PDA

View Full Version : Poll: What do You Consider de Facto Core?



Tequila Sunrise
2007-06-16, 10:28 AM
Other than the core 3, what books do you consider to be so commonly used and accepted as to be an integral part of the game?

Raistlin1040
2007-06-16, 10:30 AM
The Complete series. That's all I'd consider, although the PHBII could be considered.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-06-16, 10:30 AM
Unearthed Arcana, as most of it is OGL, is fairly wide made use of, if almost always under the heading of 'special rules'.

The PHB-II I would, personally, consider core, if latter-day core.
I also usually regard the first four or so completes (divine, adventurer, warrior, and arcane) as 'widely accepted', and thus integral.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-16, 10:30 AM
I'd swear we've gone through this before...anyway.

Expanded Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook, at the very least.

brian c
2007-06-16, 10:36 AM
I'd swear we've gone through this before...anyway.

Expanded Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook, at the very least.

Epic Handbook is 3.0 though, so I would say even if you're playing an Epic campaign, if it's 3.5 then there are going to be a lot of changes so it's not quite Core anymore.



For me, I think PHB II is definitely Core-ish, and the Complete series is usually allowed in anything. Unearthed Arcana is DM discretion, whether or not you want to use the variant rules in there, but if a player wants a class variant in there it should be okay.

Now that I've read Tome of Battle, I consider that available material for any campaign that I run. Other people will feel the same way about Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-16, 10:46 AM
Epic Handbook is 3.0 though, so I would say even if you're playing an Epic campaign, if it's 3.5 then there are going to be a lot of changes so it's not quite Core anymore.


I thought there was a 3.5 epic handbook? Or are those rules just handled in the DMG now?

Bah, I can't remember. Too many editions of too many games to keep in my head.

PHB II probably qualifies on some level, though I really only like the Knight out of the base classes.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-16, 10:54 AM
My "Core": PHB-I, PHB-II, DMG-I, DMG-II, MM-I, CAdv, CArc, CCham, CDiv, CPsi, CWar, CScn, XPH, Hyperconscious, ToB, ToM, MoI.

Anything else is optional.

Matthew
2007-06-16, 10:56 AM
Nothing. I don't consider any Book outside the three Core Books to be de facto Core.

[Edit] However, certain elements of Books I will conventionally incorportate, such as Oversized Two Weapon Fighting.

Neon Knight
2007-06-16, 10:58 AM
I consider the SRD core, alongside the three core books.

TheGreatJabu
2007-06-16, 11:29 AM
My definition of Core is nothing more than the standard PHB, DMG, and MM. The only Complete book I generally allow is Warrior, and even that is iffy depending on the circumstances.

I think that the PrCs and new feats range from okay to pretty darned good, but the addition of new "starting classes" generally irks me. I usually find them to be new flavors of Core classes or simply slightly "cooler" combinations of core multiclasses.

If there was a "Core Only" fanclub, I'd actually consider joining it.

skywalker
2007-06-16, 12:15 PM
For me, I think PHB II is definitely Core-ish, and the Complete series is usually allowed in anything. Unearthed Arcana is DM discretion, whether or not you want to use the variant rules in there, but if a player wants a class variant in there it should be okay.

Now that I've read Tome of Battle, I consider that available material for any campaign that I run. Other people will feel the same way about Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

At this point, you have brought 17 of the 40(non campaign specific) books Wizard's has published for 3.5 under the heading of "core," without mentioning expanded psionics, or the disputed ELH.

Core does not mean books that are commonly used. Even "de facto core" does not mean books that are commonly used. If a book had a variant that was so widespread that you *needed* that book so that your creations would mesh with the vast majority of other D&D players, then it would be "de facto core," but that book does not exist. Core means the *core* part of the system. The rules that you absolutely MUST have to play the game, which are contained in the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. All these other rulebooks contain *supplemental rules,* which means they are not required to play the game, and therefore, not core.

Epic level handbook probably does count as "de facto core" because it contains rules for going beyond level 20, although you can certainly continue on from level 20 by simply adding class features and spells in the same progression that they got before level 20, although new spells are not being learned. However, ELH has not been truly updated to 3.5, meaning that it is less "de facto core" because it is harder to integrate into a 3.5 game. While Unearthed Arcana has alot of cool variant rules, none of them are necessary to play the game, which means that it is not core. Most people play D&D with squares, not hexes, no rules on sight-lines in combat, etc. Therefore Unearthed Arcana is not core. I do not have much experience with psionics, how often they are played, or anything else about them. So I will list expanded psionic handbook until someone who knows more about them can confirm or deny their "de facto core" status.

Therefore, the core books are:
Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Epic Level Handbook(iffy)
Expanded Psionics Handbook(iffy)

Quietus
2007-06-16, 12:24 PM
Just the big three. Add in a bit of imagination and you can do anything.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-16, 01:13 PM
At this point, you have brought 17 of the 40(non campaign specific) books Wizard's has published for 3.5 under the heading of "core," without mentioning expanded psionics, or the disputed ELH.

Core does not mean books that are commonly used. Even "de facto core" does not mean books that are commonly used. If a book had a variant that was so widespread that you *needed* that book so that your creations would mesh with the vast majority of other D&D players, then it would be "de facto core," but that book does not exist. Core means the *core* part of the system. The rules that you absolutely MUST have to play the game, which are contained in the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. All these other rulebooks contain *supplemental rules,* which means they are not required to play the game, and therefore, not core.

Epic level handbook probably does count as "de facto core" because it contains rules for going beyond level 20, although you can certainly continue on from level 20 by simply adding class features and spells in the same progression that they got before level 20, although new spells are not being learned. However, ELH has not been truly updated to 3.5, meaning that it is less "de facto core" because it is harder to integrate into a 3.5 game. While Unearthed Arcana has alot of cool variant rules, none of them are necessary to play the game, which means that it is not core. Most people play D&D with squares, not hexes, no rules on sight-lines in combat, etc. Therefore Unearthed Arcana is not core. I do not have much experience with psionics, how often they are played, or anything else about them. So I will list expanded psionic handbook until someone who knows more about them can confirm or deny their "de facto core" status.

Therefore, the core books are:
Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Epic Level Handbook(iffy)
Expanded Psionics Handbook(iffy)

What you're defining is de jure core: core as placed in the rules. What the OP is asking is what do people consider de facto core: that is, not what is core, but what they treat as core.

This is why my de jure core is PHB, DMG, MM-I, but my de facto core is PHB-I, PHB-II, DMG-I, DMG-II, MM-I, CAdv, CArc, CCham, CDiv, CPsi, CWar, CScn, XPH, Hyperconscious, ToB, ToM, MoI.

Talya
2007-06-16, 01:50 PM
Other than PHB and DMG, everything else is on a case-by-case approval basis. This doesn't mean I disallow most other things, but I'm not making a million house-rules for anything, I just make sure players know to ask me before using something not in those books. That said, if I don't have the Complete Adventurer/Arcane/Divine/Warrior, as well as RoS/RoW, I feel like i'm short a bunch of core material.

PHBII hasn't made it into core yet. There's some stuff in it I seriously dislike, actually, although much of it is neat, too.

sleeping fishy
2007-06-16, 02:19 PM
why isnt the phb case by case too? i mean, phb has, like, time stop and gate...

Draz74
2007-06-16, 02:24 PM
why isnt the phb case by case too? i mean, phb has, like, time stop and gate...

Yeah, "core" should be on a case-by-case basis too.

After the Big 3, the next "tier" of respectability, for me, is just the XPH and PHB II.

After that, I guess you can add Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and some of the less-broken-stuff-inside Completes. Warrior and Scoundrel especially.

Talya
2007-06-16, 02:25 PM
why isnt the phb case by case too? i mean, phb has, like, time stop and gate...

How often do you play in a game where people can already cast 9th level spells?

That said, I'm not of the opinion the wizard is overpowered at 20. I think they are right where they should be as long as you have a DM with at least half-a-spine, but that melee types do need some improvement. With casters you can go straight 20 levels of wizard and rock. There's no melee-class you want to take alone up to level 20, everyone multiclasses to try to grab synergistic abilities that help them be useful...because they, quite simply, are not useful otherwise.

Leon
2007-06-16, 03:05 PM
Expanded Psionics Handbook

brian c
2007-06-16, 03:16 PM
At this point, you have brought 17 of the 40(non campaign specific) books Wizard's has published for 3.5 under the heading of "core," without mentioning expanded psionics, or the disputed ELH.

Core does not mean books that are commonly used. Even "de facto core" does not mean books that are commonly used. If a book had a variant that was so widespread that you *needed* that book so that your creations would mesh with the vast majority of other D&D players, then it would be "de facto core," but that book does not exist. Core means the *core* part of the system. The rules that you absolutely MUST have to play the game, which are contained in the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. All these other rulebooks contain *supplemental rules,* which means they are not required to play the game, and therefore, not core.

Epic level handbook probably does count as "de facto core" because it contains rules for going beyond level 20, although you can certainly continue on from level 20 by simply adding class features and spells in the same progression that they got before level 20, although new spells are not being learned. However, ELH has not been truly updated to 3.5, meaning that it is less "de facto core" because it is harder to integrate into a 3.5 game. While Unearthed Arcana has alot of cool variant rules, none of them are necessary to play the game, which means that it is not core. Most people play D&D with squares, not hexes, no rules on sight-lines in combat, etc. Therefore Unearthed Arcana is not core. I do not have much experience with psionics, how often they are played, or anything else about them. So I will list expanded psionic handbook until someone who knows more about them can confirm or deny their "de facto core" status.

Therefore, the core books are:
Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Epic Level Handbook(iffy)
Expanded Psionics Handbook(iffy)

What Fax said. Also, I will bring to your attention the fact that I did in fact mention XPH, even though I just said "psionics", because to the best of my knowledge the only "psionics" books are XPH and Complete Psion (which I had already counted under the Complete Series).

The Core books that I use (de facto), books that I would let a player use (in most cases) without changes or special permission are PHB, PHB2, Completes, ToB and Unearthed Arcana.

Omnipotent_One
2007-06-16, 03:39 PM
I'd probably have to go with SRD + Completes, or just SRD

sleeping fishy
2007-06-16, 03:51 PM
How often do you play in a game where people can already cast 9th level spells?

lower lvl spells can be way too good too... plus theres crap like candle of invocations... and DRUIDS which i know ppl talk about here... core imo isnt any better balanced then other books.


That said, I'm not of the opinion the wizard is overpowered at 20. I think they are right where they should be as long as you have a DM with at least half-a-spine, but that melee types do need some improvement. With casters you can go straight 20 levels of wizard and rock. There's no melee-class you want to take alone up to level 20, everyone multiclasses to try to grab synergistic abilities that help them be useful...because they, quite simply, are not useful otherwise.
im not sure what dm having a spine has to do w/ it?? wizards are good cuz of the sweet spells they get, not cause the dm only throws weak enemies at'em...

Rad
2007-06-16, 04:12 PM
I call core the minimal set of rules (minimal=you cannot put anything away), so I usually call core only the 3 main books.
the next distinction is among what is "generic" as opposed to "setting-specific". Unfortunately the complete series does include some setting-specific stuff (complete champion is extremely bad in this) and occasionally there are some elements in setting-specific books that are generic enough to be used anywhere.

In practice, I would say that "generic" stuff present in "generic" books could be used in any campaign, unless the world of the game balance require to ban it (such as divine metamagic [balance]or the incompatibility between spontaneous and prepared casting in DragonLance [setting fluff]).

Talya
2007-06-16, 04:16 PM
im not sure what dm having a spine has to do w/ it?? wizards are good cuz of the sweet spells they get, not cause the dm only throws weak enemies at'em...

Example of DM without spine:

Wizard: "I cast gate to summon a titan."
DM: "Fine, deduct the experience. You have a titan."
Wizard: "I get the titan to summon another titan."
DM: "Oh, wow. Yeah. Look at the rules...yeah, they can do that."
Wizard: "I get the titan to get his titan to summon another titan..."
DM: "Ha. I guess you're beating this encounter."

Example of a DM with a spine:
Wizard: "I cast gate to summon a titan."
DM: "Careful, but sure."
Wizard: "I get the titan to summon another titan."
DM: "...riiiiight. Let's try that again."
Wizard: "No, it works! See, according to the rules..."
DM: "Stop. Do you really think that what the rules say will have any bearing on whether your new titan is going to actually summon another titan?"
Wizard: "Look, it says right here in the book..."
DM: "No."
Wizard: "But it says..."
DM: "You are struck dead instantly by the gods."
Wizard: "What the ****? You can't just..."
DM: "I can, and you are playing rules lawyer with me. Roll a new character."
Wizard: "But you..."
DM: "Alright, you wanna keep arguing? Don't roll a new character. Get the **** out of my campaign."


Get it yet? The discussions here about whether or not it's technically allowable to get a gated creature to start an infinite summoning chain are utterly irrelevant. The rules take a back seat to common sense, in every situation. No matter how good a diviner you are, you can't just instantly locate the nearest dragon to get some money and go solo it, because the DM should **** you for thinking you can. If a rule is left ambiguous (like shapechange's "familiarity" requirement), expect the DM to screw you over it really hard. That is the norm, that's how it's expected to function. In fact, any tactic that begins to feel like an exploit will eventually kill you, if the DM is doing his job.

greenknight
2007-06-16, 04:22 PM
Get it yet?

I do. You're imposing case by case limitations on the Core Rules to prevent certain classes from being overpowered. Which is exactly what sleeping fishy originally suggested.

Talya
2007-06-16, 04:27 PM
I do. You're imposing case by case limitations on the Core Rules to prevent certain classes from being overpowered. Which is exactly what sleeping fishy originally suggested.


No, I'm saying common sense is implied in the ruleset. The "Rules as written" include rule zero, which doesn't even require house rules. The rules as written include your DM compensating for people trying to exploit the game. Do something cheesy and exploitable, you will get screwed for it. It is not a flaw in the system that you need to do that, it's how the system is designed. The fact that melee classes can't exploit much only means that they are less likely to do **** that cause the DM to simply say "No."

And note that this isn't a case where it should even be necessary for the DM to say no. Any player should know not to try to do that, it's common sense. Trying alone implies a mindset that you're looking to exploit loopholes. Thing is, there are no loopholes in this game, unless you have loopholes in your DM's head.

skywalker
2007-06-16, 04:28 PM
@Fax and Brian: I'm not talking about de jure core, I explained that. Core is what you absolutely need to play the game. That's the definition of "core." Everything else is supplemental. I suppose XPH is core, but complete psionic certainly isn't. I'm not saying it isn't de jure core, core means you *need* that book to play the game which is known as 3.5 edition D&D. That's the definition of core, and to play D&D, you don't need anything more than PHB, DMG, MM, and possibly XPH and ELH.


EDIT: What I'm trying to say is, fax, do your players need all of those books on a regular basis to play with you? Because I think if they don't, then those are not core. Supplements you allow on a regular basis and "core" books are two different things. I'll shut up now because this isn't worth arguing and stepping on toes over.

sleeping fishy
2007-06-16, 04:32 PM
Example of DM without spine:

Wizard: "I cast gate to summon a titan."
DM: "Fine, deduct the experience. You have a titan."
Wizard: "I get the titan to summon another titan."
DM: "Oh, wow. Yeah. Look at the rules...yeah, they can do that."
Wizard: "I get the titan to get his titan to summon another titan..."
DM: "Ha. I guess you're beating this encounter."

Example of a DM with a spine:
Wizard: "I cast gate to summon a titan."
DM: "Careful, but sure."
Wizard: "I get the titan to summon another titan."
DM: "...riiiiight. Let's try that again."
Wizard: "No, it works! See, according to the rules..."
DM: "Stop. Do you really think that what the rules say will have any bearing on whether your new titan is going to actually summon another titan?"
Wizard: "Look, it says right here in the book..."
DM: "No."
Wizard: "But it says..."
DM: "You are struck dead instantly by the gods."
Wizard: "What the ****? You can't just..."
DM: "I can, and you are playing rules lawyer with me. Roll a new character."
Wizard: "But you..."
DM: "Alright, you wanna keep arguing? Don't roll a new character. Get the **** out of my campaign."


Get it yet? The discussions here about whether or not it's technically allowable to get a gated creature to start an infinite summoning chain are utterly irrelevant. The rules take a back seat to common sense, in every situation. No matter how good a diviner you are, you can't just instantly locate the nearest dragon to get some money and go solo it, because the DM should **** you for thinking you can. If a rule is left ambiguous (like shapechange's "familiarity" requirement), expect the DM to screw you over it really hard. That is the norm, that's how it's expected to function. In fact, any tactic that begins to feel like an exploit will eventually kill you, if the DM is doing his job.

what??? that has nothing to do with anything!!

whod try to gate in infinite #s of titans (didnt know you could do that btw, i guess it makes sense cuz titans have gate)?? no dm would ever allow that, itd be like, no, have a punch in the face... but did u see what gate can summon?? creatures of 2CL hitdice or less... thats some epic monsters... ones thatll own any encounter (& if you have an encounter some epic monster cant kill, itll wipe the party). thats what im talking about, not some stupid infinite loop... thats EXACTLY what gate is for!! & you can even cast it from an item, cnadle of invocations... 9k gold, you beat the monster... that sorta stupid crap is just as bad as divine metamagic or whatever is broken in the other books...

dms arent supposed to screw players over either... wtf?? saying "you shapechange into something strong... AND DIE" is retarded, its like the "rocks fall everyone dies" thing. if u think somethings too strong, BAN IT, dont punish your players for using it.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-16, 04:44 PM
What I'm trying to say is, fax, do your players need all of those books on a regular basis to play with you? Because I think if they don't, then those are not core. Supplements you allow on a regular basis and "core" books are two different things. I'll shut up now because this isn't worth arguing and stepping on toes over.

Yes, they do. They'll need more, too, depending on the campaign.

greenknight
2007-06-16, 04:53 PM
whod try to gate in infinite #s of titans (didnt know you could do that btw, i guess it makes sense cuz titans have gate)??

It's a classic example of broken rules. Another is Pun-Pun (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801) (although that goes beyond Core).


no dm would ever allow that, itd be like, no, have a punch in the face...

You're right, but again this is a problem with the RAW as opposed to how they should be. Each individual DM should disallow this trick, but the fix tends to be different in each case. Some disallow the Gate spell, others reduce it to Caster Level and disallow Gated or Summoned creatures from Gating or Summoning other creatures, others say one of the Titans on the chain has used up it's Gate ability already, and I guess some do allow it as written. The real solution is to change the RAW via errata, but so far that hasn't happened.


& you can even cast it from an item, cnadle of invocations... 9k gold, you beat the monster... that sorta stupid crap is just as bad as divine metamagic or whatever is broken in the other books...

The Candle is a really broken item because of the Gate ability, but again the fix varies. Some DMs increase it's cost, others remove the Gate ability, while others ban it. Again, the real solution is to adjust the RAW - especially if those rules are from Core books.

sleeping fishy
2007-06-16, 05:04 PM
well, duh, you gotta fix the broken stuff, like gate... or stacking dominate persons (by the "raw" if you put ten of em on someone, soon as they breka one the next one goes active and theyre still dominated... and during downtime you can spend all your slots on it). but thats my point, you gotta do that to stuff in the phb as much as the comp. whatever book.


omg, just clicked on the pun-pun link... wtf??? infinitely powerful?? sigh, i guess SOMEONE wasnt thinking when they released that monster... no one would ever try that in a game i hope.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-16, 05:36 PM
Get it yet? The discussions here about whether or not it's technically allowable to get a gated creature to start an infinite summoning chain are utterly irrelevant. The rules take a back seat to common sense, in every situation. No matter how good a diviner you are, you can't just instantly locate the nearest dragon to get some money and go solo it, because the DM should **** you for thinking you can. If a rule is left ambiguous (like shapechange's "familiarity" requirement), expect the DM to screw you over it really hard. That is the norm, that's how it's expected to function. In fact, any tactic that begins to feel like an exploit will eventually kill you, if the DM is doing his job.

While I sympathise with your position, and agree that common sense is an assumed part of the rules, you have to accept that "attempting to secure an in-character advantage" is also an assumed part of the rules. D&D contains scads of spells, feats, and abilities which have purely game-mechanical effects, so it is natural that people given access to flexible magic (like gating and shapechange) will likewise attempt to exploit it for maximum benefit.

The "infinite titan loop" is something no sane DM would allow, but it's a specific example of a greater problem, which is that summoning magics and shapeshifting magics grant PCs access to monster abilities, which are not balanced for use by PCs.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-16, 05:39 PM
I don't even consider the MM core. That's because I have too much experience with players memorizing it and immediately knowing the stats of any monster they encounter. So I make up my own monsters, not too hard if you know any mythology.

brian c
2007-06-16, 09:15 PM
EDIT: What I'm trying to say is, fax, do your players need all of those books on a regular basis to play with you? Because I think if they don't, then those are not core. Supplements you allow on a regular basis and "core" books are two different things. I'll shut up now because this isn't worth arguing and stepping on toes over.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but right now I'm running a Tome of Battle campaign, so the players can't possibly play without using that book. I see your point though- if you define Core as "things the players have to be familiar with" then my Core is PHB and ToB for this campaign.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-06-17, 12:03 PM
Wow, I am amazed. I myself only consider the core 3 to be core, de facto or otherwise. When I DM, I am put off when a player takes for granted that anything outside of the core 3 are usable. Obviously, I'm in the minority.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-17, 12:05 PM
I guess, looking back at what I do, I really accept anything in the SRD as de facto Core. I just like everything that's in there.

Anything from outside of that, however, has to go past me first.

Ramza00
2007-06-17, 12:17 PM
This is how I see it

Core is and always will be PHB, DMG, and MM
Core+ is the srd and thus has details of PHB, DMG, MM, XPH, UA and other similar books such as DD
Core+Complete=Core plus the 4 older completes
Core+Complete+=Core+4 older completes+PHB2+perhaps some of the new completes but there is a chance not all the groups can get champion or scoundrel, will have spell compedium may have magic item compedium depending on group. Will have Tome of Battle
Completes plus easy to find splat books. Things such as the Heroes series, Races series, Enviroment series, May have a setting book or two like ECS, PGTF, etc, the easy to find setting books though (nothing like Secrets of Sarlonna)
Everything else published by WOTC, aka all books
Dragon Material (since it has the "official license" tag even though that means barely anything)
3rd party A (really popular things such as monte cook's books)
3rd party B everything else 3rd party


Online things from WOTC depends on the DM.

Fireball.Man.Guy.
2007-06-17, 12:36 PM
I think of DMG, MM1, and PHB as core, though I allow every book I have (which is about 25) in my games. Barring, of course, blatant exploitation and cheese.

Yuki Akuma
2007-06-17, 12:38 PM
The books that say "Core Rulebook" on them are, in fact, the core rules. All other books are, by definition, supplements.

And yes, I consider the three core rulebooks to be the 'de facto' core, because all games (all games) of D&D have to use rules from them.

Jack Mann
2007-06-17, 01:04 PM
We know, Yuki. Read Fax's explanation of de facto vs. de jure.

Yuki Akuma
2007-06-17, 01:05 PM
We know, Yuki. Read Fax's explanation of de facto vs. de jure.

I was under the impression that this was a 'poll'. Surely in a poll all votes should exist in a vacuum?

Besides, those three are my de facto core. They're the three books I always, without exception, use. The others are always optional.

Fawsto
2007-06-17, 05:12 PM
The Completes and sometimes the other Monster Manuals and the Draconomicon.

Damionte
2007-06-17, 07:30 PM
What do "I" allow as "core" rules.

Pretty much all of the non campaign specific books. Some things in some books I don't allow on a case by case, my players know what those are though. I've never ran into any real problems with players trying to go over the line or coming up with crazy combinations. They're all adults and don't need to be baby sat. I can use a broad set of core rules without getting in any trouble. I've read it all and have a slight familiarity with pretty much everything.

If a player want's to play something in a book I am not that familiar with I make myself more familiar with it so that they can play the type of character they want. On the whole I've found the system decently well balanced with just a few tweaks here and there. I've also never had the problem of PC's that are too powerful. NEVER EVER. I am usually puzzled at how often GM complain that they can't challenge the PC's. especially when such minor things like having them fighting in rough terrain or having an objective other than simply kill X monster receive Y reward make their games a challenge.

One thing I don't do is let folks just show up at the table with a character I haven’t seen. I don't allow a lot of free switching of characters or the like. And we create characters as a group at the table during our first session on a new campaign. Even if char creation is the only thing we do that night. So there are rarely any surprises for me when it comes to what the players want to do. We sit down and talk about what our ideas are for a particular stretch of campaigning. I lay out what I have in mind, they give ideas for characters and we try and work it out.


So:
PHB I-II
DMG I-II
MM I-V
Psionics Handbook
Stormwrack
Sandstorm
Frostburn
Dungeonscape
Cityscape
Magic Item Compendium

Unearthed Arcana - Select Pieces
Dragon Magic
Book Of 9 Swords
Tome Of Magic
Magic Of Incarnum
weapons Of Legacy
Planar Handbook
Heroes Of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Lords Of Madness

Races Of -
Destiny
The Wild
Stone
The Dragon

Complete -
Warrior
Devine
Arcane
Adventurer
Psion
Mage
Scoundrel
Champion
*as yet unnamed one

Book of Exalted Deeds - Select Pieces
Book Of Vile Darkness - Select Pieces

Arms & Equipment Guide - As I see fit
Draconomicon - As I see fit
Libris Mortis - As I see fit

The only down side I ever have with allowing this many books is that the players can't make up thier minds what they want to play. They see all the options and think they want to do eveyrhing. A series of questiosn and answers abotu the type of image they have can usually narrow down what to play though. That's why we spend a whole night on character creation.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-17, 08:39 PM
Anything from the SRD or the PHB, DMG, or MM is Core to me. Beyond that, I would consider the definitions of good and evil in the BoED and BoVD de facto Core as well. Anything else is on a case by case basis.

Jack Mann
2007-06-17, 09:33 PM
I was under the impression that this was a 'poll'. Surely in a poll all votes should exist in a vacuum?

Besides, those three are my de facto core. They're the three books I always, without exception, use. The others are always optional.

It's not that it's wrong to say that they are your de facto as well as de jure core. It's that the first part of your post indicated that you didn't understand what we meant by de facto core, or else it seemed a non sequitur. We all know that the big three are the true core. No one has said that they are not. However, what we consider de facto core is not constrained by that. Your post indicated that it would be wrong to consider supplements core. It is not.

Certainly, your choices in the poll should not be affected by the choices of others. But when it seems you have misunderstood the nature of the poll, I think you should be corrected.

Deepblue706
2007-06-18, 07:54 PM
My "de Facto Core" is pretty much the SRD, barring Psionics.

I don't use many of the rules variants, but I often encourage players to make use of the variant classes, such as the Cloistered Cleric or the Thug.

While there are a few snippits of material from various books that I consider to be basic for any campaign I run, I can't say there's any one supplement I always implement on a full level.

Usually, it's not balance issues that decides what will be involved in a game of mine - thankfully I have little trouble keeping people feeling as if they all contribute to their party, more or less to the same degree. No, usually it's aesthetics that determines what is excluded.

For instance, I always allow access to the Improved Toughness feat from Complete Warrior...but if my campaign is set in a land meant to mimic Southern France during the 100 years war (however, with magic and nonsense added in), there probably won't be many Ronin. But Wizards and Time Stop? Whatever, not like too much damage'll happen in the coming turns...

Of course, if a PC wants a concept, I make exceptions - I'll just have to ask for compromise. If a player wants a Ronin in the aforementioned setting, then I'd request that player homebrew and present a more thematically appropriate version of the class.

And, I also don't ignore that maybe a Ronin will just be there, anyway. But, I try to discourage too many exotic PCs (I say this in regard to the current setting, not just stuff you might find outside of most generic settings), as having to cater to so-many "aliens" just gives me a headache.

If I were to declare a game to be on a "worldly" scale, that doesn't bother me, as I expect it and I am prepared for it. When I declare a game to take place in Chicago, Illinois, in the year 1926, Groklor the Green Space Man just...isn't going to be very fun for me to deal with.

So, to sum up my purposelessly lengthy answer, look at the first line: SRD minus Psionics.

Corolinth
2007-06-18, 08:56 PM
Despite the screaming of the internet sages, I've always found the core rulebooks to be fairly solid. I don't hold anything outside of those three as de facto core. It all depends on what I want the campaign to be. Not all rules are created equally, even in the same book. Some feats in Complete Warrior, for example, are better than others. They're all meant for different types of campaigns.

And on the topic of the core rules...

There is always a margin of error. There are some minor holes in the core rules, and developers expected the people running campaigns to be smart enough to correct a few minor mistakes on their own. Nevermind the fact that no two people will agree on what constitutes a problem. The fact that some players aren't smart enough to figure this out is, frankly, not WoTC's problem. There is only so much they can do. They can't make the rules absolutely 100% perfect. The PH already costs $40. While I don't pretend to have read the rules to every pen and paper game on the market, I've gone through the core rulebooks of several, and D&D is by far the most tedious and meticulous about ridiculous little minute details that a DM should be able to figure out on his own. The reason for that is over three decades of munchkins trying to browbeat their DMs into allowing broken combinations in game. Unfortunately, a lot of DMs out there lack the balls to take a stand against those players. Another thing I've noticed about D&D, compared to other systems, is that it's a lot more focused on the game mechanics rather than the actual character concept. Despite a lot of misconceptions, nebulous roleplaying elements balance a lot of feats and classes. This never comes up when the internet sages debate the merits of class A vs. class B. Rather, we take a monster out of the SRD, compare stats on paper, in a vacuum, and start making wild assumptions about die rolls (I had a monster with a +18 AB miss an AC of 24 twice in a row last night, because I rolled a 5 both times - that never happens in the "balance" arguments).

The Valiant Turtle
2007-06-18, 09:10 PM
Hmmm, I think my core would be Players Handbook, DMG, Expanded Psionics and Tome of Battle. I don't necessarily consider MM to be core, it's certainly not required. Certain other books get more scrutinized than others.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-06-18, 10:06 PM
Since me and my group play in Third-World Mexico (sorry, but you have to call an apple an apple), we don't play anything that is not Open Game Content.

So, de facto core for us is the PHB, DMG, MM, XPH, UA, with the non-OGL stuff removed... We ban/modify the abusable cheese and sometimes use some other stuff, with the only condition that it's OGL and freely available on the internet.

We play in The Kyngdoms (http://www.thekyngdoms.com/) an OGL campaign setting by Keith Robinson... I'll happily promote his site anytime I can.

LotharBot
2007-06-19, 02:00 AM
If someone says to me "we're playing core" I, like everyone else, expect to be using PHB / DMG / MM1. Yes, yes, I know, "du jure vs de facto"... but still, those are what I consider "core"; anything else is optional.

I presently own 15 or so books, but most of them are optional.

Damionte
2007-06-19, 03:52 PM
at the same time, i understand the definition of what is actually core. so if someone says they want to do a core rules game, I move onto the next one. I simply won't play a core rules only game.

Matthew
2007-06-19, 11:06 PM
We play in The Kyngdoms (http://www.thekyngdoms.com/) an OGL campaign setting by Keith Robinson... I'll happily promote his site anytime I can.
Wow. That's a pretty neat link. Very impressive.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-06-20, 02:57 PM
Wow. That's a pretty neat link. Very impressive.

Check out the maps and the history sections... this guy has spent years developing this world...

bosssmiley
2007-06-21, 01:44 PM
I guess, looking back at what I do, I really accept anything in the SRD as de facto Core. I just like everything that's in there.

Anything from outside of that, however, has to go past me first.

QFT. IMO nothing more needs be said.

...

Oooh! Shiny thing! *wanders off*

Telonius
2007-06-21, 01:57 PM
De facto core: Anything in the SRD (Unearthed Arcana, psionics, and epic stuff from there), Magic Item Compendium, Spell Compendium, PHB2.

Not-quite-Core but darn close:
Complete Adventurer, Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine.

.... Maybe:
Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness. Possibly de facto Core for alignment questions and definitions of good and evil (if the question ever comes up and the DM can't decide); but not Core for classes, PrCs, and the rest.

No:
Any setting-specific or situational book; basically everything else. Eberron, Frostburn, Sandstorm, etc. They may be terrific books (or not), but they're not essential to the D&D experience.

Waiting for the dust to settle for decision:
Tome of Battle, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Champion.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-22, 02:29 AM
I (and many other obsessive experienced players) have the PHB, DMG, and MMI memorized. I'd consider the entire MM series de facto Core if only because they're needed to keep things fresh. Also XPH. That would be my "de facto" core.

I enjoy the Complete books and Book of Nine Swords (Diamond Mind ftw!) but I find them to be nice supplements rather than core. Maybe because in high school we played for three years out of four books and never got stagnant.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 02:16 PM
Check out the maps and the history sections... this guy has spent years developing this world...
Yeah, it would seem so. Pretty much the most professionaly developed one I have yet seen on the Internet.

Indon
2007-06-26, 02:27 PM
I'm going to have to join in with the "SRD is de facto core for me" crowd.

Kizara
2007-06-26, 02:53 PM
Main 3.
Main 4 completes, with some thoughts if anyone finds anything silly.

I'll look at PHB2, but for the most part alot of it is imba. Very creative imbalanced stuff, but not in my game nonetheless.

I don't use psionics, but I dont have any hate for the EPH ethier.


I, too, didn't like the new core classes and such at first, but when you look at them a bit more closely, they really aren't imba at all. Many have new and unique abilities, and the only one I found truely cheese was the ninja (shouldn't be a core class).