Introducing the Core Campaign

I'm excited about the opportunity to play/GM season 0-3 scenarios at a closer to intended PC power level. I like the plot of many of them but get turned off by how feeble some of the enemies are.

rknop wrote:

...I'm realizing that there is one thing in Ultimate Equipment that I really wish was in the CRB. And that is: the journal.

It seems to me every Pathfinder ought to have one of those. I usually equip all of my characters with one. But, alas, it's not in the CRB, so....

Maybe this, like the Wayfinder, could go into the next Guide to Organized Play?

I just buy my guys a spellbook and use it as a journal.

Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Undone wrote:

[

The real problem is GM's actually believe the bolded part of people who optimize.

What are they supposed to believe when somebody says they want to "break the game"?

Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?

Mis-communicated.

So, wizards can learn non-Core spells from scrolls. Can a sorcerer hwo has a non-Core spell as a scroll on one of her chronicle sheets take it as a spell known at her next opportunity? Does it require her to purchase the scroll, or simply have it on her chronicle sheet? If the former, does she need to continue to own the scroll (for example if she used the scroll would she be forced to 'unlearn' the non-Core spell)?

Mis-communicated.
As a GM, I don't believe that all optimizers wish to ruin a game. Almost all players optimize to some extent (including me).
However, I do believe that some optimizers do set out to spoil peoples fun. Which is what I quoted (EDIT: "people who optimize" not "everyone who optimizes").

Ok that's a little different than what was said but what was said really IS the attitude of some GM's (Optimization is evil and ruins the game).

Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Mis-communicated.
As a GM, I don't believe that all optimizers wish to ruin a game. Almost all players optimize to some extent (including me).
However, I do believe that some optimizers do set out to spoil peoples fun. Which is what I quoted (EDIT: "people who optimize" not "everyone who optimizes").

Ok that's a little different than what was said but what was said really IS the attitude of some GM's (Optimization is evil and ruins the game).

Actually, the bolded part that was said was about a person who intends to ruin the game for others...that doesn't say optimizers, that says jerk. Two completely different things.

BretI wrote:

I'm not sure what all the backlash is about.

As I understand the rules, if you want to do a non-core character and have played every adventure already there is a solution.

Go through The Confirmation in CORE Only. Get your 1 XP.

Now convert that character to non-core. It can still replay any scenario because it started as CORE Only. Since it is still first level, you are allowed to do a full rebuild.

Seems simple and within the rules. Please advise if I've got something wrong.

If this works as expected, I expect many Confirmation runs in the short term to be converted to CORE Only.

You can play scenarios once in CORE mode and once in NORMAL mode. If you take your CORE character and play him in NORMAL mode, he is now and forever a NORMAL character and plays with all such restrictions as if it started that way.

Plus you must make up the character as a Core character - no getting credit in Core and building a non-Core character - you make the Core character and then it joins the non-Core campaign.

Most players I've talked to said they just wouldn't come back if turned away from a game because of that but a better question is what happens when 4/6 are non CC characters? Do you just not play?

This is a concern, but I don't think this will happen much in practice. If there are multiple tables going, it's almost always possible to reshuffle the tables so that everyone can play. Many experienced players already bring multiple characters in case there's a table shuffle, so bringing a backup Core character as well won't be a big deal. Most brand new players are pretty flexible too, so if they happen to build a non-core character, it's easy to just play a core pregen and rebuild later. The key will be a clear explanation of the Core Campaign rules front and center in the next edition of the Organized Play Guide, and clear labeling on signup sites like Warhorn. Make it easy for new players to understand the difference as they're getting started, and make it easy for experienced players to know what they're signing up for.

but lack of magical lineage and wayang spell hunter and some other traits and feats make them actually work at it a little more.

Magical Lineage is completely available in Core, actually.

This is a great move. In the two game stores the collective of GMs I work with play out of, we have had an increased showing of youthful PCs(13 and under). We GMs had plotted amount ourselves about setting this very idea as a 'house' rule at our table to help with not only the cost(I didn't have much money just sitting on my dresser to have fun with at 13) but to easy them into the larger world of PFS. And now allowing us a second run at scenarios in 'core' mode is just the cherry on top. Fantastic work!!!

Great News. Happy to see that happen. Avoid stupid things and no balance new option (Out : Gunslinguer, abuse feat or archetype) come to most basic game who give more space to cooperation and roleplaying and more fluent game without rules discussion

But only one big missing : Why not Include the Inner Sea World Guide in the Core assumption.

We play on Golarion and for me the most important its to play and have the flavor of the World. Most of them play Pathfinder to have the flavor of the World, and without that it's a big missing

Like the language, lot of modules refere to Kelish, Polyglotte, Varisian, Osirion, Ancient Osirion, Azlant, Thassilonian. And its not possible to learn this langage.

Can you explain me what new player see between Golarion setting and another one, without that ? Its like give a nice dinner without any flavor and with no taste.

Really hope this point change in the final.

Quote:

"How can I break the Core?" has been a very fun thought experiment.

This, right here, is why PFS players and GMs drift away from the game abandon public Organized Play for private PFS or home games. Not just because of complexity, or cost, or availability, but because a small group of players see the game as being "how do I break it".

As pointed out, Core Campaign won't weed out players with intentions to ruin the game for others. Only GMs and Coordinators can do that. And they should. This will make the biggest positive impact on your local Lodge, and it is something that is totally out of Paizo's hands.

Sorry but you won't be surprised that there will be a number of players, who are currently planning what they can get away with in a CORE campaign.

However fighting this proactively is pretty much wasted effort, these things are best taken care of at the table, by the GM and the other players.

I'm also a little stumped by people who claim that this will split the game. It's not direct competition with each other; it's an additional option to support new players and those who want a simpler game. Both groups are still playing PFS. It'll be more complicated to organize, but not any more than offering different subtier tables at the same event (such as a 1-5 and a 7-11; if one table doesn't make, you can't just grab you level 9 and jump on the 1-5). Players will still need to read and know what to bring, or be prepared to play a pregen.

If you try Core and don't like it, or your region decides not to ultimately support core, you can convert (or just keep to normal mode, add in whatever legals options you want as you level, and have at it. There seems like there's nothing to lose from trying it (except a more restricted set of options to start with), as it just converts. Normal mode is still very much the default, and I would guess that the majority of tables will still be normal mode.

Also, notably, this requires few additional resources on Paizo's end (reporting, language in the guide). The old D&D edition complication required extensive support in terms of budgeting and money. Paizo doesn't need to make a separate set of scenarios or another line of books. In addition, for players it doesn't require more money either. Here, if you're playing already in the normal mode, you have everything you need to play. If you start playing in core, you'll be able to upgrade when you want to.

For me, it's going to be much easier to sit down with people interested in trying the game, pull a CRB off the shelf and say "this is all you need to play" and know that's absolutely true in the Core campaign. In the normal campaign, you do get "that's all you need to play, but..." I've been trying to reach out to new players and to get people interested, and this is another tool available.

So, wizards can learn non-Core spells from scrolls. Can a sorcerer hwo has a non-Core spell as a scroll on one of her chronicle sheets take it as a spell known at her next opportunity? Does it require her to purchase the scroll, or simply have it on her chronicle sheet? If the former, does she need to continue to own the scroll (for example if she used the scroll would she be forced to 'unlearn' the non-Core spell)?

I second the question, and would like to expand it to divine casters who prepare spells. If the wizard can add that fancy new scroll to his paper collection, why can't I ask my god to let me prepare that fancy new spell I found on a scroll?

GM Lamplighter wrote:

rknop wrote:

...I'm realizing that there is one thing in Ultimate Equipment that I really wish was in the CRB. And that is: the journal.

It seems to me every Pathfinder ought to have one of those. I usually equip all of my characters with one. But, alas, it's not in the CRB, so....

Maybe this, like the Wayfinder, could go into the next Guide to Organized Play?

I just buy my guys a spellbook and use it as a journal.

It's been stated many times in this thread, but since the Wayfinder is listed as "always available" in the Guide, it's also available in CORE.

Hey Mike (and John, and Eric, and anyone else involved in this decision and reading this). In case you missed my other post: I love this idea. As a store with scores of players in PFS, I see nothing but good things coming out of this. New player acquisition will go up. Veteran player retention will go up. Sales will go up. Excitement for the campaign will go up.

This is a huge win from my standpoint (store owner, coordinator, GM, player), and I want to be sure you know that.

Just wanted to bump this.

I just scanned the Traits Web Enhancement.

Is the Additional Traits feat legal, since it's included at the end?

And I find it odd that the document covers Race and Religion Traits, but doesn't list any.

Perhaps it's due for an update?

Is it possible to update the Traits Web Enhancement with all of the Traits (except maybe the Campaign Traits) that are found in the APG?

I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that the Enhancement references them, but doesn't list them.

As a player, I am kind of indifferent about the new push. Could be fun, could be annoying, could be neither, and I could never encounter it. I'll just let the dice fall where they land and move forward with games I can find in my area.

EDIT: Thought it was funny that the illustration chosen for the post features the Witch which is not core. XD

I'm also a little stumped by people who claim that this will split the game. It's not direct competition with each other; it's an additional option to support new players and those who want a simpler game. Both groups are still playing PFS. It'll be more complicated to organize, but not any more than offering different subtier tables at the same event (such as a 1-5 and a 7-11; if one table doesn't make, you can't just grab you level 9 and jump on the 1-5). Players will still need to read and know what to bring, or be prepared to play a pregen.

If you try Core and don't like it, or your region decides not to ultimately support core, you can convert (or just keep to normal mode, add in whatever legals options you want as you level, and have at it. There seems like there's nothing to lose from trying it (except a more restricted set of options to start with), as it just converts. Normal mode is still very much the default, and I would guess that the majority of tables will still be normal mode.

Also, notably, this requires few additional resources on Paizo's end (reporting, language in the guide). The old D&D edition complication required extensive support in terms of budgeting and money. Paizo doesn't need to make a separate set of scenarios or another line of books. In addition, for players it doesn't require more money either. Here, if you're playing already in the normal mode, you have everything you need to play. If you start playing in core, you'll be able to upgrade when you want to.

For me, it's going to be much easier to sit down with people interested in trying the game, pull a CRB off the shelf and say "this is all you need to play" and know that's absolutely true in the Core campaign. In the normal campaign, you do get "that's all you need to play, but..." I've been trying to reach out to new players and to get people interested, and this is another tool available.

In reverse order:

The CRB isn't everything they need, they also need the guide, and frankly the same is true in regular PFS. No one really needs all those books to make a character and play, they do contain options that allow you to customize you character and make him a little closer to what your want, but that is very optional.

And even in CORE a new player is theoretically required to read the FAQs and errata (and treantmonks guides ^^ ). I get the a core only game can have advantages, but what is currently stopping you from just adding the following to your scenario description:" This is an adventure for new players, thus please try limit yourself almost completely to the options in the core rulebook? "

And regarding splitting the community, I have a pretty regular gaming PFS group with a nice, very competent GM. We are usually between 1 and 7 players, and if that specific GM decides to schedule a CORE scenario at our regular day, the players have 2 choices:
Play CORE or do not play at all (thus potentially taking away an opportunity to play).
Now let's say next Monday only 4 players have time to play and 2 want to play CORE and 2 would rather not, obviously we need to find some compromise, but if that doesn't work nobody gets to play and everybody loses.

If course that is currently the level of an internet argument ^^ IRL everyone involved is old enough not to let such petty differences split the group, but that is just our group, and I am unable to comment on the maturity of others.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

rknop wrote:

...I'm realizing that there is one thing in Ultimate Equipment that I really wish was in the CRB. And that is: the journal.

It seems to me every Pathfinder ought to have one of those. I usually equip all of my characters with one. But, alas, it's not in the CRB, so....

Maybe this, like the Wayfinder, could go into the next Guide to Organized Play?

I just buy my guys a spellbook and use it as a journal.

I was going to post this exact same thing but waited to see if someone else had posted it already. :) For years before there was an official item called journal I bought spellbooks and used them as journals. They're books of high quality paper, they don't have to contain spells. In fact I've seen a spellbook that actually contained nothing but notes on certain subjects in a PFS scenario.

Jiggy wrote:

Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Undone wrote:

[

The real problem is GM's actually believe the bolded part of people who optimize.

What are they supposed to believe when somebody says they want to "break the game"?

Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?

Mis-communicated.

As a GM, I don't believe that all optimizers wish to ruin a game. Almost all players optimize to some extent (including me).
However, I do believe that some optimizers do set out to spoil peoples fun. Which is what I quoted (EDIT: "people who optimize" not "everyone who optimizes").

"People who do X" is the same group as "everyone who does X". They are not different statements unless "everyone" includes specimens who are somehow not included in "people".

If you don't mean to include all members of the group "people who do X", then you need to add a qualifier (like "some"), because naming a category includes all members of that category by definition. "People" and "everyone" refer to the same group.

EDIT: Same to Undone, for turning this into "GMs" and "optimizers" as categories.

I love how I get told to not assume that all players think the same way, and how all GMs *do* think the same way, in the same post. :)

If someone has the stated intention to "break the game", I frankly don't care if they're doing it by optimizing, or spotlight stealing, or roleplaying every interaction with every commoner on the way to the VO briefing, or inappropriate behavior at the table. They are destructive to my Lodge, and the attitude needs to change or they are better off gone. You may disagree; that's fine. I base my contention on evidence and personal experience.

In my experience as a player, GM, store coordinator, and VO, when a Lodge finally has to remove a player who is actively trying to "break the game", everyone benefits. (Even the person booted, quite frankly - in both cases where we've done it here, they wind up finding a home game of like-minded individuals, and keep playing PFS, without having to deal with all of the newbies and less-adept players that come to a public game.) Literally a win-win (well, except for the guy who got the crappy job of telling them they were no longer welcome.)

There is no obligation for a PFS Lodge to endure willfully destructive behavior on the part of any player, and there is every reason NOT to put up with it, for the long-term health of the Lodge.

I was going to post this exact same thing but waited to see if someone else had posted it already. :)

What, reading ahead? MADNESS! ;)

I love how I get told to not assume that all players think the same way, and how all GMs *do* think the same way, in the same post. :)

Yeah, Undone's lack of caveats is unfortunate. See also: my recent reply to Scribbling Rambler.

Sometimes I don't know whether it's genuine ignorance of how clauses work in a sentence, or unconsciously believing the sweeping generalizations and not realizing that it shows through in their words.

Either way, this is why explosives are not strictly superior to bullets, in a manner of speaking.

This is also going to make accommodating any player that shows up with a legal character a bit harder. "Sorry Joe even though we haven't seen you in 6 months, and you really want to play your lvl 5 Cavalier again, we only have core games tonight. Do you want to play a pregen?" Which also means there will have to be a set of pregens marked "core play approved".

<music box melody>

Do you wanna play a pregen?
We have several you can play.
See the sign, we put on the door.
Tonight, it's only Core.
Cavaliers another daaaaay!

You're still my dungeon-buddy,
And one fine day,
The gang will ride again once mooooooore.
But for now we've got a pregeeeen,
Made.
Of.
Coooooore.

<music box melody fade out>

If someone has the stated intention to "break the game", I frankly don't care if they're doing it by optimizing, or spotlight stealing, or roleplaying every interaction with every commoner on the way to the VO briefing, or inappropriate behavior at the table. They are destructive to my Lodge, and the attitude needs to change or they are better off gone. You may disagree; that's fine. I base my contention on evidence and personal experience.

Optimizing is not "breaking the game". In fact, in a core only game, optimizing may be required to even survive several scenarios (especially season six) or a module like Risen from the Sands.

If you think that optimizing in a core only game is grounds to be banned from your event, I hope I never play at your table.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

If someone has the stated intention to "break the game", I frankly don't care if they're doing it by optimizing, or spotlight stealing, or roleplaying every interaction with every commoner on the way to the VO briefing, or inappropriate behavior at the table. They are destructive to my Lodge, and the attitude needs to change or they are better off gone. You may disagree; that's fine. I base my contention on evidence and personal experience.

Optimizing is not "breaking the game". In fact, in a core only game, optimizing may be required to even survive several scenarios (especially season six) or a module like Risen from the Sands.

If you think that optimizing in a core only game is grounds to be banned from your event, I hope I never play at your table.

He's not saying that optimizing is breaking the game, just that he doesn't care if someone is using optimizing to break the game or breaking the game in another manner, because at that point all that matters is that they're breaking the game. The post that started this was someone explicitly saying they were trying to break the game.

Imbicatus wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

If someone has the stated intention to "break the game", I frankly don't care if they're doing it by optimizing, or spotlight stealing, or roleplaying every interaction with every commoner on the way to the VO briefing, or inappropriate behavior at the table. They are destructive to my Lodge, and the attitude needs to change or they are better off gone. You may disagree; that's fine. I base my contention on evidence and personal experience.

Optimizing is not "breaking the game". In fact, in a core only game, optimizing may be required to even survive several scenarios (especially season six) or a module like Risen from the Sands.

If you think that optimizing in a core only game is grounds to be banned from your event, I hope I never play at your table.

He's not saying that optimizing is breaking the game, just that he doesn't care if someone is using optimizing to break the game or breaking the game in another manner, because at that point all that matters is that they're breaking the game. The post that started this was someone explicitly saying they were trying to break the game.

Exactly, the basic chain of conversation was:

"I'm going to break the game"

"People who try to break the game are bad for the game"

50 people: "Why do you hate optimizers?"

So is Society going to still give the re-rolls for bring various pieces of merchandise to the table? Like shirts and such cause I'd like to see that being done away with.

Exactly, the basic chain of conversation was:

"I'm going to break the game"

"People who try to break the game are bad for the game"

50 people Undone: "Why do you hate optimizers?"

Fixed that for you. Your post makes the same fundamental error as Undone did (attributing one person's statement to lots of people). That manner of thinking is the root of a lot of the community's problems. Please don't engage in the very thing you're attempting to call out.

So is Society going to still give the re-rolls for bring various pieces of merchandise to the table? Like shirts and such cause I'd like to see that being done away with.

The re-rolls are allowed per the guide for organized play, so I would assume that is still active in CORE mode.

cjtSparhawk wrote:

This is also going to make accommodating any player that shows up with a legal character a bit harder. "Sorry Joe even though we haven't seen you in 6 months, and you really want to play your lvl 5 Cavalier again, we only have core games tonight. Do you want to play a pregen?" Which also means there will have to be a set of pregens marked "core play approved".

<music box melody>

Do you wanna play a pregen?
We have several you can play.
See the sign, we put on the door.
Tonight, it's only Core.
Cavaliers another daaaaay!

You're still my dungeon-buddy,
And one fine day,
The gang will ride again once mooooooore.
But for now we've got a pregeeeen,
Made.
Of.
Coooooore.

I'm not even that into Frozen, but that was amazing. Bravo!

(Have you seen the "Do you wanna go to Starbucks?" version?)

In my experience as a player, GM, store coordinator, and VO, when a Lodge finally has to remove a player who is actively trying to "break the game", everyone benefits. (Even the person booted, quite frankly - in both cases where we've done it here, they wind up finding a home game of like-minded individuals, and keep playing PFS, without having to deal with all of the newbies and less-adept players that come to a public game.) Literally a win-win (well, except for the guy who got the crappy job of telling them they were no longer welcome.)

Out of curiosity, what were the two removed players doing to disrupt gameplay?

Digression on communication:

Sometimes I don't know whether it's genuine ignorance of how clauses work in a sentence, or unconsciously believing the sweeping generalizations and not realizing that it shows through in their words.

A large part of the problem is that writers/speakers always know what they mean, so they aren't aware that their words can be read another way.

In cases like these, it can be as simple as "I had a qualifying phrase that restricted the generalization to a smaller group of people in my head and forgot to write it down" or even "There was a restrictive phrase that limited the group in the original text, but I didn't include it in my quote."

This is why I always recommend hit Preview, then re-read your post with the quoted material in context, and ask: does my response actually (and explicitly) talk about the part I quoted? If the answer is "no", then you probably need to quote a different section or tie your response to the quoted section more clearly.

Also, see if there's there a lot of text between two statements you want to respond to that isn't relevant to you response. If so, then you might want to split the quote and your response into two parts, or remove the irrelevant parts with a "<snip>" or "<...>" note to indicate you edited the quoted section.

Then hit Preview again and read it one more time before you hit Submit.

(Especially in contentious discussions.)

I assume Sajan is still going to be allowed as a CORE pregen despite the fact that he uses a Temple Sword.

I believe that most of us appreciate that Core will introduce some new challenges when it comes to scheduling. Personally, I just happen to believe those challenges are worth the pay-off to PFS: Appealing to players and GMs who -- for whatever reason -- prefer not to deal with the complexity of the standard PFS experience.

As for splitting the player base, I think by far the more likely result is that there may not be many [Core] games available in some smaller locations. And that's Ok, because those locations haven't lost anything. This is, after all, an expansion of what we can do for PFS credit. Nothing is being taken away.

This is I always recommend hit Preview

>:(

I assume Sajan is still going to be allowed as a CORE pregen despite the fact that he uses a Temple Sword.

Yes; that was addressed by Mike upthread (which I note so you appreciate that it is official, not because I "blame" you for not digging through 10 pages of posts).

Excellent news! This should be fun for new players and old alike.

[ooc][i]Do you wanna play a pregen?

Not with red box

I would not play one here or there
I would not play one anywhere

I'd rather drink the hoover dam
I do not like them sir or ma'dam

So is Society going to still give the re-rolls for bring various pieces of merchandise to the table? Like shirts and such cause I'd like to see that being done away with.

I don't see any reason that would go away in [Core], but of course that's not an official answer.

Federico Castrovel wrote:

[i]Do you wanna play a pregen?

Not with red box

Can't Play my Fox
No rules house
Can't play my mouse

I would not play one here or there
I would not play one anywhere

I'd rather drink the hoover dam
I do not like them sir or ma'dam

*votes for Federico*

Jeff Merola wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

If someone has the stated intention to "break the game", I frankly don't care if they're doing it by optimizing, or spotlight stealing, or roleplaying every interaction with every commoner on the way to the VO briefing, or inappropriate behavior at the table. They are destructive to my Lodge, and the attitude needs to change or they are better off gone. You may disagree; that's fine. I base my contention on evidence and personal experience.

Optimizing is not "breaking the game". In fact, in a core only game, optimizing may be required to even survive several scenarios (especially season six) or a module like Risen from the Sands.

If you think that optimizing in a core only game is grounds to be banned from your event, I hope I never play at your table.

He's not saying that optimizing is breaking the game, just that he doesn't care if someone is using optimizing to break the game or breaking the game in another manner, because at that point all that matters is that they're breaking the game. The post that started this was someone explicitly saying they were trying to break the game.

Exactly, the basic chain of conversation was:

"I'm going to break the game"

"People who try to break the game are bad for the game"

50 people: "Why do you hate optimizers?"

You know, people tend to have to answer a lot of questions if they precede their journey to las vegas with the tweet :"I am going to wreck this city :P )

Pretty much the same situation here.

I assume Sajan is still going to be allowed as a CORE pregen despite the fact that he uses a Temple Sword.

The loss of that weapon really hurts, but as fair as I know it has not been introduced in the most recent version of the CRB, even though monks are automatically proficient with it (it think the first printing was in the NPC guide).

<music box melody>

Do you wanna play a pregen?
We have several you can play.
See the sign, we put on the door.
Tonight, it's only Core.
Cavaliers another daaaaay!

You're still my dungeon-buddy,
And one fine day,
The gang will ride again once mooooooore.
But for now we've got a pregeeeen,
Made.
Of.
Coooooore.

<music box melody fade out>

I think Paizo needs to adopt this as the theme song for CORE Pathfinder Society.

Out of curiosity, what were the two removed players doing to disrupt gameplay?

Well, I don't really want to get into specifics, since this is a confidentiality thing. Suffice it to say that both cases were after long and patient attempts to work it out in other ways.

Optimizing is not "breaking the game". In fact, in a core only game, optimizing may be required to even survive several scenarios (especially season six) or a module like Risen from the Sands.

If you think that optimizing in a core only game is grounds to be banned from your event, I hope I never play at your table.

Thanks to those who caught the issue for me, but I wanted to say they got my intent right. Optimizing by itself is not breaking the game. Over-optimization, and then using that as a weapon to break the game, is what I was on about.

P.S. I'd love to have you at my table.

P.P.S. and don't' get me started on "Risen from the Sands"... that's a whole 'nuther discussion! :)

P.P.S. and don't' get me started on "Risen from the Sands"... that's a whole 'nuther discussion! :)

See I think of risen from the sands as a great adventure which is well designed. It's tough but fair.

I get that Paizo has to keep publishing products to stay in business, but I really don't like the creep the game has seen. New options doesn't expand variability; it just introduces a treadmill of a fairly static number of ever more powerful optimized builds/munchkin templates.

A thousand times yes for the option of a "Core Only" reset.