What doesn't belong in the "core"

[Saracenus]

That statement seems reminiscent of the notorious "you're all just watching the clouds" blog post from one of the 4E designers in the lead-up to that game.

The subtext is, you're powerless and your opinion doesn't matter. I think the D&D audience kind of proved that hubris for what it was worth.

And I have managed my expectations - early indications are "castles & crusades + some tweaks & 4E implied setting trimmings", which is most of what I need to know, if it's true.

You can choose to focus on my poetic flourish in that way if you wish, I cannot control how you filter what I say.

And just so I am clear as a daylight spell using whatever 3e metamagic feat pumps it up to 11 , yes indeed I think posting up your line in the sand here on ENWorld is muted at best, absolutely useless at worst.

You want to know where D&D Next is really at, sign up and playtest. Then make your voice heard in the Spring. Playtest the next batch when it comes out and again raise your voice. That is your franchise in all of this.

Put some skin in the game. When the dust settles and if D&D Next isn't your cup of tea, then play the edition that is.

In the end that is all the maters, playing and having fun.

Of course you are free to ignore me. You can hold court here making snap judgements on very little information and have little or no say on how D&D Next comes to fruition. But that is on you.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Just a point about splats. WOTC already does what you're talking about here. That's what the whole "It's all core" means. Every class/race has gotten love in a variety of sources since release. No more orphan classes where you get a new class in a splat book and that's the last you're going to see of any support for that class, no matter what.

WOTC has been actually pretty good (with a few exceptions - Shardmind I believe hasn't gotten a whole lot of loving, nor has runepriest) about consistently supporting all new options.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Thank you!

Been playing D&D since the Cambrian Age and I've seen more warforged (3) or tieflings (2) at my table than I've seen gnomes (1) and halflings (1).

I'm all for unity, but let's not assume the world stopped in 1977.

Actually, it stopped in 1974.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

That's fine, however, I'd also like a blurb somewhere in character creation that says something like "Not every DM will use every class and race. Check with the DM first to see which classes and races are available in his campaign. The DM has final say on what is or isn't allowed."

 

[harlokin]

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.

Except, whether they are 'Uncommon', 'Rare', or unavailable should be down to the campaign, not the core rulebook.

 

[Oni]

I will say that I would like to see the next edition of D&D step away from the motto of "everything is core" to one of "everything is optional".

 

[Cyberzombie]

Just a point about splats. WOTC already does what you're talking about here. That's what the whole "It's all core" means. Every class/race has gotten love in a variety of sources since release. No more orphan classes where you get a new class in a splat book and that's the last you're going to see of any support for that class, no matter what.

WOTC has been actually pretty good (with a few exceptions - Shardmind I believe hasn't gotten a whole lot of loving, nor has runepriest) about consistently supporting all new options.

That's good to know. It wasn't my impression from what I had heard about 4e and what I knew from the previous editions. Good to hear I'm wrong on that.

 

[Remathilis]

Except, whether they are 'Uncommon', 'Rare', or unavailable should be down to the campaign, not the core rulebook.

"The DM has the right to change the frequency of any class or race to suit his taste."

 

[harlokin]

"The DM has the right to change the frequency of any class or race to suit his taste."

Exactly.

 

[Remathilis]

Exactly.

Good. We have a default setting for those who don't care or know better, and a line warning players the DM is in control. Win win.

(I'm beginning to wonder who all these unreasonable players are...)