WOTC books use non-core material now?

It seems that the 4 Completes (the first four), and probably the Expanded Psionics Handbook, are "almost core".

Thing is, I'm fine with that. YMMV, of course.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm perfectly fine with this when the references make sense. Referencing non-core" sources in terms of fluff and flavor text is never bad, and thankfully we're far past the point of not being able to reference Loki by name when talking about his own deific domain in Pandemonium, instead having to call him "the trickster" because referencing outside of core was wrongbadterrible at the time.

Now when it comes to referencing non-core crunch, it's a bit trickier, but generally speaking I'm fine with it so long as it's at a moderate level and makes wise use of and inclusion of the most applicable material to a given situation. I'd rather a book reference and use an earlier non-core book's rules on say, fiendish possession, than recreating a totally different set of rules to handle the same situation. Cross-book referencing saves space and lets me get more bang for my $$ more often than it will make me look up a book I don't have.
 

Razz said:
It's not fair either way.

I agree both ways will have detractors. I don't know that "fairness" enters into it.

If you only use core-material than there is no incentive to purchase non-core material knowing they will never receive support beyond their initial introduction.

Why must a book receive support beyond the initial introduction to be useful?
 

I don't think this is anything new. The Eberron Campaign Setting (June 2004) uses material from Expand Psionics Handbook.

I agree that there should be a balance. It's nice to support old books as long as it doesn't alienate new readers.
 

It's been going on for quite some time now. The Fiend Folio includes references to the Psionics Handbook, Manual of the Planes, etc.

I'm very much a proponent of using non-core references, and even references to things that haven't been updated yet. It's a shame when a replacement deity has to been chosen for a monster, for example, just because said deity hasn't made a 3e appearance yet. I love the fact that the FC1 mentions draedens, foo creatures, etc., despite the fact that they haven't yet received 3x stats. I also like when spell-like abilities that make perfect sense from a creature, but don't happen to be in the PHB, can be included with a simple replacement or a short sidebar, such as in FCII.
 

Shade said:
I'm very much a proponent of using non-core references, and even references to things that haven't been updated yet. It's a shame when a replacement deity has to been chosen for a monster, for example, just because said deity hasn't made a 3e appearance yet. I love the fact that the FC1 mentions draedens, foo creatures, etc., despite the fact that they haven't yet received 3x stats. I also like when spell-like abilities that make perfect sense from a creature, but don't happen to be in the PHB, can be included with a simple replacement or a short sidebar, such as in FCII.

That is fine too IMO. As long as they don't make books unusable without another non-core book I think its pefectly ok.
 

I'm also a book whore so seeing non-core material supported doesn't bother me in the least. Makes me very happy, actually, to see that being done.
 

My guess is this is happening because their market research indicates most people use more than just the core rules anyway. It is definitely a break with past policy and I suspect there are market reasons for doing so (not to mention as a designer you can probably come up with a lot more ideas around stuff that hasn't really been fully explored yet, like the non-core classes.)
 


Another rulebook whore here. In the last 6 days I've purchased Dragon Magic, Sandstorm, and Frostburn. I got Complete Mage for Christmas, and Complete Scoundrel is on its way. Heck, if I can find a cheap copy, I'll even buy the Planar Handbook!
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top