James Wyatt, and Rob Heinsoo needs to be extracted completely from Core. That'd pretty much leave all the right stuff, ne? I mean, they had to start somewhere...
 

rounser

First Post
I have no problem with them being inclusive as long as it doesn't come at the cost of something classic being left out. I.E. I have no problem with there being Dragonborn if it's not at the cost of say the Gnome, or Warlords if it's not at the cost of the Druid. In fact I think a certain amount of inclusiveness is going to be necessary if you really want something that will not exclude fans of certain editions.
WOTC probably don't care, but that would be a dealbreaker for me. I'm secure in the knowledge that I'm not alone though - plenty of people don't share the 4E vision of a D&D world, and might continue to stay away if eladrin and dragonborn make a reappearance. It would bollocks up any attempt they made to reissue FR or GH too - retcons ahoy, again, and goodbye enthusiasts for those settings again.
 

FireLance

Legend
Frankly, I'm one of those people who would rather have more in the core than less.

The way I see it, it is far easier for me to disallow player options that I don't want for mechanical or flavor reasons than it is to come up with my own rules for an option that I want but which isn't there.

If there must be differentiation at all, I'd rather go with something along the lines of what was suggested by Crazy Jerome in another thread: call out specific rule elements as "classic fantasy" or "magitech" or whatever.

In other words, have everything in the core, but give DMs who want to use only classic fantasy elements in their games an easy way to communicate what is and isn't allowed to their players.
 

rounser

First Post
Frankly, I'm one of those people who would rather have more in the core than less.
Disagree - much harder to ignore or remove stuff than add it. Core races and classes tend to "infect" artwork, supplements, flavor text, examples and settings into assuming they're there, reminding you they're there, and you feel like a grinch telling someone that such and such a class or race doesn't fit your world. Much easier just to make the core classic fantasy type stuff and save the more out there, niche material for a supplement.

In other words, please keep your peanut butter out of the chocolate - mixing the two is much more inconvenient to extract than adding it, and not everyone likes that peanut butter in every single D&D setting they play or build.
 
Last edited:



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top