What would you play in Core +1?

[retaliation08]

Over in the "Pros and Cons of each Edition" thread, Sir_Leorik mentioned building in 3.5 with the Adventurer's league Core (PHB,DMG,MM) +1 book rule.

If you had to build (Class, Race, Spells, Items, Feats, etc) a character under this rule, which book would you choose and what would you build?

[ExLibrisMortis]

First off, it's not a very good rule for balancing the game or curbing the power level. It's strictly useful to reduce book-diving by the DM. I wouldn't like playing in such a game.

I'd most likely play a human psion, because humans are by far the best race in Core, and I like psionics, which happen to be fairly self-contained.

[Uncle Pine]

Half-Orc druid, with my +1 being Races of Destiny.

[Troacctid]

My main problem with Core +1 would be that a lot of options become literally unusable because the books aren't designed with the rule in mind like 5e books are. Most splatbooks have options that build on other options introduced in non-core books. There are prestige classes just for Warlocks, for example, that, under this rule, a player could never, ever qualify for. So you're tossing a pretty substantial portion of the game into the garbage. Core +2 is a lot more sensible and avoids that problem.

That said, under Core +1, I'd be looking at:

Psion. Only really needs XPH. There's a few extra toys in the web enhancements and Complete Psionic, and some powers here and there, but nothing you need.
Initiator classes. Fun to play and very self-contained.
Warmage. Simple and satisfying with no frills.
Beguiler. Similar to Warmage.
Druid. Works great even in core-only. Spell Compendium can be the +1.
Soulcaster or Sapphire Hierarch. Incarnum is cool, and pairs well with the core spellcasters.

[Tvtyrant]

Druid + depends on optimization ceiling of group. Druid is perfectly functional tier 1 in core, and can be leveraged all the way from Master of Many Forms to Planar Shepard.

[Seharvepernfan]

Personally, I'm pretty happy with core. My personal favorite custom core character is a human arcane trickster, so I'd either go with complete arcane (mainly for practiced spellcaster, but that book adds a lot for me) or spell compendium for all the other spells.

If the DM allows more than 10 levels in arcane trickster, drop the ranger levels and add 2. I think most would, so the ranger levels are mainly a contingency. If the DM didn't let me make my custom spell, I'd have to either make room for ranks of use magic device and use produce flame and drop craft staff, or go dumpster diving for some other multiple-attacks ranged touch attack spell.

If I did get those extra two caster levels, I'd add the following to my spellbook:
8 - Moment of Prescience, Sunburst
9 - Time Stop, Gate, (Freedom, Absorption)

If I picked Complete Arcane, take Practiced Spellcaster instead of Quicken Spell. If Spell Compendium, add several spells I'm not going to bother listing, but definitely Ruby Ray of Reversal.

CG Male Human Rogue 3/Ranger 2/Transmuter 5/Arcane Trickster 10
156hp
Init +13
AC 35 (41 w/shield & reduce)
Bab +11
Sneak Attack +7d6, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trap Sense +1, Favored Enemy () +2, Wild Empathy +0, Combat Style (TWF), Banned Enchantment/Necromancy, Bat Familiar,
Ranged Legerdemain 3/day, Impromptu Sneak Attack 2/day
4/6/6/5/5/5/4/2/1
F+9, R+18, W+13
F+20, R+28, W+23
Str 12, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8
Str 12, Dex 24, Con 20, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 8
Improved Initiative, PBS, Weapon Finesse, Track, Rapid Shot, Scribe Scroll, TWF, ITWF, Quicken Spell, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Craft Staff
Balance 5, Climb 5, Disable Device 7, Escape Artist 7, Hide 8, Jump 5, Listen 8, Move Silently 8, Open Lock 6, Search 8, Spot 8, Tumble 5
Survival 8, Arcana 5, Concentration 7, Decipher Script 7, Spellcraft 5, Dungeoneering 1, Geography 1, Nature 1, Planar 1
-----
Balance 16, Climb 10, Disable Device 30, Escape Artist 16, Hide 30, Jump 10, Listen 18, Move Silently 34, Open Lock 30, Search 30, Spot 32, Tumble 30
Survival 13/20, Arcana 15, Concentration 20, Decipher Script 15, Spellcraft 13, Dungeoneering 9, Geography 9, Nature 11, Planar 9

Circlet of Intelligence +6, Scarab of Protection & Wisdom +6, Cloak of Resistance +5, Tunic of Health +6, Robe of Eyes, Monk's Belt, Bracers of Armor +8,
Gloves of Dexterity +6, Ring of Freedom of Movement, Ring of Protection +5, Elven Boots of the Winterlands, Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone,
Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone, Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Luckstone, Boccob's Blessed Book, Lens of Detection, Manual of Bodily Health +1, Mages Haversack,
Carpet of Flying (1), +1 Holy Composite Darkwood Longbow, x2 enhanced throwing axes (doesn't quite matter what, he'd barely use them at high levels),
MW Cold Iron Spiked Gauntlet, Adamantine Light Hammer, Arrow of Greater Slaying (Undead) x2, various staves/consumables/components (the remaining 100k+)

Custom Spell: Eldritch Orb, Sor/Wiz 1, as produce flame except 1d4 force (+1/2 CL, max +5), light as candle, works underwater
*spells in parenthesis have been added via scrolls
1: Shield, Grease, Silent Image, Disguise Self, Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Feather Fall, Reduce Person, True Strike (Eldritch Orb)
2: Mirror Image, Knock, Spider Climb, Glitterdust
3: Arcane Sight, Protection from Energy, Fly, Haste, Displacement, (greater magic weapon)
4: Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Polymorph, Arcane Eye
5: Break Enchantment, Wall of Force, Telekinesis, (Duelward)
6: True Seeing, Greater Dispel Magic, Disintegrate, Stone to Flesh
7: Greater Teleport, Plane Shift, Ethereal Jaunt, Statue, (Energy Immunity)
8: Mind Blank, Iron Body, (Temporal Stasis, Ghostform)

[flappeercraft]

I would play a caster and my +1 would be SpC or PHB2 for Celerity.

[Krazzman]

Druid + depends on optimization ceiling of group. Druid is perfectly functional tier 1 in core, and can be leveraged all the way from Master of Many Forms to Planar Shepard.

Yes this. If phb2 does count to core my +1 would be the book with warshaper in it.

Or a Warblade since ToB is pretty easy to implement with just itself and core.

[mabriss lethe]

I'd probably play a core-only monk (no +1) out of spite.

[Psyren]

3.5: Core + Complete Divine and I'd make a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist.
PF: Core + APG and I'd make an Alchemist or Witch probably.

[Mato]

As ExLibrisMortis said it's not a very good way to balance anything but since the point it to gain the most power you can out of a single book what choice can be better than the embodiment of that? So I choose the Book of Vile Deeds.

With it I can sacrifice captured enemies (and npcs) for stuff like 24 hour buffs, planar ally, and limited wish at the first level depending on how high I can get a spell check. Plus it has mind rape and love's pain allowing me to 'win' any fight without even leaving a tavern. Isn't that the point of things? For the DM to limit power and for the player to exploit his rules and find it anyway?

[Kelb_Panthera]

To actually play for my own enjoyment; probably XPH so I can do something in a fist of zuoken.

To make a point about how silly this rule is as a balance tool; skip the +1 and push a straight wizard to its limits, or at least as close to its limits as I'm able.

[Starbuck_II]

I would either do Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum.
Shape Soulmeld works for every class.

[atemu1234]

I would either do Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum.
Shape Soulmeld works for every class.

I second Tome of Battle. Play a swordsage, keep up with the party in terms of balance.

[Epic Legand]

Core plus 1 includes the most broken choices available. Wizard, Cleric and Druid. While you can hype them all with extra stuff, the core books already have the worst of it. Its so much tougher to break the game with "warmage" or "swashbuckler".

[Nifft]

Core plus 1 includes the most broken choices available. Wizard, Cleric and Druid. While you can hype them all with extra stuff, the core books already have the worst of it. Its so much tougher to break the game with "warmage" or "swashbuckler".

This.

Limiting the game to a pair of adjacent tiers is going to accomplish intra-party balance a lot better than limiting by source book.


T1-T2 game: Spell Compendium
T3-T4 game: Tome of Battle
T5-T6 game: ha ha ha no thanks

[ComaVision]

I did play in a Core + 1 game and I chose Magic of Incarnum.

[Hunter Noventa]

If it was Core+2 I'd go with Warlock, but since their best invocations are spread out over several books I'd likely end up doing Tome of Battle shenanigans, because that's the most self-contained fun 3.5 has to offer.

[Jormengand]

Missing out on illumian and mortalbane is no fun, but I did do truenamer just fine under core+1 before. But yeah, you're usually best off playing a class that's actually in core and using your +1 to get something nice for that class, rather than using your +1 to be able to play your class at all. You could probably make this better if you only got the +1 if you were actually going to play a class in your +1 (so druids can't get spell compendium or serpent kingdoms or whatever).

Or, y'know, you could actually just balance your game with a more sensible rule.

[Zombulian]

XPH and MoI immediately jump to mind. Fairly self-contained books that mix with core very well. I personally consider XPH part of core, especially since it's on the SRD, but I know that's a minority opinion.
I also really really like Complete Champion. The introduction of religious affiliations in that book is pretty cool, plus there are tons of useful feats, ACF's (Spirit Lion Totem anyone?), and PrC's (Fist of the Forest, Mythic Exemplar, Ordained Champion, Paragnostic Apostle).

[Yogibear41]

My choice would depend on the DM and his style of play, as well as what the other players styles of play, probably more emphasis on the DM, then I would pick a book based on what I wanted to play, but as a general non-build dependent book I would probably go with Unearthed Arcana, as I love to play races with a LA, and buy-off is basically required for that.

[Quertus]

Over in the "Pros and Cons of each Edition" thread, Sir_Leorik mentioned building in 3.5 with the Adventurer's league Core (PHB,DMG,MM) +1 book rule.

If you had to build (Class, Race, Spells, Items, Feats, etc) a character under this rule, which book would you choose and what would you build?

Unearthed Arcana: Arcane Spellcaster into Tainted Sorcerer, using Flaws and Spell Points. Making heavy use of the custom spells and custom items rules available in core.

Oh, and note that Persist Spell metamagic is only +4 levels in core only.


First off, it's not a very good rule for balancing the game or curbing the power level. It's strictly useful to reduce book-diving by the DM. I wouldn't like playing in such a game.

The GM trying to make their life easier? I'm fine with that. The GM thinking that they need to understand the mechanics behind the PCs? No, that's wrong-thinking. So, yeah, it's a red flag, but not a no-go for me.


This.

Limiting the game to a pair of adjacent tiers is going to accomplish intra-party balance a lot better than limiting by source book.

I know. Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage for whom this account is named, was constantly being outdone by the party Fighter and Monk. That totally wouldn't have happened if they had played fellow tier 1 characters instead.

[Karl Aegis]

It's got to be the loot-obsessed warrior with the sugliin. It's got to be Frostburn. For the loots!

[NomGarret]

The value of doing something like this in 3.5 is much less about game balance and much more about lowering DM workload and player choice paralysis (once they decide on their +1). That seems to be the consensus.

As to what I'd pick? Heck, I'd go all sorts of directions. ToB, MoI, or XPH would be at the top of my list, since they usually are anyway. I might go with a Binder, since they're fairly self-contained. I'm somewhat less likely to play a Dragon Shaman without access to Dragon Magic. :shrug: Beyond that, we're into pretty standard decision-making territory. Who's the DM? What do I know about the games they run both in terms of style and houserules? Who are the other players? What's their typical optimization level? What are they thinking about playing? What's the adventure hook?

[Arael666]

wizard
spell compendium

[Thurbane]

My group often runs core +1 (for ease of reference rather than perceived balance reasons).

I've previously run a Dragon Shaman and Favored Soul under these restrictions. We're a fairly low-op group in general. THE FS would have been more fun if another player hadn't decided to play a Cleric in the same party, which made me feel quite redundant.

If I was looking at raw power, I'd say Druid (or Cleric, or Wizard) plus Spell Compendium.

[InvisibleBison]

I'd probably go with Spell Compendium or Tome of Battle, depending on what kind of character I was playing.


Oh, and note that Persist Spell metamagic is only +4 levels in core only.

No, persistent spell isn't in core at all.

[RaiKirah]

Probably MoI and a Totem Rager. Natural attack builds interest me.

[stack]

Pathfinder: Core + Spheres of Power or Spheres of Might depending on my mood. (Don't need 1st party apart from the basic system :smallbiggrin:)

[Cosi]

Honestly, I wouldn't. It strikes me as the sort of thing that happens either because someone is trying to balance the game (but doesn't understand why it isn't balanced) or because someone has decided they don't want to do the work of looking at multiple sources (which strikes me as misguided and untrusting). Neither of those positions seem like something that would lead to a good game.

[Zombulian]

Honestly, I wouldn't. It strikes me as the sort of thing that happens either because someone is trying to balance the game (but doesn't understand why it isn't balanced) or because someone has decided they don't want to do the work of looking at multiple sources (which strikes me as misguided and untrusting). Neither of those positions seem like something that would lead to a good game.

Eh, I can see it as a useful measure for cohesion in the campaign world. If each player is allowed to add 1 or 2 books to the total pool and the DM has a chance to look at them all before starting the campaign, it reduces the risk of 1 player using a mechanic that is entirely foreign to the rest of his party or even the campaign world.

[Cosi]

Eh, I can see it as a useful measure for cohesion in the campaign world. If each player is allowed to add 1 or 2 books to the total pool and the DM has a chance to look at them all before starting the campaign, it reduces the risk of 1 player using a mechanic that is entirely foreign to the rest of his party or even the campaign world.

That kind of thing is exactly what I was getting at by "misguided and untrusting". If your concern is that people will bring in stuff that doesn't make any sense, you should address that directly. It's hard for me to see how, say, a Dread Necromancer/Divine Oracle/Pale Master with Lord of the Uttercold and a Runestaff of wall of fire (which is pulling from five non-core books, but is just a particularly effective Necromancer) is more disruptive to the setting than a Psion (which is pulling from only one non-core book, but postulates an entire new system of magical abilities). If you have a specific concept that players have agreed to, you should trust them to stay within that concept regardless of how many books they use. If they haven't agreed to the concept, no amount of restrictions can force them to stay within it.

[RoboEmperor]

Is "I won't play core+1" an acceptable answer?

It's like playing version 0.000002 of a game that's at version 999999

[johnbragg]

Cosi is basically right here, even if it takes a big dump on the premise of the thread.

It _does_ make some sense for the 5E developers and designers to lay this rule out at the beginning of the edition's lifecycle (3-4 years in, but you know what I mean.) They're announcing that they will not be held responsible for every interaction of abilities over the next N years and next X splatbooks they publish.

It also serves as a sneaky justification for republishing well-received material. "The Elminster's Ranger archetype was very popular, and would fit very well in the setting that the new Tenser's Big Book of Splat focuses on, so we reprinted it to go with the new Tenser's Rogue and the reprint of Otiluke's Bard."

It's a very blunt rule for 3X, though. It makes the "One book for each Tier" rule-of-thumb look nuanced and fiddly.

[johnbragg]

Is "I won't play core+1" an acceptable answer?

It's like playing version 0.000002 of a game that's at version 999999




What if the rule were "Two books, no PHB classes"?

[ExLibrisMortis]

What if the rule were "Two books, no PHB classes"?
Crusader/incarnate!

Also wu jen into Jade Phoenix Mage.

[RoboEmperor]

What if the rule were "Two books, no PHB classes"?

I don't need entire books. I just need one feat or one PrC from each book, which is like 1% of a book. The only difference between this and core+1 is the stuff I want wasn't compiled into a single book.

If core+1 is a real thing in 5e then I truly will never even look at that edition.

If I may make some analogies...
It's like telling an artist that you can only use black and white. Some artists are black and white artists, some aren't. I'm not.
It's like telling a master chef that he can only use 3 ingredients and 1 spice.
It's like telling a Skyrim player he can only use 2 skill trees only.

I love it when I meet other people who spent years perfecting their favorite character, customizing every inch of it when a new fun thing catches their eye in a new book they just read. At least in my opinion.

So when someone says lets cut 99% of the edition out, I go out.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Core plus one is a little challenging.

Pathfinder
advanced class guide and warpriest sounds fun
Or Ultimate combat and magus
Or Ultimate intrigue plus vigilante

3.5 is a little more challenging. cleric and spell compendium (maybe). Or paladin plus complete champion.

As a DM, I think players saying, "core plus one--no thank you--i don't want to limit my creativity and you are a terrible DM for even thinking it" would make me think I dodged a bullet. Not that I'd do core plus one myself--i rather prefer a little more editorial control over creating a consistent setting.

[RoboEmperor]

As a DM, I think players saying, "core plus one--no thank you--i don't want to limit my creativity and you are a terrible DM for even thinking it" would make me think I dodged a bullet. Not that I'd do core plus one myself--i rather prefer a little more editorial control over creating a consistent setting.

Incompatible people are incompatible so you did in fact dodge a bullet by recognizing an incompatible person before spending months together.

[Quertus]

Oh, I forgot that "Gestalt" is also in UA. I'm liking my +1 more and more!


My group often runs core +1 (for ease of reference rather than perceived balance reasons).

That's a reason I could get behind, I suppose, in a group that has had issues with referencing rules. Though there might be a better solution to this problem.


No, persistent spell isn't in core at all.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it was published as a +4 metamagic in the 3.0 PH. And, since there isn't a core book to change that, the 3.0 rules should still be active in a "core only" game.


Is "I won't play core+1" an acceptable answer?

It's like playing version 0.000002 of a game that's at version 999999


As a DM, I think players saying, "core plus one--no thank you--i don't want to limit my creativity and you are a terrible DM for even thinking it" would make me think I dodged a bullet. Not that I'd do core plus one myself--i rather prefer a little more editorial control over creating a consistent setting.

I've seen beautiful paintings made only in shades of blue, but forcing someone to only color in blue because (stupid reasons) is just dumb. If you've got good reasons, then let's discuss, and see if there isn't a better way to implement a solution for the (perceived) problem.

"Because balance" would be an example of a dumb reason. "Because we've had problems with referencing rules (and, presumably, with turns taking too long) " is a better one.


What if the rule were "Two books, no PHB classes"?

UA, Arcane Spellcaster into Tainted Sorcerer, with flaws, using Spell Points, gestalted with... Whatever random thing I want to try out, I suppose. :smalltongue:

[Cosi]

As a DM, I think players saying, "core plus one--no thank you--i don't want to limit my creativity and you are a terrible DM for even thinking it" would make me think I dodged a bullet. Not that I'd do core plus one myself--i rather prefer a little more editorial control over creating a consistent setting.

If you think it is okay for you as a DM to say "it has to be this way" but not for players to say "it has to be this way", you are a bad DM. Because you are insisting that your desires are more important than the rest of the table. Which is exactly what your job as a DM isn't.

[RoboEmperor]

If you think it is okay for you as a DM to say "it has to be this way" but not for players to say "it has to be this way", you are a bad DM. Because you are insisting that your desires are more important than the rest of the table. Which is exactly what your job as a DM isn't.

To be fair, the DM is the one putting the most time and effort into the game, so he should be entitled to some favoritism.

[Troacctid]

To be fair, the DM is the one putting the most time and effort into the game, so he should be entitled to some favoritism.
Agreed. If a player drops out of a game, they can be replaced, or you can keep going without them. If the DM drops out, there is no game.


I don't need entire books. I just need one feat or one PrC from each book, which is like 1% of a book.
The point of Core +1 (or the far superior Core +2) is to simplify character creation for players by making book-diving irrelevant. One of the biggest complaints people have with 3.5 is that there's too much material, and you're expected to know too much of it in order to build an optimal character, taking a feat from here and a prestige class from here and a dip from over there. That's a barrier to entry. Core +N lowers that barrier to entry and helps make the game more approachable for newbies. It's fine.

[RoboEmperor]

The point of Core +1 (or the far superior Core +2) is to simplify character creation for players by making book-diving irrelevant. One of the biggest complaints people have with 3.5 is that there's too much material, and you're expected to know too much of it in order to build an optimal character, taking a feat from here and a prestige class from here and a dip from over there. That's a barrier to entry. Core +N lowers that barrier to entry and helps make the game more approachable for newbies. It's fine.

I agree to this.

This problem isn't unique to 3.5. A lot of video games have an incredibly steep learning curve and a ridiculously sky high skill cap (dota 2) to the point only the most hardcore players play it (who can't master the game even after 3 whole years of playing it) while casual players choose the easier friendlier ones (league of legends). Dota 2 introduced "Turbo Mode" (previously known as Easy Mode) to do just what Core +N set out to accomplish, makes the game so much easier with less skill required to hook newer players into the game.

I do however have a problem if the DM never graduates from Core+N and considers it the best way to play.

[Cosi]

To be fair, the DM is the one putting the most time and effort into the game, so he should be entitled to some favoritism.

And the player who optimizes more puts more time in than the one who optimizes less. Is he therefore entitled to stomp on other characters?


The point of Core +1 (or the far superior Core +2) is to simplify character creation for players by making book-diving irrelevant. One of the biggest complaints people have with 3.5 is that there's too much material, and you're expected to know too much of it in order to build an optimal character, taking a feat from here and a prestige class from here and a dip from over there. That's a barrier to entry. Core +N lowers that barrier to entry and helps make the game more approachable for newbies. It's fine.

You are misunderstanding the problem. It is a problem if you have to read a large number of books when making your character. For example, the fact that mundanes suck unless you dumpster dive together a useful build is bad. It is not a problem if you can read a large number of books when making your character. If you want to play a Dragon Shaman/Hero of Legacy/Warshaper, that is fine. So source limitations solve the thing that is not a problem (because if I want to play a Knight/Favored Soul/Ordained Champion I no longer can) but do not solve the thing that is a problem (where I can't build a Fighter that is good). What part of that is good?

[Thurbane]

D&D is a cooperative game; but the DM puts in the most work, and IMHO, is entitled to respect and a little more control over the game.

Tyrant DMs are bad; but so are bad and overly entitled players. If you don't like the rules a DM has laid down in session 0, voice your concerns; if you can't reconcile the differences, vote with your feet.

In my experience, the whole "players have as much say as the DM" thing is an advent of online D&D forums. If it works for your group, that's cool, but don't expect it to be accepted as the "right" way to play D&D.

FWIW, I'm usually the most permissive Dm in my group in terms of material allowed; but I have no issue if a DM declares core only, or core plus one book.

[RoboEmperor]

You are misunderstanding the problem. It is a problem if you have to read a large number of books when making your character. For example, the fact that mundanes suck unless you dumpster dive together a useful build is bad. It is not a problem if you can read a large number of books when making your character. If you want to play a Dragon Shaman/Hero of Legacy/Warshaper, that is fine. So source limitations solve the thing that is not a problem (because if I want to play a Knight/Favored Soul/Ordained Champion I no longer can) but do not solve the thing that is a problem (where I can't build a Fighter that is good). What part of that is good?

If you play with new players , you understand that you get people who go full 20 archer bard that gets absolutely no archery feats. Such a terrible character can perform well if everyone else is as terrible as her, but if you mix her with experienced people who read every book and plays a medium to highly optimized character, she's gonna do jack all game.

Core + N I think is supposed to level the playing field, because I personally have overwhelmed new players with optimization options before, and it wasn't pretty.

But then again, the "N" suggests you choose which books to include, not choose the books for the new players, so... I guess even Core+N is bad for new players?

edit: changed noob to new players because it is derogatory.

[Cosi]

I don't see how "you get one extra book of your choice" is supposed to be better for new players. There are still books that are better or worse either in general (the guy who picked Elder Evils is left holding the bag) or for specific characters (if you are playing a Wizard, Spell Compendium is a much better deal than Complete Warrior). So now instead of looking for a class you like, and some stuff that is good for that class, you have to look through all the books to see which one provides the best deal. As a Rogue, do you want Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel, or something else entirely? Hell, maybe if you want to be a skillmonkey you should be taking Magic of Incarnum for the Incarnate or Player's Handbook II for the Beguiler or Dungeonscape for the Factotum or some book with a cool Ranger or Monk ACF. How is that reducing cognitive load on new players?

[Nifft]

And the player who optimizes more puts more time in than the one who optimizes less. Is he therefore entitled to stomp on other characters?

This is more anecdote than data, but in my personal experience, the players who are actually good at optimization aren't the type to stomp on others. They are the type to adapt to the campaign, and switch off between support classes and whatever else the party lacks. Or they don't, but it's fine because they're creative & flexible enough to let the game work anyway.

The problem players are more like script kiddies -- they show up with someone else's optimization work, then get angry and frustrated when that other person's assumptions don't work in this campaign or setting.

Given how broken Core can be, and how easy it is to find a "script" to be OP with only Core components, I don't think that "Core +1" will impede this type of problem player.

[Troacctid]

If you play with new players , you understand that you get people who go full 20 archer bard that gets absolutely no archery feats. Such a terrible character can perform well if everyone else is as terrible as her, but if you mix her with experienced people who read every book and plays a medium to highly optimized character, she's gonna do jack all game.

I don't see how "you get one extra book of your choice" is supposed to be better for new players. There are still books that are better or worse either in general (the guy who picked Elder Evils is left holding the bag) or for specific characters (if you are playing a Wizard, Spell Compendium is a much better deal than Complete Warrior). So now instead of looking for a class you like, and some stuff that is good for that class, you have to look through all the books to see which one provides the best deal. As a Rogue, do you want Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel, or something else entirely? Hell, maybe if you want to be a skillmonkey you should be taking Magic of Incarnum for the Incarnate or Player's Handbook II for the Beguiler or Dungeonscape for the Factotum or some book with a cool Ranger or Monk ACF. How is that reducing cognitive load on new players?
It's not about power level, guys. It's about complexity. It's about saying "You don't need to know all the books. Just find something you like and don't worry about the rest."


But then again, the "N" suggests you choose which books to include, not choose the books for the new players, so... I guess even Core+N is bad for new players?
N is any number. Core +1, Core +2, Core +3, etc.

[RoboEmperor]

N is any number. Core +1, Core +2, Core +3, etc.

That's what I meant. How is a new player gonna know what books to include if they read none? It does seem more like limiting optimization options for experienced players than helping the newer. A tiny fixed book list seems better for newer players than Core+N.

[Cosi]

This is more anecdote than data, but in my personal experience, the players who are actually good at optimization aren't the type to stomp on others.

Sure, and most DMs respect player input. My point is that the underlying principle (that the DM doesn't have to care what you want because he put in more work) implies something that advocates don't seem to agree with.


It's not about power level, guys. It's about complexity. It's about saying "You don't need to know all the books. Just find something you like and don't worry about the rest."

Okay, so let the people who like things from a bunch of books use a bunch of books. If you want to assure people that they don't need to know all the books, you can just tell them "you don't need to know all the books".

[Troacctid]

That's what I meant. How is a new player gonna know what books to include if they read none? It does seem more like limiting optimization options for experienced players than helping the newer. A tiny fixed book list seems better for newer players than Core+N.
By looking at the title, or a brief summary, instead of combing through it thoroughly searching for feats or spells that might marginally improve their build? 🤷

I've been that neophyte before, and it would have made it easier for me.


Okay, so let the people who like things from a bunch of books use a bunch of books. If you want to assure people that they don't need to know all the books, you can just tell them "you don't need to know all the books".
That's not really how game design works, unfortunately.

[RoboEmperor]

Okay, so let the people who like things from a bunch of books use a bunch of books. If you want to assure people that they don't need to know all the books, you can just tell them "you don't need to know all the books".

The DM might be new too.

I think we can agree that allowing everything and evaluating characters on an individual basis is the best way to play, but this requires a great deal of skill and experience from the DM, or the DM to completely totally and absolutely trust your ability to not make ruling mistakes or not break the game. I can see how core+n could be much easier for an inexperienced DM.

[Cosi]

The DM might be new too.

I think we can agree that allowing everything and evaluating characters on an individual basis is the best way to play, but this requires a great deal of skill and experience from the DM, or the DM to completely totally and absolutely trust your ability to not make ruling mistakes or not break the game. I can see how core+n could be much easier for an inexperienced DM.

I think that a noob DM with experienced players is a fairly rare case. I suppose that could happen, but that seems like a fairly specific use case (and not really what has been presented as a justification for the ruling, as I understand it).

[RoboEmperor]

I think that a noob DM with experienced players is a fairly rare case. I suppose that could happen, but that seems like a fairly specific use case (and not really what has been presented as a justification for the ruling, as I understand it).

As someone who tried to use roll20 quite a bit to find a game, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Every DM I met had less skill than me and most of them were crybaby scrubs with railroading fiats. I finally found a DM that I love and am very lucky to have met him. I'm still way more experienced than he is though.

Most common DM I found was "rules are guidelines, I get to change them whenever and as much as I want" and they just house ruled every single thing because they didn't want to look the rules up, or they were trying to turn the game into how the world should work in their political opinion.

So yes, a lot of new people DM without even the tiniest amount of system mastery. I'm talking not even have fully read core people DMing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As far as player-DM relations go, the most important thing is some degree of mutual trust. Let me tell you about my group as an example.

It's pretty well openly acknowledged that I have the greatest system mastery amongst the four of us. In spite of the fact that he and I are both aware that I could wizard all over his campaign with extreme prejudice he doesn't demand to go over every detail of my sheet because he trusts that I won't do that, so much so that he's said I don't need to run custom legacy powers by him (WoL is better than it gets credit for). I do what I can to earn that trust by tending toward conservative rulings on ambiguities instead of trying to weasel every iota of use and power out of every option I take.

In turn, I trust that the DM won't pull some BS "rocks fall and just your character dies" type nonsense. A trust he's earned by choosing not to abuse it when I run a character that might be a tad unwise or reckless and being willing to show the hidden rolls, after the fact, if we call him on something.

Without this degree of trust, things could only fall apart as the DM and I get into an arms race (that he'd inevitably win because DM) that ultimately ends with either me walking away or being kicked.

On a related note; trust between the players matters too. We're all willing to talk builds and character goals with the expectation that we will look out for situations where we might step on each others toes and try to avoid both that and limelight hogging.

TL;DR: D&D is ultimately a cooperative game. Act like it.

[Mechalich]

Core +1 is best seen as a framework to aid a GM with limited system mastery. Someone who has a good grasp on the Core rules - how the classes work, the utilization of common spells, understands the tactical system - but hasn't dealt with many other rules, especially in practice. The +1 then represents a commitment by the GM to admit and learn a limited amount of new material for the purpose of a game. It is very difficult for GMs who have a limited amount of time to devote to gaming to gain and maintain high levels of system mastery. 3.5 D&D has hundreds of races, dozens of core classes, hundreds of prestige classes, thousands of monsters, thousands of spells, and thousands of magical items. And that's without any of the special subsystems like Psionics, Tome of Battle, or Magic of Incarnum.

Obviously not all books are created equal. Psionics adds more new material than probably any other book, whereas someone who picks Complete Adventurer is probably looking for a specific class option. The general idea is to foster the latter. Allowing Core +1 allows each player to build pretty much any specific character concept that exists in the entire edition, just not the best-possible dives through 10+ books for options version of that concept.

[Troacctid]

Allowing Core +1 allows each player to build pretty much any specific character concept that exists in the entire edition, just not the best-possible dives through 10+ books for options version of that concept.
Well...Core +2 does. With Core +1, good luck building a Swift Hunter, Kalashtar Soulknife, Eldritch Theurge, etc.

[Quertus]

So, this sounds very much like a Styles of Play issue, with people incorrectly assuming everyone works just like themselves.

Core +N simplifies things for new players... who think a certain way. For me? That's a decision paralysis-inducing statement. It says, "this is not a group game, game balance is in your (totally unskilled) hands, you need to optimize the ever-living **** out of your character or go home noob". So, to me, it forces me to learn all the rules and find the dark secrets of obscure optimization - in other words, the largest possible barrier to entry.

I agree with Cosi - just tell people that they don't need an optimal build. Tell them the level (range) you play at, and help them get there. It's that easy. Really.

Anything else is horrible - for someone. Especially / most obviously for, say, someone who enjoys book diving, or someone whose character concept doesn't fit in Core +N.


Agreed. If a player drops out of a game, they can be replaced, or you can keep going without them. If the DM drops out, there is no game.

Actually, I ran a module that the group was looking forward to after the GM bailed. So, no, the GM is totally replaceable.

See also "Old Man Hendrix".


And the player who optimizes more puts more time in than the one who optimizes less. Is he therefore entitled to stomp on other characters?

Obviously. Why else would anyone bother to learn the game?


This is more anecdote than data, but in my personal experience, the players who are actually good at optimization aren't the type to stomp on others. The problem players are more like script kiddies

My experience generally agrees with this.


I think we can agree that allowing everything and evaluating characters on an individual basis is the best way to play,

Yup.


but this requires a great deal of skill and experience from the DM, or the DM to completely totally and absolutely trust your ability to not make ruling mistakes or not break the game. I can see how core+n could be much easier for an inexperienced DM.

Totally and absolutely? Well, that's a bit extremist. So let me hit some other extremes for comparison. The GM can totally make up whatever random "rules" they want to force game balance (horrible, IMO. And far too common). Or the GM can add content (custom items or prestige classes) to a weak character to help boost them to parity. Or the party can just not care about balance, or even relish in imbalance. Or, the group can just work together to make things the way that they want them.

EDIT:
TL;DR: D&D is ultimately a cooperative game. Act like it.

+1 this.

[mabriss lethe]

There's nothing wrong with either option. Example: One of my groups that I alternately play with and DM for is a 3.5 free-for all. We're all pretty experienced players with good grasp of the system. Part of the fun is seeing what we cook up.

Another group I DM for are mostly new to D&D, and tabletop gaming in general. I'm running a PHB only 5E game for them and it's a blast. (Half of THAT group couldn't make it today so I slapped together an ad hoc system for the remaining players by crossing Barbarians of Lemuria's basic dice mechanic with Star Wars Saga edition's class list to make a quick play space opera game. They LOVED the system, even though there are definitely some bugs I still have to shake loose.)

Know your players, know what they enjoy and tailor your guidelines accordingly.

[Endril]

Gray Elf Wizard/Archmage, Spell Compendium or PHB2. You don't need much more than that imo.

[Tvtyrant]

Beguiler is pretty self contained, I could see going with that as well. No Shadowsnake nonsense but playing a pregenerated control Sorcerer isn't bad at all.

[NerdHut]

If you had to build (Class, Race, Spells, Items, Feats, etc) a character under this rule, which book would you choose and what would you build?

I'd be torn between Unearthed Arcana and Races of Stone. UA gives great mechanical options, RoS give decent mechanical options and great roleplaying options.

I'm borderline obsessed with playing dwarves, and I like playing against type. So if I picked UA, I might play a Battle Sorcerer (probably as a Gold Dwarf from DMG, unless the point buy was worth taking the CHA penalty or the game was low- or no-op).

On the other hand, I really like the Deepwarden class. And I had fun playing a Goliath in the past. And I've been meaning to play a Gnome for a while.

[magicalmagicman]

I'm fine with just core as long as we start at level 9+. I can do anything with just the planar binding line of spells and the monster manual I.

However I will never play any game that starts lower than level 9+ if it's just core. Other books make the game more fun at lower levels while core only results in an unbearable grind until you reach higher level spells and can start doing weird but fun stuff instead of the ridiculously standard plays.

[Blue Wizard]

If you had to build (Class, Race, Spells, Items, Feats, etc) a character under this rule, which book would you choose and what would you build?

I would choose some other group or game. Seriously, I find it disgusting that a game company wants to sell me ludicrous numbers of books and expects me not to be able to use any of them.

[Mechalich]

I would choose some other group or game. Seriously, I find it disgusting that a game company wants to sell me ludicrous numbers of books and expects me not to be able to use any of them.

There's no game company in the world that wants you to play Core + 1, that's a decision made by individual GMs. It is extremely reasonable for a GM to have not purchased all of the books for an edition (especially when talking about 3e, which includes hundreds of Dragon/Dungeon issues, or a sprawling collection of PF companion and adventure path productions that all contain variant player options). In fact, a likely corollary of a GM saying the game is Core + 1 is stating that the +1 must be chosen from book set x - all the books they own - or book set y - all the books the player owns. This is especially true if the game is going to be played at a physical table and will use actual text instead of a laptop with a million PDFs open. This is also by Core + 1 is more attractive for 3.X compared to Pathfinder, since the PFSRD makes it far easier to reference a vast volume of obscure rules in a timely fashion than any equivalent 3.X resource.

[johnbragg]

There's no game company in the world that wants you to play Core + 1,

Yes there is--WOTC. It's the rule for Adventurer's League character generation.

[Mechalich]

Yes there is--WOTC. It's the rule for Adventurer's League character generation.

That's for 5e. The people running 5e doing something phenomenally counterproductive is par for the course, and anyway, Core + 1 gets you the majority of 5e anyway.

[RoboEmperor]

I would choose some other group or game. Seriously, I find it disgusting that a game company wants to sell me ludicrous numbers of books and expects me not to be able to use any of them.

+1 to this

[redwizard007]

Human cleric