For me, it wouldn't be the same if the dimensional dervish feat line was gone. Having used it once and had such great fun with that character, I would be sad to no longer be able to play him again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you say Core, do you mean the core rulebook specifically, or a set of books considered core?
In the former case, must say archetypes.
CRB
Thanks for the quick reply - definitely keeping my answer then. :)
The simple ability to customize those baseline concepts in a relatively modular way is just something I feel creates a strong variety in PF that isn't overwhelming.
CRB
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes.
Archetypes going away would be quite the change, I agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since archetypes has been covered, I'm going to go with Alternate Racial Traits.
Having played a couple Core PFS games, and playing the third or fourth session of our CRB-only campaign tomorrow night, my answer so far is 'nothing'.
How has the Core Campaign worked out so far?
For me, much like the way it was playing Season Zero.
How was that? I've only played a handful of PFS games myself and then usually with pregens.
The monk stuff from Ultimate Combat. I think that did so much to make the monk truly awesome, that taking it away now would be hurtful.
Witch.A+ combination of mechanics and flavor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How has the Core Campaign worked out so far?
My experience so far has been, that on the DM side of things, it seems easier. Even desirable.
Being that my main issue with PFS is the utter lack of material we can run without excluding someone(s) from playing, Core is now our real only alternative if a few individuals play, but the other side of that is it's also driving other people away from PFS completely. At least 3 players have left, not willing to start a new character and give it a try.
But, as a player, I can't even bring myself to make a character. All DM credit is just going to be wasted. It seems both, well to avid being mean, not interesting, and more than a little irritating, not being able to use all the material I have purchased just for this. It's a false hope/fix. Nothing more.
The downsides far outweigh the benefits in cases like mine, and since, as one more patch covering the actual issue, it's more likely than not just going to postpone an actual fix even longer.
It also really, really does not help that it has removed so many of the cool and interesting options, like unique Cleric spells by deity or most of the flavor Feats, Traits, or whatever, as well as the system patches for things like the Monk and Rogue, it's a huge backwards step for the game overall.
But, it's not bad, it's just mostly the fun is on the DM's side of the screen, or brand new players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Third party content.
My experience so far has been, that on the DM side of things, it seems easier. Even desirable.
Being that my main issue with PFS is the utter lack of material we can run without excluding someone(s) from playing, Core is now our real only alternative if a few individuals play, but the other side of that is it's also driving other people away from PFS completely. At least 3 players have left, not willing to start a new character and give it a try.
But, as a player, I can't even bring myself to make a character. All DM credit is just going to be wasted. It seems both, well to avid being mean, not interesting, and more than a little irritating, not being able to use all the material I have purchased just for this. It's a false hope/fix. Nothing more.
The downsides far outweigh the benefits in cases like mine, and since, as one more patch covering the actual issue, it's more likely than not just going to postpone an actual fix even longer.
It also really, really does not help that it has removed so many of the cool and interesting options, like unique Cleric spells by deity or most of the flavor Feats, Traits, or whatever, as well as the system patches for things like the Monk and Rogue, it's a huge backwards step for the game overall.
But, it's not bad, it's just mostly the fun is on the DM's side of the screen, or brand new players.
I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archaeologist, Slayer, and other rogue-but-not-a-rogue options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.
The whole point of pfs is that anyone can sit down and play with the same rules anywhere. If like individual venture officers could create their own set of 'acceptable material' that falls apart pretty fast. You couldnt bring your pfs character from one group to another.
Edit:
In response to the OP, base classes released since the apg. Particularly the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, Samurai, Witch. For me the APG is what made pathfinder actually its own game, and the 6 base classes were (in my opinion) it's flagship. Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.
|
|
I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.
Well, the idea behind Society Play is that you can take your character to any other Society event and jump in, because everyone uses the same rules. You can't really do that if everyone plays with different rules, and PFS already has a lot of issues with unclear rules or hidden updates that can lead to what is called Table Variation, where one DM allows something by their understanding of the rules, but that player goes to another game where the DM doesn't allow it, (again, usually by their interpretation or understanding of the rules), and that either leaves the player needing to it out and not play or needing to possibly recreate their character, which can be very tricky as you need to account for everything.
The recent change to the Spell-Like Abilities being able to allow you to qualify for Prestige classes had left a few individuals in a sort of Limbo, where their character suddenly became so undesirable to play that they simply won't any more, (not sure how common that was), but because they can no longer play any of the games again that that character has, even with a new character, they are basically just out of luck. Allowing more opportunity for Table Variation just opens the door for that sort of thing even more.
A group can play Pathfinder without going the Organized Play route, (and honestly, I originally thought this thread was not about PFS at all), but they would not be PFS legal.
I actually did that for a while, I would just use the PFS scenarios for non-PFS adventure ideas.
As for why they didn't open it up more, couldn't tell you. Not one of the voices whispering in their ear. :) It' possible they will in the future. I couldn't tell you.
The whole point of pfs is that anyone can sit down and play with the same rules anywhere. If like individual venture officers could create their own set of 'acceptable material' that falls apart pretty fast. You couldnt bring your pfs character from one group to another.
No, it's not. It happens by default for home games yet they're a perfectly accepted facet to PFS play. Your response suggests I'm saying that VO's should set policy for whole regions when I implied nothing of the sort. Core and greater PFS play coexist in the same regions. Nothing in my post implied that should change. You can't bring a Core character into regular PFS as is. That's not a rebuttal.
I'm not following you. What groups are you talking about and how do their leagues differ from Core as it is?
They don't because they can't. PFS doesn't even give the option.
What I'm talking about, since both of you clearly misunderstood what I was saying, is to simply let others freely decide which of the allowed content from the whole PFS pie to include in one league compared to another. To say that Core is OK, which you are by playing in it, but what I'm talking about isn't simply doesn't make sense. The only difference is that Mike and Co. already endorsed one additional style of play. There's no inherent difference between them compared to what happened to PFS play at large.
|
A group can play Pathfinder without going the Organized Play route, (and honestly, I originally thought this thread was not about PFS at all), but they would not be PFS legal.
It wasn't, but I mentioned my experience in the Core campaign and in a home game, so it opened that tangent up a bit. My apologies for the derail.
|
|
What I'm talking about, since both of you clearly misunderstood what I was saying, is to simply let others freely decide which of the allowed content from the whole PFS pie to include in one league compared to another.
Yes, that's perfectly allowable, and was before Core even came about. (My home PFS sessions loosely follow that paradigm.)
It's not something that the campaign can support in official gamedays and conventions where outside players may join in.
To highlight it, I moved from Killeen, TX to Houston, then jumped to Springfield, OH, and finally to Phoenix, AZ (with a trip to PaizoCon in-between) playing PFS all the way. I played the same characters the entire time.
Had Space City Con, Origins, or the Phoenix community had their own private league, I couldn't have done that. And that is arguably the greatest strength of the organized play campaign.
Yes, that's perfectly allowable, and was before Core even came about. (My home PFS sessions loosely follow that paradigm.)
It's not something that the campaign can support in official gamedays and conventions where outside players may join in.
To highlight it, I moved from Killeen, TX to Houston, then jumped to Springfield, OH, and finally to Phoenix, AZ (with a trip to PaizoCon in-between) playing PFS all the way. I played the same characters the entire time.
Had Space City Con, Origins, or the Phoenix community had their own private league, I couldn't have done that. And that is arguably the greatest strength of the organized play campaign.
You can't necessarily do that now with the advent of Core. Granted, it's likely you can because of the sheer crowd conventions draw. However, as I understand it, and is part of why I asked you to begin with of how it was going, is that its adoption is only a fraction of the greater PFS community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ratfolk and Tengu. Pretty much all the noncore classes. As someone stated above that's what made Pathfinder really start to feel like it's own system rather than D&D 3.75.
I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.
Because that's an absolute logistical nightmare.
At that point, it's no different than Homegames, where DMs decide what is and isn't legal, and you may have to rewrite your characters entirely because the DM who's table you just sat down at doesn't allow the UC, or the ACG, etc.
The entire POINT of PFS is to have a unified set of rules so people can pick up their character sheets, travel 5000 miles to an entirely-other state, sit down and keep playing.
If groups make their own leagues and decides what is and isn't legal like you do in homegames, then it becomes nigh-impossible to do the whole "pick up and sit down" thing.
What could be a compromise is to do what MTG did with their Formats - have a handful of different ones that define what is legal and how bans/restrictions are handled.
There could be 3 Divisions of PFS:
Open, which is normal PFS, where any and all Pathfinder products are usable but for some noted restrictions
Core, which is as it is now, with just the Core Rulebook being the only book
Basic, which would be ONLY the PRD books without any Player's Companions, etc. The CRB, APG, UC, UM, ARG, and ACG are already plenty to create really diverse characters with, and would be a happy medium between the "lean-but-low-options" of Core, and the "oh god BLOAT!" juggernaut that is PFS.
Because that's an absolute logistical nightmare.
I disagree on its own merit. Paizo doesn't have the greatest backend tooling. That would make all the difference.
At that point, it's no different than Homegames, where DMs decide what is and isn't legal, and you may have to rewrite your characters entirely because the DM who's table you just sat down at doesn't allow the UC, or the ACG, etc.
OK? Just don't bring the character to other leagues, same as Core.
The entire POINT of PFS is to have a unified set of rules so people can pick up their character sheets, travel 5000 miles to an entirely-other state, sit down and keep playing.
You can't do it with Core. Brock et al. must be OK with that paradigm existing already.
If groups make their own leagues and decides what is and isn't legal like you do in homegames, then it becomes nigh-impossible to do the whole "pick up and sit down" thing.
I don't see why. Just because you have a character in one league doesn't entitle you to port that character between leagues (Core vs. PFS) nor does it prevent you from participating in other leagues or the "come one, come all" open PFS play.
What could be a compromise is to do what MTG did with their Formats - have a handful of different ones that define what is legal and how bans/restrictions are handled.
Perhaps. It was their seeming closed mindedness to things outside of Core-only that didn't make sense. They already greatly shifted the game from a pure, straightforward "pick up and sit down anywhere" dynamic the moment they considered doing Core.
|
|
You can't necessarily do that now with the advent of Core. Granted, it's likely you can because of the sheer crowd conventions draw. However, as I understand it, and is part of why I asked you to begin with of how it was going, is that it's adoption is only a fraction of the greater PFS community.
Only if the place your going has completely switched over to Core. And you're right, we've only had about five or six total Core tables in Phoenix so far, and are moving to schedule one store as Core only while the rest remain Normal only.
If there were six different leagues to support, we'd be unable to do so thanks to dilution of the player base. And people coming to Phoenix Comicon from out of state would be unable to join in if we had a private league here. Core isn't extreme enough of a difference to preclude outside players, especially with clear advertising of available options.
Perhaps. It was their seeming closed mindedness to things outside of Core-only that didn't make sense. They already greatly shifted the game from a pure, straightforward "pick up and sit down anywhere" dynamic the moment they considered doing Core.
And yet they created Core partially because of player outcry against Bloat in PFS and Analysis Paralysis caused by the 6 main player-focused book in the PRD coupled with tons of Player's Companions and Campaign Setting handbooks.
There's a TVTropes page that pretty succinctly explains this whole paradox
---
Anyway, back on track:
Archetypes & Racial Favored Class Abilities.
They're technically optional, but just TRY and build a Pathfinder character without Archetypes or RFCAs and not feel like you're missing out on so much.
Honestly, I feel like you can't take away those two aspects and not feel like there's a giant hole in the game by now.
And people coming to Phoenix Comicon from out of state would be unable to join in if we had a private league here.
This stood out to me. I don't see such a thing being islands of private leagues. It would all be open. Everyone could see which leagues existed and join them. But, that would take better tooling on Paizo's backend.
|
|
And people coming to Phoenix Comicon from out of state would be unable to join in if we had a private league here.This stood out to me. I don't see such a thing being islands of private leagues. It would all be open. Everyone could see which leagues existed and join them. But, that would take better tooling on Paizo's backend.
It's a thought. Probably better explored in its own thread, and perhaps nothing but a pipe dream. But it's a thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger.
It is what really differentiated Pathfinder from other fantasy RPGs for me was the gunslinger, and the willingness of the game to seriously address guns in a fantasy setting. It does a lot to set a different tone
|
|
A group can play Pathfinder without going the Organized Play route, (and honestly, I originally thought this thread was not about PFS at all), but they would not be PFS legal.It wasn't, but I mentioned my experience in the Core campaign and in a home game, so it opened that tangent up a bit. My apologies for the derail.
No worries. I was actually confused on that from the start, but I decided, not being in the PFS Core thread, I figured it was not PFS specific.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the extra classes.
I adore the variety, and it's what first drew me to the system.
The Magus and archetypes, I think. And traits.
|
Aasimars.
Sure, 3.5 had them too, but back then they were really only there because the existence of Tieflings implied a need for a "good counterpart"-- I never really saw Aasimars played or acknowledged when everybody either wanted to be a sexy devil-blooded anti-hero or to stick with the core races. Even the artwork for Aasimars in 3.5's monster manual made them impossible to take seriously.
Paizo has done a lot more to make Aasimars feel like a part of the world, make them interesting, and keep them from being lumped in with Tieflings. The fact that Rise of the Runelords has one as a major character pretty early in the AP helps with that a lot.
I find these two comments rather odd, as the overwhelming selling point of Pathfinder is that it's a continuation of 3.5.
Is it still? I mean, I got into it with my 3.5 group at the time. However, I have zero notion of D&D when I play it now. It's just "Pathfinder." It's kind of strange. I can still recall looking at the Beta art and thinking it was a tad cartoonish, almost too clean. But, no, anymore, it's just Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the much more effective Rogue replacements.
Big fan of traits here too.
Archetypes. The game would be so bland without them.
Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.As someone stated above that's what made Pathfinder really start to feel like it's own system rather than D&D 3.75.I find these two comments rather odd, as the overwhelming selling point of Pathfinder is that it's a continuation of 3.5.
I'd argue is was a selling point. Definitely is no longer. Sure, compatibility is still there but the game is just its own recognizable beast. It has a large swathe of features all its own.
As has been pointed out, the APG came with a set of new classes. Classes that while not turfing over all the mechanics of 3.5, introduced new ways to play in the system.The issue I have primarily comes in this line:
Having played a couple Core PFS games, and playing the third or fourth session of our CRB-only campaign tomorrow night, my answer so far is 'nothing'.
Personally, I've tried CRB-only and it just felt like a relatively fixed 3.5 to me. That is arguably what PF is at the core, but without all the things which PF holds of its own, there was nothing that would make me call it its own game. Just that it was a set of very good houserules. PF forges itself its own identity by everything its done to build for its own sake.
