What doesn't belong in the "core"

[WheresMyD20]

Because there is no reason not to have Dwarven Mages or Elven Paladins as perfectly viable options for the Players and GMs that desire them. The fact that they may have not been in the 1978 version of DnD is not argument enough to exclude them.

I didn't say exclude. I said make them optional. There's a very big difference. If players and DMs desire them, they are there for them to use.

Why do people insist on loading down the core rules with umpteen classes and races?

 

[ferratus]

I didn't say exclude. I said make them optional. There's a very big difference. If players and DMs desire them, they are there for them to use.

Why do people insist on loading down the core rules with umpteen classes and races?

I think I would also ask why people insist that there must be core rules for races and classes? After all, classes are specific rules, not the general rules which all classes follow.

 

[Wormwood]

I didn't say exclude. I said make them optional. There's a very big difference. If players and DMs desire them, they are there for them to use.

Cool, because those outliers will probably be Uncommon or Rare in the PHB.

Why do people insist on loading down the core rules with umpteen classes and races?

Because "core" D&D means different things for different people. I know five people for whom D&D means tiefling warlords and dragonborn paladins. They count.

 

[rounser]

Oh, and I understand their logic regarding "The Excluded Gnome Principle". I just don't agree that the conclusion they have drawn (kitchen sinking in everything, a mistake they've already made before with Eberron IMO) is the correct conclusion to draw.

For instance, what if people who stayed with D&D through 4E simply care less about the contents of the implied setting than people who looked at dragonborn and went "what the hell..." and put the book down. I think it'll take another edition for them to work out that (assuming my theory is right and I admit it's a big one) that like a cake, what goes into the core game is just as important as what is left out.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I've never really understood the huge bruhaha over retconning things like Dragonborn or Tieflings into Forgotten Realms. Good grief, FR is a total kitchen sink setting. It's already been through more ret-cons than the average Marvel comic. But now the line gets drawn in the sand? Really?

But, I'd still stand by the idea that you have a "core" core - something very basic - heck whether you base it on the four base classes - Fighting Man, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, or Combat Roles from 4e (which isn't a terrible way of going) or even something else like - Warrior, Arcane, Divine and Explorer - I would like to see the "Core" core consist of those 4 concepts. Mostly archetype agnostic (or at least so broad that you can fit pretty much anything in there) and fairly reasonably balanced.

The next chapter would be "Archetypes". That's where you get what Rounser is looking for. Strongly tied thematic classes based on fairly traditional concepts. Then, would be the chapter for people like me who aren't all that interested in traditional concepts and it would be classes that are based more on what the class does, rather than what the class is. If that makes sense.

That way, everyone is happy.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Because "core" D&D means different things for different people. I know five people for whom D&D means tiefling warlords and dragonborn paladins. They count.

Of course they count. I have no problems with unusual races and classes in the game. Back in my old 1e group we'd play all sorts of weird races out of the monster manuals that weren't in the PHB. I've also played in games that are human-only. Leave it up to the DM, though, to decide what he wants in his campaign.

I don't like the idea of loading down the "core" rules with a lot of races & classes. It creates the expectation that DMs should let you play those races & classes and if he doesn't, then it sets up player-DM conflict.

It also creates a system of "second class" classes & races - the ones that don't appear in the core.

I think a better way of doing it is to have the basic four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) and one race (human) in the core. All other classes and races are labelled as optional, even if they're in the core rulebook. The DM could then specify what he will allow and what he won't. This way, elves, dwarves, dragonborn, gnomes, or even more exotic choices like centaurs and kenku are all on relatively equal footing and there isn't the player-DM conflict that player entitlement can bring.

 

[Wormwood]

Of course they count. I have no problems with unusual races and classes in the game.

You missed my point, I think.

For these players, 4e was their first version of D&D.

Dragonborn and warlords are not exotic or unusual for them---no more so than humans or paladins are for us long-time players.

edit: after a careful re-reading of your post (pardon me, I failed my drunk save tonight) , I believe we may be able to find common ground. All races/classes in the first 5e PHB, but label some of the newer ones as 'uncommon' or 'rare'? I'd be fine with that.

 

[Nivenus]

But, I'd still stand by the idea that you have a "core" core - something very basic - heck whether you base it on the four base classes - Fighting Man, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, or Combat Roles from 4e (which isn't a terrible way of going) or even something else like - Warrior, Arcane, Divine and Explorer - I would like to see the "Core" core consist of those 4 concepts. Mostly archetype agnostic (or at least so broad that you can fit pretty much anything in there) and fairly reasonably balanced.

The next chapter would be "Archetypes". That's where you get what Rounser is looking for. Strongly tied thematic classes based on fairly traditional concepts. Then, would be the chapter for people like me who aren't all that interested in traditional concepts and it would be classes that are based more on what the class does, rather than what the class is. If that makes sense.

That way, everyone is happy.

This is probably how I'd go about designing things personally. Actually, my design would probably be more like Combat-heavy class (Fighter), Exploration-heavy class (Rogue), Roleplay-heavy class (Bard/Rogue), along with two classes that are good at two parts (clerics might be a mix or Roleplay and Combat, for example).

But I'm pretty happy with what I'm currently hearing from WotC about class design.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Maybe WotC could ask Paizo really, really nicely to use their gnomes? It's the first type of gnome I've seen with an actual purpose. Halflings, though, don't need to worry. They'll be there. And they were BAD MOFOs in 3e! I played an all-halfling party once. No one saw us until we were annihilating them.

The core depends mainly on space constraints and what people really, really want. Some people are going to be disappointed, because not everything is going to fit. But even if something gets shuffled to a secondary book, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to suck. Pathfinder has put out some excellent splatbooks, with new base classes that are every bit as interesting -- and as supported -- as the core book's classes. Witches may not be in the basic book, but every splat since then has given them support and new options. If Paizo can do it, I think WotC can. So if the warforged and gnomes show up in PHB II, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll suck.

Double-bladed swords will always suck, though.

 

[Incenjucar]

The Forgotten Realms have saurials. That's proof enough that it is too perfect a setting to allow something as silly as dragonborn.