Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dark Brandon 04-09-06, 08:47 AM	What exactly is the difference between a core and splat book?
WizO_Cat 04-09-06, 09:33 AM	The term goes back to 3rd edition, but the concept goes back to 1st edition. If you are playing core, then your group is only allowing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual in your games. If your game is allowing splat, then you're allowing all of the books that I previously mentioned as well as the "Complete" series: Complete Arcane, Complete Fighter, etc. Really, the splat term can be extended to the use of skill, feats, classes, and prestige classes from the accessory books, not solely the core books. So, the core books are the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. The splat books are the "Complete" series of books that can out with accesories. Hope that help.
Dark Brandon 04-09-06, 10:01 AM	very much so. thank you very much.
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-06, 12:52 PM	The exact definition actually varies from place to place, but Cat's got the most common one. For instance, there are places where "core" is defined as the SRD, instead of those three books (the SRD includes the mechanics from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and some DMs -- myself included -- consider that book Core Rulebook IV even if it doesn't say it is). Many DMs will consider the campaign setting book to be a core book as well (so if a DM runs an Eberron game, the core books for him will be the PHB, the DMG, the MM, and the Eberron Campaign Setting. If I (or some others) were running that game, the XPH would be considered "core" as well.) Essentially, though, it's the books that everyone is assumed to have versus the books that are strictly optional (of which the Complete series is an example, but hardly all of them. There's also the environment books (Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack), the Races series, the monstrous series (Libris Mortis, Draconomicon, Lords of Madness), and alternate system books (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook, the last of which is in the SRD) as well.)
Witch 04-09-06, 12:57 PM	Also, the are a few layers along which DM's allow things. 1) Core (with Psionics or not) 2) Core + Complete Series 3) Any WotC 3.5 product 4) Any WotC 3.5 product and any WotC 3.0 product that has not been reprinted 5) (4) + a few other, reliable designers 6) Any d20 designer. For the last one especially, the DM should watch out for balance problems. This does not exclude the latter ones, but the chance grow higher the higher the number gets.
celtredleg 04-09-06, 01:13 PM	I should point out that only the Psi lobby consider XPH to be core. The rest of us dont. And even if it was changed to be core in some odd universe, in many games, includeing mine, it will not be allowed even then.
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-06, 01:36 PM	And even if it was changed to be core in some odd universe, in many games, includeing mine, it will not be allowed even then. Not to derail the thread, and I won't pursue this into an argument, but I'm curious: Why not?
Kursk 04-09-06, 03:34 PM	What exactly is the difference between a core and splat book? PHB, DMG & MM series are core and extensively play tested. All else = "splat" Anything outside of this is not allowed in my game as a default. Players can request that something be allowed in and if it is then it is conditional and subject to revocation if it proves unbalanced.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-09-06, 04:05 PM	Not to derail the thread, and I won't pursue this into an argument, but I'm curious: Why not? Same reason many people don't use the Core Pantheon -- because they don't have to.
Escef 04-09-06, 04:09 PM	Not to derail the thread, and I won't pursue this into an argument, but I'm curious: Why not? Not to speak for Cel, but I just don't like the feel of psionics. It just seems to scifi-ish for my fantasy games. If it works for you and your group, great, I won't knock you for it. But I am loathe to include it in any of my homebrews.
Witch 04-09-06, 04:12 PM	I dislike the feel of Psionics in general too, although I use two classes of it: I have one Psion Uncarnate NPC, who is unique. He has lived for thousands of years through changing bodies. He has a group of assassin soulknives gathered around him. That's it. I don't like the feel that so many people can do these things. I feel they have to be special - and not "adventurer" special, real special.
goldjas 04-09-06, 04:25 PM	PHB, DMG & MM series are core and extensively play tested. All else = "splat" Anything outside of this is not allowed in my game as a default. Players can request that something be allowed in and if it is then it is conditional and subject to revocation if it proves unbalanced. I hope you don't actually consider core to be any less/more unbalanced then most of the splat books...*cough* C.oD. zilla *cough*.
Kursk 04-09-06, 04:38 PM	I hope you don't actually consider core to be any less/more unbalanced then most of the splat books...*cough* C.oD. zilla *cough*. To the degree that I've created house rules for the "core" materials to handle the largest messed up rules.
JulesCARV 04-09-06, 07:05 PM	I was under the impression that "splat" originally applied to the White Wolf books on specific factions/lineages within their games (i.e., "Splatbooks" meant Clanbooks in the case of Vampire, Tribebooks for Werewolf, Traditionbooks for Mage, etc.). I thought that it had migrated to D&D and other RPGs later. Is this true, or is it just a wild misconception that I somehow got?
Kessalin Talira 04-09-06, 10:11 PM	As far as D&D goes, the term came from the sound the splatbooks (Sword and Fist, Tome and Blood, Song and Silence, Sticks and Stones.. umm, Masters of the Wild :D) made when they hit the table.
WizO_Cat 04-09-06, 10:54 PM	What Kessalin Talira mentioned is what I always considered how the term "splat" came to be for the Sword and Fist, masters of the Wild, etc. When you drop those books on the table, they go "splat" while core and other accessory book went "thud". (Don't ask me why the core books aren't called thud books ...)
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-06, 11:41 PM	As far as D&D goes, the term came from the sound the splatbooks (Sword and Fist, Tome and Blood, Song and Silence, Sticks and Stones.. umm, Masters of the Wild :D) made when they hit the table. If you think Masters of the Wild should be called Sticks and Stones, why not call Song and Silence Lutes and Loots? By the way, two quick things, and I will no longer reply here. 1) Things can be reflavored. Entirely. See Truenaming Psionics in my sig for the psionics examples. 2) Is there anything in the core books that you don't like flavorwise? If so, is your reaction to immediately ban it?
celtredleg 04-10-06, 01:44 AM	If you think Masters of the Wild should be called Sticks and Stones, why not call Song and Silence Lutes and Loots? By the way, two quick things, and I will no longer reply here. 1) Things can be reflavored. Entirely. See Truenaming Psionics in my sig for the psionics examples. 2) Is there anything in the core books that you don't like flavorwise? If so, is your reaction to immediately ban it? Who said anything about immediately banning?? I banned psi from my games shortly after the very first bit of it came out. But I did play in a couple of games that had it first. To me Psi=Sci-fi, Magic= fantasy. As for reflavoring, why?? Why go to the trouble when theere is a perfectly good magic system in place? If I want to play witha power point magic system, I will go back to playing rolemaster. If I want a sci-fi game, I can go traveler, or cyberpunk. But when I want fantasy I go DnD, or if I want low magic fantasy I go Runequest. My game works just fine without them. Yours must work just fine with them, and thats great. I just object to the idea that they are somehow core, like everybody needs to include them.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-10-06, 01:47 AM	2) Is there anything in the core books that you don't like flavorwise? If so, is your reaction to immediately ban it? Paladins and monks have always been gloriously banned from my games, as have most alignment based things.
BlaineTog 04-10-06, 02:04 AM	The etymological explaination for "splat" that I had always heard was that in the listings of the books during 3.0, splot books had an asterisk next to their name, and since "*" looks like a splattering and "splat" is easier to say than "asterisk," the term "splat book" was born. Who said anything about immediately banning?? I banned psi from my games shortly after the very first bit of it came out. But I did play in a couple of games that had it first.Do you mean to say that you used the Psionics Handbook back in 3.0, but haven't touched the Expanded Psionics Handbook? Because it would be a real shame to miss the XPH just becasue the PsiHB; the latter sucks hard, but the former is a real gem. As for reflavoring, why?? Why go to the trouble when theere is a perfectly good magic system in place?Well, the XPH psionics system is significantly better than D&D's magic system on a fair number of counts. Which all isn't to say that you must use it. Just pointing out a few things.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-10-06, 02:18 AM	Why can't someone say they don't like psionics without the thread becoming a psi-thread?
was_fired 04-10-06, 02:32 AM	Because people who like psionics really like psionics. Personally I love 'em as both a DM and a player more than I like normal spellcasting, but I am currently in the minority and I respect that. Heh I still find it funny I got psionics banned under one DM I use dto play under since he thought my kenetist was too good. Sure I could have the highest AC in the party, had the third highest hitpoints out of six, and seemed to find a solution to every problem using my powers, but I payed for it in damage potential (taking expanded knowledge every chance I got hurt my damage potential since I couldn't use meta-psionics well).
BlaineTog 04-10-06, 04:10 AM	Why can't someone say they don't like psionics without the thread becoming a psi-thread?Because psifans have been oppressed at every turn and we're fighting back. (Yes, I'm being melodramatic). In any case, I was just pointing out a few things I saw, not trying to argue one way or the other, really.
RadicalTaoist 04-10-06, 04:45 AM	Why can't someone say they don't like psionics without the thread becoming a psi-thread? Don't ask me. Seeing as 'core' varies from DM to DM (is the DMG2 or the Monster Manual III core?) and even from game to game (the FRCS is core in an FR game but not an Eberron game), there's no point to arguing whether psi is core or not. It's impossible to come up with a definition of core everyone will unquestioningly accept that includes psi. By extension, it's impossible to come up with a rock-hard definition of core that completely excludes psionics, either. Thus, all you have to run on is that WotC felt that the material in the Expanded Psionics Handbook deserved to be in the SRD as much as any material in the PHB or DMG. No, you don't have to include psi in your games. As Vaal noted, you don't have to include monks or paladins either. :P Calling psi 'core' is not some sinister power-grab by psi-fans. It doesn't change or threaten the way you play at all. It's not like everyone would have to include psionics if they were core tomorrow. Forget about 'core' and play what is balanced and fun for your game - that's what matters.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-10-06, 02:01 PM	If we're going to need terminology, lets have new and appropriate terminology. Base The books you literally can't run a DnD game without. - PH - DMG - MM SRD Core The books whose parts comprise the SRD. As the above plus: - XPH - Deities and Demigods - Unearthed Arcana Expanded The books WotC seems to assume you have and constantly references in other books and the website. As above, plus: - Complete Series - Races Series - Savage Species Satelite The other books that aren't setting specific but get little support. Includes: - Monster Series - Environment Series - Magic of Incarnum - Tome of Magic Some arguable books: - OA OA could be veiwed as a setting, but it also professes to be a suppment to add oriental flavor to the game. This could be shifted toward the 'satelite group' instead of of setting specific if we had 'Arabian Adventures' and 'Meso-american Adventures' - Spell Compenduim The book is too new and general to see if it will be Expanded or Satelite. - Genre Series These are like mini Campaign Settings but *could* be placed in a standard world. - DMG II Another book that seems like It should be in Expanded, but WotC hasn't shown much support after it came out. May be Satelite.
Priest_of_Shaundakul 04-10-06, 02:48 PM	Core = Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual Pretty simple.
RadicalTaoist 04-10-06, 04:56 PM	Core = Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual Pretty simple. So, the Eberron Campaign Setting isn't core in an Eberron game? Core varies. I like Vaal's taxonomy though. (psst, how's that article going, V?)
Priest_of_Shaundakul 04-10-06, 05:13 PM	No...Core by definition is the 3 Core rulebooks. Any other variation is purely fan made and not official.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-10-06, 05:25 PM	The point being that the Core/Splat dichotomy isn't really applicable as it used to be when we just had the Core 3 and The five class based splat books. RT: Tanking badly, I'm sad to report. I've had a rough week.
Wolfen Fenrison 04-10-06, 06:42 PM	Vaalingrade Ashland made a good point in making a list to help define what is "core" vs. "splat" but I added some; Base The books you literally can't run a DnD game without. - PH - DMG - MM SRD Core The books whose parts comprise the SRD. As the above plus: - XPH - Deities and Demigods - Unearthed Arcana - Epic Level Handbook - Manual of the Planes Expanded The books WotC seems to assume you have and constantly references in other books and the website. As above, plus: - Complete Series - Races Series - Savage Species - Planar Handbook - MM2 - MM3 - Fiend Folio Satelite The other books that aren't setting specific but get little support. Includes: - Monster Series - Environment Series - Magic of Incarnum - Tome of Magic - Weapons of Legacy - Minis Handbook - DMG 2 - Heroes of Series - Arms and Equipment Guide - Strongjold Builders Guidebook Some arguable books: - OA - Ghostwalk so if anyone else thinks that the SRD core is right that leaves us with a wooping 8 books, that may seem to be a lot but most people that play have at least 5 of them, while most DMs i know have 6-8+
RadicalTaoist 04-10-06, 09:51 PM	RT: Tanking badly, I'm sad to report. I've had a rough week. Now I feel guilty asking you to hurry on the Ere psionics initiative. :( Hope your weeks shape up.
pheonixfrostmourn 04-11-06, 01:23 AM	Core only (aka boring beyond belief): DMG, PHB, & MM Campaign(aka pigeon- holed again): core only + whatever setting specific books exist(FR, Eberron, etc...). Expanded (aka mild diversion): core only &/or campaign + one or more WOTC splat books (race series, complete crap, etc...). What the h3ll were you thinking (aka now your talking adventure): Any/all of the above + one or more 3rd party d20 books (scarred lands, legends & lairs books, etc...). And just for the record, I agree that the XPH should be core. but then i've been a fan of psionics since 2nd ed, and the 3.5 treatment of psionics is 1000 times better than back then.