Flaxseed Lodge (PFS1)

Game Master Redelia

That's a mechanics, and preference issue. The reason there is a CORE is because the hobby (or at least its "official" face) is prohibitively expensive, and not every 12 or 13 year-old can by a whole suite of $30-$50 books just to build their gun-slinging, half-grippli telekineticist with.

CORE is there to expand the hobby, not to limit it. The more folks who can afford to play the game (which is mostly open source anyway) the bigger the game grows. Eventually, CORE players branch out (when they are old like us).

I find that playing inside the lines creates an added challenge, and forces people to see what is possible within the rules, and strive for differentiation in other ways. There are lots of ways to play the game cutting off one of the easiest, and least expensive ways does not, in my opinion, help the hobby.

It appears you've somehow mistaken a statement of personal preference for an attack on those who prefer something else.

Also, nothing prevents you from creating a character with nothing but the core rulebook and playing them in the standard campaign, so that line of reasoning is false.

”Don’t be making me thump y’all on the heads now. Keep it professional.”

Also, nothing prevents you from creating a character with nothing but the core rulebook and playing them in the standard campaign, so that line of reasoning is false.

While it's true that nothing in the rules prevents this, it's still an unfair assessment. "Power creep" through the expansion of the rules ensures that most characters built simply out of the CORE rulebook will be underpowered compared to others built with the full ruleset. While a few players appreciate the challenge of playing an underpowered character, most would find it boring being unable to contribute on an even level.

Except the challenge in the adventure didn't change. Your ability to contribute doesn't change unless someone is so over-optimized that they can solo the encounters and I've seen almost no cases of characters being optimized to the point where no one else in the party gets to contribute.

I've seen tons of builds and out of all of them only 1 really bothered me to any degree (and in that case it was over-optimization plus careless tactics that cost the party rewards that was the issue).

A high level core wizard with maxed Int, greater spell focus and a bunch of save or lose spells can pretty much end the fight before it beings too.

I have a recruitment question.

On the Outpost sign-up sheet for a 1-5 adventure, I have two level 1 characters, three level 2 characters and one level 5 character.

Can that level 5 adventure with that group? The APL will be low-tier still (2.2).

Yes, that is allowed.

The only rule is that for adventures with more than 2 sub-tiers, the PCs must all be in adjacent subtiers.

There were a few early scenarios for tier 1-7 that had subtiers 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7. In that case a level 5 PC could not play with levels 1 and 2 as they were adjacent only to the 3-4 and 6-7 subtiers, not the 1-2, but in a 1-5 the subtiers are 1-2 and 4-5, so it is allowed.

Do the rules prohibit a L5 character adventuring with L1s and L2s? No.

Might there be problems serious enough to intervene anyway? Yes.

My experiences:

I played a scenario with a similar setup, and the L5 character was a gunslinger to boot. He kept 1-shot Con-killing everyone, and we lost our secondary criterion of not killing everyone. Ridiculous.

I played another scenario where one player either cheated or somehow ended up stringing together 2-3 suspiciously specific boons to one-shot the BBEG. We were all L3 or so but basically one character did like 150 damage against this one very specific BBEG. The table literally voted to roll back the combat because it was so ridiculous.

On the flip side, I played a (PFS2) L3 character with five L1s. I was going to use a pregen rather than be out of tier, but I really wanted the experience to go to the L3, and someone suggested I could just limit my offense and do a lot of Battle Medicine. Everyone had a good time.

Thanks for that.

The level 5 is a very experienced pbp player, so I expect they'll be able to dial it back if necessary.

And that is the point. An out levelled character that is well played and actually role played can be a big asset to a group, without overwhelming the contributions of all the lower level characters.

It might not be quite as much fun for them... or if they are a "mentor" type character, maybe it is the type of thing they are really into - so it might actually be a fantastic RP experience for them.

On the other side of the token, I can vividly remember sitting down to a table with a L4 bard, two L1s, and a pregen, and everyone assuming that because I was L4 I could tank/heal/do it all for the L1 characters....

Suffice to say, there was a lot of learning that day, including the fact that Level is not the only criteria for party balance...

dot

Just curious, will the old Discord convention link be replaced with the current one anytime soon? It would make things easier than having to scroll back several pages to find the current convention link each time.

Just curious, will the old Discord convention link be replaced with the current one anytime soon? It would make things easier than having to scroll back several pages to find the current convention link each time.

Leaving the PlayDis Con link for now as it is still going on. But I did add the Outpost III Link above as well! Will add the signup page as well.

Many thanks, oh Great one...*Bow, grovel* *Bow, grovel*

LOL

I really like Core, and as I am just starting to GM for PFS (with an Outpost game) will probably stick to Core for a while.

There are a few things I miss and a lot I don't.

I think I'd personally like CORE a lot more if it was more like a CORE+ where any of the main books were legal, but no splat books. Like there are a lot of non-core classes that I wouldn't mind playing in a CORE+ state and I wouldn't mind losing side/splat book options as much.

I'm thinking the Core rulebook, the ACG, the APG, and OA being the entirety of CORE+

I'd prefer CORE if it could extend to APG alone. Most of the features and options I enjoy most about PF1 started in the APG. I could see an argument for a more CORE+ like zer0dark is asking for but archetypes and maybe the alchemist or oracle would be all I need. (But I would be down for the investigator too, though the ACG might be pushing things.)

An nattily dressed elf with a lute on her shoulder comes into the discussion and waves.

"Ahem! Speaking of Core..." She pauses dramatically, points to the recruitment sign asking for a replacement Moar Core Team Member. "I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had a ton of fun in my core adventures. You should think about maybe joining us!" She then waves at everyone before walking out of the room. "See you later!"

Most of the group is level 4 with 10XP.

A snow-haired halfling squints at the sign, then shrugs.

"Gramma Snowfoot always said to never bite off more than y' could chew comfortably at a time. That looks a little bit much for me. I hope they do okay on their recruitin'."

The elf runs in, and kneels down to talk to Etune.

"We'll give people until tomorrow to apply. We have three great contenders already, but are giving people a full day to let us know they are interested."

Then she grins. "But that's not what I came back here to talk about! You can choose / change avatars again!"

The web team just fixed the bug that has been preventing people from selecting their avatars. Yay!

I think I'd personally like CORE a lot more if it was more like a CORE+ where any of the main books were legal, but no splat books. Like there are a lot of non-core classes that I wouldn't mind playing in a CORE+ state and I wouldn't mind losing side/splat book options as much.

I'm thinking the Core rulebook, the ACG, the APG, and OA being the entirety of CORE+

The problem with that is that sometimes fixes to core+ (fencing grace?) were published in soft covers.

zer0darkfire wrote:

I think I'd personally like CORE a lot more if it was more like a CORE+ where any of the main books were legal, but no splat books. Like there are a lot of non-core classes that I wouldn't mind playing in a CORE+ state and I wouldn't mind losing side/splat book options as much.

I'm thinking the Core rulebook, the ACG, the APG, and OA being the entirety of CORE+

The problem with that is that sometimes fixes to core+ (fencing grace?) were published in soft covers.

And a lot of people say the players guide and class guide are what fixed Pathfinder so there are just some things you have to live without

The elf runs in, and kneels down to talk to Etune....

The Gameplay tab is for in-character roleplay :)

ROLEPLAY AM BELONG EVERYWHERE!

And a lot of people say the players guide and class guide are what fixed Pathfinder so there are just some things you have to live without

What do the people who play Core say? (Serious question.)

Do most people who play Core play Core because they like Core? That is, given a choice with the exact same game availability, they would choose Core over Standard?

My impression from the recruitment threads is that most people who play Core are playing it because they've already played it Standard.

I play core because I don't like the complexity of a lot of the rules that were later introduced. *cough* occult adventures *cough*.

I like the rules, I like what we can do with them. Yes, sometimes I find it frustrating that certain "basic" metamagical rods were omitted from the Core rule book, but I can live with that.

Not that it matters. I can't see there being enough support for a Core+ overall campaign. That kind of thing you can do with just a roll-you-own ruleset approach and a group of players. You don't need the whole organised play infrastructure to support it.

Both are different experiences. Has nothing to do with choosing one over the other or preferring one, for myself. I like both.

I also like both environments. For me, I enjoy seeing how creative I can get with the more basic rules.

I was initially drawn to it when I started GMing (about the same time Core started) as a way to ease in, not needing to know nearly as many rules. But I have found it to be my preference as well. I am not entirely sure it is about the rules, though. I think the core players I have found just tend to be more on the same page as me for whatever reason.

I intent to continue to play both.

I agree with GM Fuzzfoot for many of the same reasons. A simple set of rules, abilities and spells to remember as a GM and player.

I have one additional preference, I tend to prefer more "traditional" worlds and campaigns. Classic tables seem to have a veritable zoo of Oreads, monkeys, lizardfolk and fox people. Halflings, humans, elves and dwarves becoming scarce or non-existent. While CORE may have some of these races, it is not as rampant.

With that being said, I only have 1 CORE PC, and about a dozen in classic. So I will play and GM in both campaigns as long as they are offered.

I am with both Fuzzfoot and Aarvid. As a new PFS GM, Core is a better way to start. And as both a player and GM, I do find Standard tables are often a little too exotic for my tastes.

I also have really enjoyed playing my Core Rogue to level 12. Really satisfying to have him more than pull his weight in all of Bonekeep and various other tough scenarios. Hopefully he will get to do some Seeker-level arcs in the future. (And maybe I can use replays so my Ftr/Wiz/EK can play those as well.)

Given the choice with the exact same game availability, I would choose Core over Standard. Fortunately, I can play both.

I dislike "exotic" PC races with a passion, and love "traditional" campaigns without kitsune, nagaji, ratfolk, and all the others. The CRB races, plus tiefling/aasimar are it for me.

But I find Core stifling--most of the character concepts I find interesting are not supported in Core. Probably why I only have one Core character, and I've only played him once.

That said, I see Core+ being a further segmenting of the playerbase. And who decides what's in the "+"? Does Core+ mean CRB+APG? CRB+APG+UC? CRB+APG+UC+UM? Too many possible variations and too many combinations to make it feasible, imo.

I dislike "exotic" PC races with a passion, and love "traditional" campaigns without kitsune, nagaji, ratfolk, and all the others. The CRB races, plus tiefling/aasimar are it for me.

Heh, we should play together more often. :)

I wouldn't say I dislike them with a passion, but I always find it very immersion-breaking that humans are >75% of the population on Golarion but a minority among Pathfinders. I always feel like everyone should be staring at PFS parties wherever they go.

A kitsune ninja, a nagaji occultist, a ratfolk swashbuckler, a tengu mesmerist, and a drow alchemist walk into a bar ... and it doesn't go quiet immediately? Even halflings, which are a Core race, should garner funny looks because they're widely viewed as a slave race. I choose to suspend that disbelief for the sake of the PFS game, but on occasion people try to blend into the crowd or whatever and I'm so tempted to yell, "You're a 2-foot-tall frog man with a glowing ioun stone spinning around your head ... minus one billion circumstance penalty to your stealth roll!"

Slight correction: Halflings are considered a slave race in Cheliax -- most other locations I can recall tend to think of them as short humans with a huge appetite...

Since my 2 highest level characters are an Oread Spiritualist and a Tengu Unchained Rogue and I only have 1 character who doesn't have an Archetype (not counting my single CORE character) I'd have to say, I prefer Standard. Oh, and I have 2 cavaliers...3 if you count my tengu samurai.

But then, I'm terrible at choosing Feats, so I don't have much capacity for being effective or creative with just the core rule book.

I'm not the one with the problem; I haven't changed. It's that "fun and friendly place" mantra (and the creepy way they changed their spiel on that, as though they suddenly felt they couldn't trust us to be mature and intelligent on our own) I have reason to fear has been displaced by superficially-similar, but effectively-anathema to it, culture of suspicion and aggressive conformity.

To be clear, I haven't seen much of it in Flaxseed, but I most certainly have most other places on this site (with the exception of my beloved personal pharaony of Forum Games, of course!)

Carrying the discussion over from the recruitment tab, I really haven't seen much of a problem here with a 'secret police' here. While the fear that the acceptance is only skin deep is worrisome and something to keep an eye out for, I truly think it isn't. I have been genuinely surprised time and time again how accepting people are here and I have always enjoyed your wackyness every now and then. I have rarely seen negative reactions from people and there are very, very few times that the moderators have had to take public action. Seriously I think the biggest problem we have is discussions in the recruitment thread (which is relatively mild for a problem!)

You should keep being the scofflaw that you are and don't worry (here at least, not sure about the rest of the boards in general. Those are unexplored lands for me mostly.)

If we treat each other with courtesy, dignity, and respect while we explore, report, and cooperate, then we'll do okay.

It's when someone forgets that there are problems.

The Guide had to go from 'don't be a jerk' to a very *long* list of things that could be considered 'being a jerk' because some folks who forgot the above kept pushing that barrier.

Have I had characters that have made people uncomfortable? Yes.

Have I tried to work it out as best as possible? Yes.

I'm not the one with the problem; I haven't changed.

Sounds like maybe you are the problem then. Times change. What was considered acceptable behavior in a public game 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago is different than it is now. If you refuse to change with the times, that's on you. Don't like the new standards? Door's on your left.

It's that "fun and friendly place" mantra (and the creepy way they changed their spiel on that, as though they suddenly felt they couldn't trust us to be mature and intelligent on our own) I have reason to fear has been displaced by superficially-similar, but effectively-anathema to it, culture of suspicion and aggressive conformity.

Being 'mature and intelligent' isn't enough, and we shouldn't allow it to be enough. Be kind. Be respectful of others. Don't say things that are hurtful, and own up to it when you fail in those directions. This corner of the boards is one of the friendliest, most welcoming corners of the internet, and it's that way because folks have put a lot of time and energy into making it that way. Don't like that either? There's another door on your right. Heck, it's the internet, the door is everywhere.

That is kind of hard Dennis. One of the things about the forum here is that we don't all have to agree about everything.

I do agree with you that times (and what is acceptable) do change.

But offering a door to someone when they disagree with a change is not welcoming.

Life is a journey, and it is much more fun when you take people along with you on it.

Terminology has weight.

Utilization of 'short-cut' terminology that may or may not be entirely accurate does no one a service.

That is kind of hard Dennis. One of the things about the forum here is that we don't all have to agree about everything.

I do agree with you that times (and what is acceptable) do change.

But offering a door to someone when they disagree with a change is not welcoming.

Life is a journey, and it is much more fun when you take people along with you on it.

Depends on the disagreement and on the change. Sometimes it's just not a big deal and we can disagree and move on. Sometimes the things being disagreed over are more serious and even actively harmful and people shouldn't be expected to accept it as a simple disagreement.

Thing is, for me, this question seemed to come out of nowhere with no specifics, so I can't tell which case this is. It's easy to argue in vague generalities, but without knowing what's actually being objected to, it's impossible to come to any conclusions.

That said, people have been prophesying that political correctness will doom Paizo as long as I've been coming here and it hasn't seemed to happen yet. I don't see any signs that Paizo's taken a radically different turn recently - though if there's some specific change that sparked this, maybe I'd reconsider.

For the original question: No, there's no secret police, beyond the forum moderation they've always done. Try not to push the boundaries too hard to prove yourself right.

@philipjcormier and Tyranius: I apologize for putting it here; I DID mean to put it in Discussion.

** spoiler omitted **

Wow. Now I'm beginning to think that this just might not be the forum for you. If it stresses you out this badly, you need to find a place that suits you better. Sorry we couldn't be it.

they suddenly felt they couldn't trust us to be mature and intelligent on our own

** huge unnecessarily antagonistic spoiler omitted **

I mean ... really.

Just let it go. Find a group of people who you want to play with. Try to play as much as you can with them. Identify people that piss you off. Write their names down so you remember not to play with them.

Put whatever Paizo forums piss you off into your browser's blacklist so every time you try to click on it you get reminded that you hate the place.

PM people you like and invite them to post in Forum Games. Run PFS campaigns in there if you want (bonus: if the powers that be get annoyed you can pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the man).

Don't burn bridges until you need to.

Sooo...the answer here is...we're a very welcoming place unless your ideals don't fit ours then thank you very much the door is over there?

I mean, I know it's the internet and we ALL feel like it ALL belongs to us but this feels a bit like someone coming into a game saying "I'm dealing with some family issues and won't be able to play regularly, please bot me" and the GM saying "Nope, I said a post a day, you're out, no Chronicle sheet for you," but on a permanent basis.

Sort of reminds me of the "We welcome and foster inclusion - white, male, heterosexuals need not apply" messages.

Perhaps this thread should adopt a temporary policy of 'social-distancing,' at least until the virus of the last few days has a chance to fade. ;-)

I'm not the one with the problem; I haven't changed.

Regardless, the reality is that if you’re the only one complaining, you’re the one with the problem.

I’m nowhere near qualified to say what is true about the subject. I fully accept your judgement of the situation, because true or not, it does not matter.

Those who study history are doomed to watch helplessly as others repeat it.

Hey everyone, this has been a high-stress time. I know it's been high-stress, because we're all seeing the same news items. If you're worried about your personal health or the future of your job, you may be a bit more freaked out than normal. Heck, I'm stressed to the gills right now.

But I want you to all know that I love you. I love this community. We're here to support each other, right? This is where we're all coming to have fun with others and maybe shut out that real world for a while.

Closet, I'm sorry you're stressed. If you need to take a break, take one. I think Watery Soup had some good ideas for you. Or take a breather for a few days and come back here. I don't know what happened in the background to trigger this, but I'm sending supportive and healing vibes your way.

The last thing I want is social distancing here. You know what I want? I want connection. I want to see people that I love and laugh with them and filk and maybe slay a monster or two along the way.

This is a place where I can connect with others that I love and feel like I'm part of something, and it is precious to me because of that.

Virtual hugs to everyone. Let's game.

Hmm

Sooo...the answer here is...we're a very welcoming place unless your ideals don't fit ours then thank you very much the door is over there?

Well, it could be said that this is place for gaming and so conversations should stay on topic. I am on plenty of gaming related forums where topics of politics, religion, and others of sensitive nature are banned outright.

I don't recall that being the case with Paizo, but that being said, if someone mentions that a topic of conversation is making them uncomfortable, it is best to just steer the conversation somewhere else.

The only topics of religions and politics we should be discussing are those related to Golarion and the Pathfinder Society. ;)

"Go Shelyn! She's the goddess with the best dance numbers!"

Regardless, the reality is that if you’re the only one complaining, you’re the one with the problem.

I’m nowhere near qualified to say what is true about the subject. I fully accept your judgement of the situation, because true or not, it does not matter.

Those who study history are doomed to watch helplessly as others repeat it.

Sooo...the women who complained that they couldn't vote at the turn of the century were the ones with the problem?

I guess that's literally true since they were the ones who couldn't vote.

History is littered with people who have complained about what they saw as a problem who were ignored only to be proven right later.

To be clear, I've never seen a problem with there being thought police here (current conversation notwithstanding) but sometimes someone who looks paranoid is just the canary in the coal mine.

Dismissing someone's feeling of exclusion just because you don't feel it is bad whether you think they are justified in feeling excluded or not.