What is meant by saying that in 4e "Everything is core"?

[Runestar]

Was this "portability" issue such a problem in earlier editions?

I cannot comment for 2e, since I have never tried it before. As for 3e, I felt I was able to adapt certain aspects of FR (I don't use Eberron, so again, no comments for that) seamlessly into my normal campaigns, such as thayan enclaves (basically low-level magic k-marts). Regional feats, while conceptually unique, weren't really that much more powerful compared to normal PHB feats (save for maybe 1 or 2 exceptions). Same for other features such as bonus starting gear. PRCs proved a little challenging, because quite a few were intrinisically tied to mechanics and flavour unique to FR, but nothing some rewording couldn't solve.

As for cities, I never felt that they carried much "setting baggage". In the very least, I don't see how cities such as Thay or Waterdeep, or organizations like the cult of the dragon would be unique only to FR.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Martial Power has feats for genasi and drow. Adventurer's Vault has magic equipment specifically for animal companions from Martial Power. That is an example of the supplement treating another supplement as "core". Knowing that races or classes from supplements are going to be supported in later books is what makes them core. It should be noted that the Dragon stuff doesn't seem to be referenced in books (the racial stuff, since most of the class articles are either additions or previews of some kind).

Certain things (magic items, powers for a class, feats) don't necessarily need support. Classes, races, class features would be the stuff that looks for support. In terms of Monsters and items though, showing up in adventure modules would be the way they are core.

Also, I keep hearing people mentioned DMGII, etc ... I only remember mention of PHB and MM getting a new version each year, since more races, classes and monsters are easy things to add, but DMG wouldn't really be something they could do on a regular basis.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

"Core Rules" became an important distinction with the OGL and the d20 license. Core rules became part of the SRD (with some IP exceptions).

I took the meaning of future installments of the 4E Core books (PHB, DMG, MM) to be that those using the GSL will be able to utilize material from the core books.

So, a 3PP would not be allowed to use material from the FRCS books, but would be able to use the Barbarian, for example.

This is how I understood the message, I don't have verification though.

Maybe Mr. Rouse could chime in?

 

[Hussar]

Was this "portability" issue such a problem in earlier editions?

I cannot comment for 2e, since I have never tried it before. As for 3e, I felt I was able to adapt certain aspects of FR (I don't use Eberron, so again, no comments for that) seamlessly into my normal campaigns, such as thayan enclaves (basically low-level magic k-marts). Regional feats, while conceptually unique, weren't really that much more powerful compared to normal PHB feats (save for maybe 1 or 2 exceptions). Same for other features such as bonus starting gear. PRCs proved a little challenging, because quite a few were intrinisically tied to mechanics and flavour unique to FR, but nothing some rewording couldn't solve.

As for cities, I never felt that they carried much "setting baggage". In the very least, I don't see how cities such as Thay or Waterdeep, or organizations like the cult of the dragon would be unique only to FR.

It certainly could be, depending on what sources you drew from. FR is pretty close to vanilla D&D, so, I wouldn't expect FR regional feats to be all that big of a deal. But, take something like Oriental Adventures. There's some PRC's in there (the weapon master one whose name escapes me right now) which are way, way up there on the wahoo scale. Plus some of the weapons and spells could be pretty potent too. It was balanced in that setting by the flavour restrictions of that setting, but, outside of OA, it could be pretty unbalanced.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I'm glad they are treating more books as 'core'. In 3.5, I always hated that my Warlock got the short end of the stick when it came to support in later books, if at all.

I don't play or DM in FR, but the Swordmage, Drow, and Genasi have made appearances in my games. For this, the DDI Compendium is going to ROCK!

As for DMG II and on, I can think of many things they could update from 3.5 (and I hope some genuenly new material too) that could be Core:
- material from the 'environment' books (cityscape, dungeonscape, frostburn, etc)
- affiliations (I loved the abstract nature of these. Want to dynamically model an entire kingdom or a single shop - use an affiliation!)
- Mass combat
- Castle building
- player-run businesses, keeps, or kingdoms
- advice for making new powers, for monsters or players

Besides the crunch though, the DMG should have advice for becoming better DMs. I think that is one reason why the 4e DMG is so well recieved. Material from old Dungeoncraft articles, for instance, are very valuable but hidden away in old magazines and hard to get to for some (most?).

This kind of material should easily be considered 'Core'.

 

[amysrevenge]

Martial Power has feats for genasi and drow. Adventurer's Vault has magic equipment specifically for animal companions from Martial Power. That is an example of the supplement treating another supplement as "core". Knowing that races or classes from supplements are going to be supported in later books is what makes them core. It should be noted that the Dragon stuff doesn't seem to be referenced in books (the racial stuff, since most of the class articles are either additions or previews of some kind).

This is pretty much what I see as the heart of "everything is core" also.

The early 3.x model (which they started to alter toward the end) was that "core" elements were supplemented in future books, but "non-core" alements were only addressed in their source. So you'd see new options for (core) elves/wizards/etc., in many future books, while the only time you'd ever see anything for (non-core) hexblades was in the book where they were introduced.

The new model seems to be that we'll see PH stuff updated with new supplements, but we'll also see swordmages, beastmaster rangers, warforged, and other newer stuff appearing again in future books as well.

 

[JackSmithIV]

Wow, this is become hugely more complicated than the original statement ever intended.

The idea that "everything is core" comes as a response to how 3rd Edition simply had multiple cores, and some things were simply not clear as to how they should be used at all. There was core, Forgotten Realms core, Eberron Core, etc... and not only that, but how should I use this? With descretion? As much as I desire?

Now, every book can be thrown into your game. It's all on the playing field. You can throw in all the content for Draconomicon, and you're still balanced. You can make a character from only Martial Power book power, and you're still balanced. It's the idea that all of the books they release should be used with just as much security that balance will be maintained as the Player's Handbook.

It's the promise of "We're not going to release something that you can't trust".

Also, it's the idea that there is one core. Forgotten Realms isn't it's own section of D&D any more. It's a setting for all of the core books, which is everything. There's not a Dragons of Faerun... there's Draconomicon. And it's the Draconomicon for D&D core, it's the Draconomicon for Forgotten Realms, and it's the Draconomicon of Eberron. There's no Planes of Eberron. There's Manual of the Planes, and that's what's core.

It's the idea that if you have all of their core products, but you want to play a game in Forgotten Realms, everything you have is usable. That's the key to "everything is core". It's everything is usable.

 

[Mistwell]

Every year there are going to be at least 3 new "core books." The PHB II, MM II and DMG II are all supposed to be core. Thus, three new "core books" each year. This is where the comment first appeared (from comments WotC made a panel discussions at GenCon).

That was my understanding of the phrase as well.

 

[justanobody]

I still don't get it.

So is this statement meant to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick

Yes. IMNSHO

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think you should ask people who run 3.X with only the PHB, MM, and DMG why they do it that way. That should provide useful insight into this matter.