Poll: What do You Consider de Facto Core?

[Tequila Sunrise]

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]

The Complete series. That's all I'd consider, although the PHBII could be considered.

[Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick]

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]

I'd swear we've gone through this before...anyway.

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

[brian c]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I consider the SRD core, alongside the three core books.

[TheGreatJabu]

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]

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]

Just the big three. Add in a bit of imagination and you can do anything.

[Fax Celestis]

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]

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]

why isnt the phb case by case too? i mean, phb has, like, time stop and gate...

[Draz74]

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]

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]

Expanded Psionics Handbook

[brian c]

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]

I'd probably have to go with SRD + Completes, or just SRD

[sleeping fishy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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 (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]

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.