PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 - A Core adventure?



Killer Angel
2010-09-14, 09:43 AM
from another thread.


Eww, just core is so boring. :smallyuk:


This made me think.
Many of us find boring to play with Core only.
Many DM wants to play Core only.

Now, if the players that like splatbooks and expansion, should choose to play an adventure with Core only, what would be their best bet?
You can choose not only the characters, but also the power level, the setting and the kind of enemies, letting the DM to invent and run the adventure.

For your own tastes, what could be the combination less "boring"?
What if you could add ONE splatbook?

Awnetu
2010-09-14, 10:05 AM
Eberron Players Guide, because Artificers and Warforged are awesome.

The power level would depend on the time the DM would let me craft.

If I get alot of time, I'd prefer the game involve tier 3 and up, though I don't know if I'd go with Druids PrCing in Planarshepard or something like that, but high power is fine if I get enough time to do my own cheese.

Zore
2010-09-14, 10:29 AM
Tome of Battle would be the best book I could recommend if only given one splatbook as it adds the greatest number of interesting classes in a single book as well as better melee which is sorely lacking in Core. Magic of Incarnum likewise adds great classes and mechanics, but only two good and usable ones. Another option is the XPH, but I usually consider that core as well because its on the SRD. Any of those books adds a lot of mechanical diversity and fun mechanics.

Feliks878
2010-09-14, 10:31 AM
My next game is going to be core only.

It's with a new group at my university, not my gaming group from High school who were old hands at D&D. I wanted to simplify things for both new players and myself, and have a game that's a throwback to a more old school mindset of D&D. Splatbooks are fun, but they throw the power level all over the place, and make the game less fun for less experienced players who don't have all the best builds memorized, and will let them taste the game before trying to swallow everything whole.

That said, as a DM I sometimes wish all my 3.5 games were core only. My main D&D group has a wide range of players from the min/maxers to the casual players to the newbies. When I've limited splatbooks in the past we've had a more balanced party, and it seems when I let anything go (or another DM does) one or two players end up dominating the scene.

Amphetryon
2010-09-14, 10:39 AM
If Psionics are Core by virtue of being in the SRD, then I'd add Tome of Battle.

If Psionics are not Core, I'd add them first.

I'd be awfully sad to miss out on the multiclass-enabling feats from Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel, though.

Maralais
2010-09-14, 12:06 PM
though I have DM'd only for once, I can guess why DMs don't want to use splatbooks. First of all, I find it hard to remember all of the core rules and going through pages when I need to check something, adding even more books would probably turn it to a nightmare.

Second of all, the DM might think splatbooks' new features make characters overpowered.

Powerfamiliar
2010-09-14, 12:17 PM
Tome of Magic. ToB straight up replaces core melee, ToM adds more variety without really powering core classes much (well except anima mage I guess). Now granted a game like this will require casters to tone it down, your palyers might not like that.

Croverus
2010-09-14, 12:37 PM
I'd add Unearthed arcana. With it's alternate variations on core classes, racial paragon classes, and variations on the core races, as well as the bloodlines, it gives your players a lot of options without favoring any one type of player a huge deal, and gives you a good idea for campaigns, like setting the campaign in a certain environemnt so the players encounter that variant of races and can choose to be that variant as well.

TheThan
2010-09-14, 12:43 PM
If I could add one splat book it would probably be TOM or TOB.

See core is inherently unbalanced, imbalance in games is generally a bad thing. It can lead to power gaming, player envy (your character is more powerful than mine!) and all sorts of other things. by making the game more balanced, you remove a lot of these potential problems.

Now Tome of battle brings the non-casters up in power to be closer to the spellcasters. While tome of magic breings the casters down to a similar level to that of the non-casters. So balance is more or less maintained.

That being said, there is nothing inherently “wrong” with running a core only game. It keeps things fairly simple, with less bookwork and a much smaller headache. Since I believe in hassle free Dming, this is a good thing. Besides nearly any character concept you could think up is doable with the core material, sure it might not be perfectly suitable for what you want, but it’ll work.

Killer Angel
2010-09-14, 01:01 PM
Funny... there are a lot of answer regarding my second question, but so few data on the main one.
Oh, well, while we're at it... :smalltongue:

My choice for a single "add on" to the Core, would probably be Eberron Player's handbook, or Faerun's Players Guide... I like the concept of regional feats, and some of the PrC (Spellguard of silverymoon, Divine seeker).

arrowhen
2010-09-14, 05:18 PM
First I'd convince the DM that if they're going Core-only they might as well go *Pathfinder* Core-only, then I'd pick the APG as my splat.

Then I'd start trying to sell the group on E6.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-14, 05:27 PM
If UA/XPH is core (as it is in the srd), then Magic of Incarnum. Otherwise XPH.
Thing is, of the base classes, the only one I enjoy that aren't mechanically useless (monk :() is the wizard. As you leave, Swordsage, Psychic warrior and Incarnate suddenly shine into awesome glory made of win.

jmbrown
2010-09-14, 06:05 PM
Tome of Magic. ToB straight up replaces core melee, ToM adds more variety without really powering core classes much (well except anima mage I guess). Now granted a game like this will require casters to tone it down, your palyers might not like that.

80% of caster cheese is in core. The other books are pure gravy.


Funny... there are a lot of answer regarding my second question, but so few data on the main one.

What was your first question? What adventure people should play? The early 3.0 adventures are good. You'll have to update them to 3.5 rules but it's not a difficult thing to do.

Endarire
2010-09-14, 07:03 PM
I'd vouch for the entire SRD, Tome of Battle, Eberron Campaign Setting, and freely available material like the Mind's Eye articles. If I wanted something outside these sources, I'd include it.

In general, I allow anything pending DM approval.

Koury
2010-09-14, 07:41 PM
from another thread.



This made me think.
Many of us find boring to play with Core only.
Many DM wants to play Core only.

Now, if the players that like splatbooks and expansion, should choose to play an adventure with Core only, what would be their best bet?
You can choose not only the characters, but also the power level, the setting and the kind of enemies, letting the DM to invent and run the adventure.

For your own tastes, what could be the combination less "boring"?
What if you could add ONE splatbook?

I inspired a thread? Weird :smalltongue:

Anyway, I just find games more interesting when there are more options in play. I always have fun when the BBEG is a Psion who makes heavy use of Incarnum and his second in command is a Master of Nine. Can our Malconvoker, Bearbearian, Factotum/Swordsage and Binder foil his evil plans?

Theres more options, more variables, more viable stratagies and counterstratagies.

For me, thats just more fun. :smallsmile:

To answer the question more directly, I prefer SpC, MIC and ToB to all be in play, at a minimum.

137ben
2010-09-14, 07:52 PM
The core is intended to give ideas for new content, not as a definitive source. However, the range of options is much more limited at high levels than at mid and low, because less content is in core. I think for a game going only to 10th level or so, core-only works fine. After that, your fighter has pretty much exhausted the useful feats (if not before that, depending on his build), and the core monsters are also a LOT more limited. I'd say even if the players are limited to core, the DM should really make use of non-core monsters.

Khatoblepas
2010-09-14, 07:54 PM
Since I like options, I don't think I could play in a core only game. I'd only end up playing a druid, simply because of the number of options they have.

But if I HAD to choose one? Just one? Tome of Battle. Fun melee is more important than better spellcasting.

I prefer to ditch core and play with XPH, TOM and TOB as my core. Mmm. Psion, Psychic Warrior, Binder, Recharge Shadowcaster, Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader. They're all the classes I could hope for. Well, maybe Mystic Wildshape Ranger and MoI can join the party, if they want. It keeps the party around the tiers I like (2-3), gives a variety of options overall but a limited number of options per character. Maybe get rid of 7-9 level spells and replace them with incantations to give utility to the upper levels of "mages".

Killer Angel
2010-09-15, 02:20 AM
What was your first question?

This one:



Now, if the players should choose to play an adventure with Core only, what would be their best bet?
You can choose not only the characters, but also the power level, the setting and the kind of enemies, letting the DM to invent and run the adventure.

For your own tastes, what could be the combination less "boring"?


The adding of a non-Core manual, was the second question.
(a more interesting one, indeed)


I inspired a thread? Weird :smalltongue:


You're welcome. :smallwink:

Greenish
2010-09-15, 04:05 AM
For your own tastes, what could be the combination less "boring"?More books? :smallbiggrin:

PF Core looks more fun than 3.5 Core. Classes get actual class features and all that jazz.