What's technically considered core?

[BenShums]

What books are considered core rulebooks?

[RFLS]

PHB, DMG, and MMI. You can also find XPH on d20srd.org, which is what some people refer to as Core.

For future reference (looks like you're newer around here), there's a stickied thread at the top of this sub-forum for basic questions relating to 3.5.

[pbdr]

Player's handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual.

[eggynack]

There are a couple of definitions. The standard and original definition encapsulates the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual I. The other definition is the SRD, due to its general accessibility. This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35) is the official, Wizards published, SRD, however many use the D20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), because it has more information, and is easier to use. I think that covers all of them.

[Urpriest]

Some people mean Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Some people mean the SRD, while others mean all material published on d20srd.org. I've seen some people add the Player's Handbook II and the Dungeon Master's Guide II, while some add the Complete series (or just the first Complete series). In general, if someone says that something is true of core either they will specify what they mean, or they need to be pestered until they say what they mean.

[TuggyNE]

Some people mean Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Some people mean the SRD, while others mean all material published on d20srd.org. I've seen some people add the Player's Handbook II and the Dungeon Master's Guide II, while some add the Complete series (or just the first Complete series). In general, if someone says that something is true of core either they will specify what they mean, or they need to be pestered until they say what they mean.

And then there's the people who mean whatever's on dandwiki, possibly limited to the SRD: namespace.

Incidentally, how about a set of names for those different definitions?
MinCore: PHB, DMG, MMI
SRD Core: Everything in the SRD
d20srd Core: Everything on that website
CoreII: MinCore + PHB + DMGII
CoreComp: MinCore + Completes

Importantly, none of those are just called "Core", because that would be ambiguous with the existing imprecise usage.

[BenShums]

So when my dungeon master tells me "we play core", and I ask "what do you mean by core?" and then wait 7 days for a response, I'm just going to have to keep waiting...

[Eldariel]

So when my dungeon master tells me "we play core", and I ask "what do you mean by core?" and then wait 7 days for a response, I'm just going to have to keep waiting...

Assume PHB, DMG and MM1 (that's the most useful definition since everything else can be referred to by different name; SRD for d20SRD, Completes for Completes, etc.), expand if the definition differs.

[nyjastul69]

So when my dungeon master tells me "we play core", and I ask "what do you mean by core?" and then wait 7 days for a response, I'm just going to have to keep waiting...

Yes you probably have to. Technically only PH, DMG and MM are core, anything else is a misuse of the term. You can definitely move forward with those three books however and then modify your character based upon your DMs response.

[Chronos]

Note that the SRD actually has a section (i.e., not the whole thing) specifically called "Core rules". This encompasses all of the material in the PHB, DMG, and MM1 (well, almost all of it, minus a couple of things like the XP tables and wealth by level), and nothing else.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes you probably have to. Technically only PH, DMG and MM are core, anything else is a misuse of the term. You can definitely move forward with those three books however and then modify your character based upon your DMs response.

Then hope he expands the content after everyone has the rules down.

[Devils_Advocate]

Incidentally, how about a set of names for those different definitions?
MinCore: PHB, DMG, MMI
SRD Core: Everything in the SRD
d20srd Core: Everything on that website
CoreII: MinCore + PHB + DMGII
CoreComp: MinCore + Completes
Those second and third definitions strike me as rather nonsensical, quite frankly. The intuitive meaning of a phrase in such a form, "[X] Core", is "all of the core rules in the [X]", not "all of the rules in [X]". The obvious way to refer to the content of [X] is "[X] content" or simply "[X]".

Mind flayers are in one of the three core rulebooks, but not in the SRD. The psionic rules are on the Hypertext d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), but are not present in any of the three core rulebooks.

See how easy that was to understand? If you want to communicate clearly, then use clear language! Or, since this is the internet, link to an explanation of what the heck you're talking about if a short phrase is insufficient to convey the concept. (E.g., don't just say "The Barbarian is tier 4", say "The Barbarian is tier 4 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=9k1l41fopi505n5jqn0bhfvs02&topic=5293)".)

Weird technical jargon, especially weird technical jargon in which words are twisted to work contrary to normal usage, strikes me as the opposite of what to promote if your goal is to encourage the clear communication of ideas. This is a bit of a problem in RPGs, I feel. There's probably someone out there who is understandably confused by the idea that it's possible get five "successes" and still fail at something in Exalted, because this person is being faced with the undeserved abuse of a poor, innocent word.

Why, White Wolf? What did the word "success" ever do to you? :( It's not like you couldn't have just called the points a player racks up by rolling dice... "points".

[Curmudgeon]

What books are considered core rulebooks?
Those would be the three books which have CORE RULEBOOK right on the front covers.

Click on this link for a bigger version, and look near the bottom:
http://img1.imagesbn.com/p/9780786962464_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG (http://www.thestrong.org/online-collections/images/Z004/Z00460/Z0046083.jpg)