|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aaron Motta wrote:
Speaking from experience, if a person creates a character as a Normal Mode character (that has not been played) prior to playing it in their first Core Mode game (which will create a reporting issue), it is possible to remove the reporting of that session for them, have them delete the Normal Mode character, create a new Core Mode character and report with the same number. This may be a niche problem/solution, but it does work in case anyone else runs into the same problem.
I'm not understanding the question.
Are you saying that you haven't played the character at all? If not, then I don't believe the character has been assigned core or normal until something has been reported for them.
If you are talking about GM credit on the character, then technically no, you can't remove that credit once its been assigned. I'm not sure how the reporting system works. Whether its hard coded that once any reporting (GM credit or play credit) has been assigned as normal, that core is no longer an option, ever, or if you move those GM credits off the character, that Core then becomes an option.
if moving the GM credits is an option, then you might be able to ask your V-C to do so.
Although, if the character hasn't been played, and you want to move the credit off of the character, it might just be worth it to make a new character exactly the same way (but with Core only options) and play under that new character number.
And then you have a normal character option, that you can rebuild to whatever normal campaign options you want, since you haven't played them yet.
You asked for a solution and I gave you literally the best solution. It's the best of both worlds. The only reason it's not being done is because it would cost money. If this is a good long term idea it stands to reason that spending money to make it work instead of driving groups to extinction it would be a good idea.
Stop with the hyperbole please. You are already ringing the extinction bell before this even starts.
David Bowles wrote:
Your VOs have been VOs for quite some time. This means they have Mike's confidence that they are doing a good job. I'm sure if the player base shuns Core options, they won't continue shoving them down the player base's throats.
That would not be a solid solution.
Calling for the impending doom of the campaign before an option even really sees the light of day is the very definition of hyperbole.
Secondly, without seeing the code they currently use for their website and database, you really have no basis for that claim. None.
Yes, I know many tech guys who could write a new web-based and database code to do whatever they wanted. But in many cases it would require more than a patch, but rather an entire overhaul, which would have many unforeseen potential side-effects.
Like breaking the reporting program entirely, erasing or seriously corrupting the player and character database, damaging their web store.
So before you see what state their current code is in (I've seen many situations over the years where the state of a particular program is nearly unfixable or modifiable by even the best of programmers, because its been programmed and patched and parsed together with several different programming languages by several different programmers with a different dialect and signature.
So lets leave comments about things we don't know out of the conversation please.
David Bowles wrote:
Understood. And were my opinion the same as yours, I would probably choose another avenue for my favorite hobby as well. I've done it before when I quit playing online roleplaying games. That avenue no longer satisfied me, so I moved on.
I'm not suggesting you move on. But if you are unhappy you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you did not.
As to whether Paizo cares, I think this particular option proves exactly the opposite. Here's why I think so.
They had a huge meeting between Eric Mona, Lisa Stevens, Mark Seifter (you might remember him as Rogue Eidolon), Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, John Compton, and perhaps someone else I am forgetting, for 6 or 7 hours one day to address several serious concerns folks had on the state of the campaign. And they have made several changes to the way PFS works (see Faction Cards) to address some of the biggest concerns people have.
The fact that this particular option seems to be as divisive as it is, shows that they are willing to take a huge risk to do something to help bring in new players and bring back old players who have run out of things to play (or have grown bored with too many options.)
So I know that they care very deeply for PFS. And I know, should this option not work as intended, that they will do whatever they need to to fix it. But its a bit early to be calling for the final curtain before the show even opens, don't you think?
Aaron Motta wrote:
It was a legitimate question that I needed an answer to before I could continue to address his concerns. He gave a reasonable response, that I felt I reasonably responded to.
But I can't give him a response worth my time if I don't understand where he's coming from. Now that I understand where he's coming from, he and I can have a reasonable discussion.
David Bowles wrote:
I've found that threats of "I'm gonna quit and take my ball home with me if things don't go my way" type of comments don't go real far.
I hear your concerns. I understand the concern that this would potentially split the player base, and that adding options for a Mode of play you aren't interested in could potentially take away options for a mode of play you are interested in.
I completely understand how people are particularly concerned with small player communities and/or small game days. If only one or two tables are happening just once or twice a month, then you are probably going to run either Core or Normal, and not an equal offering of both from what you were offering of just Normal before Core became an option.
As a Venture-officer and organizer, this is certainly a concern that I need to deal with logistically when organizing game days. I need to take the temperature of my player base and find out what they want as a whole and do my best to accommodate as many interests as I can.
But starting out with, "I just might take my ball and go home if you don't do it the way I want you to do it," isn't going to make me want to accommodate you at all.
1) If you aren't going to play Core Mode, and you aren't going to be part of the solution to the theoretical problems, then commenting on all the problems you foresee really is not helpful.
2) Hyperbole (see bolded above) is especially not helpful.
If you want to make comments on your concerns, fine. Do so, and campaign leadership and your venture-Corps will hear them, cogitate on them, and try to find solutions or reassurances.
But making comments with no potential solutions, and commenting about not being interested in even trying the new option (therefore no promise of you ever creating potential solutions), and communicating in ridiculous, chicken little, hyperbole, is completely not helpful.
I'm asking those who aren't willing to be part of the solution to please remove themselves from the conversation. If you want to be helpful, then coming up with potential solutions to perceived problems is better than just voicing concerns.
David Bowles wrote:
Its unfortunate that your local community seems to have a prevailing attitude that you suggest, where I haven't experienced this attitude in several regions where I've played, GM'd, or at Paizocon, Gen Con, Gamicon, Gamehole Con, or JimCon.
Doesn't mean your experience doesn't exist or isn't real. I haven't gamed in your region in a long, long time.
But I think your experience is the exception, rather than the rule.
David Bowles wrote:
actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.
Absolutely. Feedback on the problems, issues, and concerns are very important so that we can make PFS, and now Core PFS as successful as possible.
But its a bit early to be touting problems that only might happen. Trust that the leadership of the campaign and the venture corps has well aware of the potential issues. And we are keeping a sharp eye out and will be reporting back to Mike and John the actual experiences from the field. And Mike and John will be quick to make any adjustments as necessary based on those reports.
Furthermore, reports from fellows like yourself will also be extremely important for areas that don't have direct Venture-Officer influence (and even for those that do.)
But lets let the core mode happen for a couple weeks and see what problems actually arise before we start panicking?
I can assure you, and I think I can speak for all venture-officers, that we don't want to let PFS become cliquish based on this new mode of playing the game.
I suppose these assumptions are part of the problem with text only as a form of communication.
I can assure you that nobody has actually said, indicated, or even implicitly stated this.
If you don't like Core mode, fine. If you have issues or concerns, fine.
But lets please not start putting words into people's mouths who are only trying to be helpful and reassuring.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Not sure why Core Mode changes how a wand is drawn. Unless you put them in your backpack, Wands can be drawn as a weapon-like object.
A shortsword in your backpack, is recovered as a move action that provokes. A shortsword in its sheath on your belt is drawn as a move action that doesn't provoke.
Replace the word shortsword with wand, and the sentence is still true.
Here's the other problem no one has addressed. GM's who will refuse to GM anything but Core Only when players want Normal games.
This is a coordinator issue. Game Day coordinators will have to deal with the logistics of organizing a game day. Will adding this extra element add a complexity to the logistics? Yes.
Will it be insurmountable? No.
Yup, I got ninja'd.
excellent question Drogon:
Mistakes obviously can happen. Technically this table is a non-core table, but you don't want to penalize five people for one person making a mistake (or gods forbid maliciously forgot).
I personally wouldn't see a problem, especially as we all get used to this new mode of play, of reporting the game without the non-Core character.
1) that non-core character never gets reported, but gets to keep his chronicle.
But Technically, RAW, you report it as non-core and the 5 core characters become non-core.
It includes the Bestiary only.
And wraithcannon's assertion that you can use Bestiary 2 for Elementals is incorrect. You can only use Elementals from the Bestiary.
Remember that most RP prerequisites of both Feats and Prestige Classes are handwaved in PFS.
Just like you can take the Wheeling Charge feat, even though 90% of people have no idea what Lastwall Affinity is (you basically spend about a month in Lastwall--easily done during ambiguous downtime.)
In this case, taking the Scarred Tattoo feat (or the feat from the Realm of the Mammoth Lords needing to be a member of a Following), requires you to be a member of a Quah as well.
So as far as I'm concerned, as long as you are being sincere in your RP and choices as a Shoanti, and aren't just claiming it (along with a dozen other RP ethnicity choices) just to gain a bonus, then I'm good with your choices.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
the brawler thing would matter if it was a brawler, but we're using rangers. he also said you can't make more than one attack with a shield a turn without taking a -2 because it isn't a weapon, but i have no idea where that is written, if at all
It isn't written anywhere. Again, he may be thinking they aren't a weapon. And the -2 would be for an improvised weapon. But they are listed on the chart for Martial Weapons and thus are considered weapons in every sense of the word. You can enchant your shield as both a weapon and a shield.
The bit about not being able to attack more than once without taking a -2 isn't even part of the 3.0/3.5/PF game system unless you are two-weapon fighting.
The VC may be thinking that you have a non-proficiency penalty to attack with the shield.
I think there is something funky with one of the brawler archetypes that gives you either the shield proficiency or the melee proficiency with shield but not both. Threw a lot of folks for a loop.
But because Shields show up on the weapon chart under martial weapons, if you have martial weapon proficiencies, you know how to use shields as weapons. But if you do not have a shield proficiency, you may only know how to use a shield as a weapon, and not as a shield.
Mike answered this above.
You only get your star replays once.
Michael Brock wrote:
This doesn't mean animals can now flank without being pushed. What it means is its back to table variation.
I'm assuming this is only if you earn the boon while playing a Core Character. In other words someone could not create a brand new core character with that boon, since it was earned in the standard campaign.
Oh, I do appreciate it. Helps me with further Rules Fu for later. So thank you.
My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.
But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.
The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.
The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.
Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.
I'll leave that comment stand as is.
No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.
End of story.
This I don't get. I have 18 characters and each have their own 12 clear sleeves permanently attached. Each of my 18 characters, 5 of which are level 13+, fit nicely into each of those folders except for my Wizard, and the printed out spell book tends to take up more pages than I have.
If you put all your characters into a single binder, that's your own fault, not mine.