What doesn't belong in the "core"

[ferratus]

I think some of you are missing the point. I'm not saying D&D as a whole shouldn't have all manner of wacky races and classes available, but to those of you talking about Arduin, what say we put Flying Sharks in the 5E core as a race?

I think you lost everybody when you disparaged dragonborn, tieflings and warlords as being too wierd for the core, but mentioned several classes and races that were just as fringe to many people (including me).

But this whole discussion is rather irrelevant. I get the sense from what was released at the seminar today that the 5e design team is following 4e's lead and proclaiming that everything is core... with the caveat that also none of it is. That's up to the group (particularly the DM) to determine.

 

[enrious]

The inclusion of races, classes, weapons, etc. is dependent upon the DM, with input from the players.

There's no such thing as a race, class, weapon, etc. being mandatory because it is written in the core.

 

[harlokin]

The inclusion of races, classes, weapons, etc. is dependent upon the DM, with input from the players.

There's no such thing as a race, class, weapon, etc. being mandatory because it is written in the core.

I agree.

There is also no reason why a character could not be of a race that doesn't normally exist in a given setting, given sufficient background explanation.

 

[rounser]

...the 5e design team is following 4e's lead and proclaiming that everything is core... with the caveat that also none of it is. That's up to the group (particularly the DM) to determine.

Seems pretty clear that they've chosen the path of "4E take 2", there. No semantic disclaimer will change the way people interpret and use the initial set of races and classes. It'll also affect all 5E artwork. I don't see how this can be anything but just 4E's "everything is core" all over again, and all that entails. Must have been too profitable to put out to pasture.

 

[Mallus]

... for aesthetic problems with the core...

What do you consider D&D's core?

Arduin's air sharks aside, most of my examples are found in the AD&D 3 core books, plus some of it most famous and well-loved adventure modules.

 

[Nivenus]

You know, the "everything is core" mantra isn't unique to 4e. It was also the standard in 1st edition, where the main rulebooks were meant to apply to just about everything. Hell, even in 2e, it was generally assumed that all of the campaign settings interacted with each other on a regular basis, with both Spelljammer and Planescape linking them.

In that manner, 3e is the exception, not the rule.

 

[enrious]

Seems pretty clear that they've chosen the path of "4E take 2", there. No semantic disclaimer will change the way people interpret and use the initial set of races and classes. It'll also affect all 5E artwork. I don't see how this can be anything but just 4E's "everything is core" all over again, and all that entails. Must have been too profitable to put out to pasture.

Doesn't seem pretty clear to me at all. In fact, it seems the opposite.

Mind laying out exactly what points lead you to such a conclusion? A bulleted list would be great.

 

[ferratus]

I have to say rounser, your comments on this thread, and others, just seems to me that anything that 4e introduced is a poison that must excised. If that is your wish, I think you're going to have to give it up.

For one thing, there is too much of the old regime in place for there to be a complete backpedaling, no matter how little 4e met expectations.

 

[Spatula]

You know what really doesn't belong in the "core"? "One true way"-ism.

 

[enrious]

I have to say rounser, your comments on this thread, and others, just seems to me that anything that 4e introduced is a poison that must excised. If that is your wish, I think you're going to have to give it up.

For one thing, there is too much of the old regime in place for there to be a complete backpedaling, no matter how little 4e met expectations.

And more to the point, who gets to decide that the elements that players liked in a given edition are inferior because they were introduced in that edition?

I'll be right up front and say that I don't like healing surges as they were introduced in 4e. I didn't like uneven XP leveling charts in 1&2e. I don't like Attacks of Opportunity from 3e/4e. And believe me, I could go on about every edition.

At the end of the day, if I draw a line in the sand over every specific rule or feature introduced in a given edition, I'm pretty soon going to be without a game to play.