Introducing the Core Campaign

But when you can’t replay for fun, and you can only replay to make a legal table size, and when you only have a handful of unplayed scenarios left, you end up playing a lot less. This is where a majority of these 4-5 stars you see posting are coming from. Now, with the announcement of Core, we get to play again.

I just want to point out this is by far the best reason for this to come out despite it potentially damaging society play in the long run. Experienced players can run adventures they loved again with new people. I know that is what I'll be doing most likely.

Arnvior wrote:

Pathfinder like any other game has experienced power creep . . .

[discussion of Core Campaign elided]

I think that this is a good option for those of us who want play Pathfinder this way. For those who don't good for them they can continue to creep along.

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios. Frankly comments like creep along, only motivate such a behavior.

I'm pretty sure Arnvior's use of the words "creep along" was a joking characterisation of folks who play the variety of Pathfinder that includes "power creep", and not intended as a derogatory dismissal.

I'm pretty sure Arnvior's use of the words "creep along" was a joking characterisation of folks who play the variety of Pathfinder that includes "power creep", and not intended as a derogatory dismissal.

Come to think of it, why have I never heard Munchkins referred to as 'power creeps'?

So, I've only skimmed the thread (although I did read each of MikeB's posts) and something is still not 100% clear to me.

I have a core-only PC, let's call him Sally. He progresses through many scenarios. I decide it's time to upgrade Sally with shiny Maguffin X and go legacy-campaign.

Now Sally is legacy campaign. However, his first 13 chronicles are core-campaign. For the purposes of which campaign I can play a given scenario in (on a different PC), are Sally's first 13 chronicles considered:

• core-campaign, the way the table was when they were earned
• legacy-campaign, the way Sally is now

I believe the intent is the first, but haven't seen anything clarifying this.

On a second point, can we get an official name for non-core that is more manageable than "existing mode"?

Come to think of it, why have I never heard Munchkins referred to as 'power creeps'?

I don't know, we should go ask the Department of Redundancy Department.

I believe the intent is the first, but haven't seen anything clarifying this.

On a second point, can we get an official name for non-core that is more manageable than "existing mode"?

Correct. Scenarios remain in the campaign they were reported in, regardless of the characters status. So you cannot play a scenario in Core, transition the character to Normal, and then replay the scenario in Core.

And the official titles to be used in the updated guide are Core Campaign and Normal Campaign.

It has become obvious now, that given the negative feedback from this announcement, people assume this.

Its not an assumption. Its how the system is set up.

However the people that are interested in the Core Campaign are coming from the exact same player base as those that are not interested.

This is a bit less than half correct.

Core appeals to two types, those who have played everything and quit PFS. Core can bring them back on a more regular basis. But so could the two scenarios being published every month. These people are more or less outside of PFS

And then there are new players who are going to walk in without having any idea of the difference. PFS Core and PFS Classic are both drinking out of the same well here.

“If venue space is limited” is the crux of your argument here. “If venue space is limited” and the store decides to host DND Encounters alongside PFS, you might have a problem. “If venue space is limited” and you host PFS during a Magic: the Gathering tournament, you might have a problem.

Its the crux of the argument because its the reality at both local venues I've played at here.

Guesse whats been going on simultaneously with PFS at both semi local venues? :)

And if you simply assume that there will be no over-lap between groups then I have to agree with Snorter, that is sad.

I'm sure there will be SOME overlap. The system as descried vastly discourages it though. You can only go from core to classic once in one direction. Doing that is problematic for a new player, who is now simultaneously entering higher level play with fewer options (and thus probably a less powerful character) and probably a slightly different group of geeks.

I don't need to conclude zero overlap, I just need to conclude less overlap than players lost to core.

In both, I would ask for more information before trying to help. I would probably first contact your local VO and get them in on this. Then I would advise contacting other shops in the area

Here, Hold my banjo.

You are assuming multiple game stores in an area. Your guess is wrong. This is the actual situation. The only hypothetical is "if the group goes core"

The constant assumption of multiple venues and inability to comprehend and accept a simple statement of "we've got limited venues and a limited number of geeks" and to dismiss that as a mere hypothetical does little to bolster the idea that you have solutions to problems you refuse to believe exist.

I don't see how this is a vague non-solution when it is simply following the chain of command that has been a fixture of this campaign for some time now.

I'm asking what you're going to hook the chain onto.

Also, sometimes I just want to play rather than GMing… again.

Someone should be able to do that twice a month at least.

I kinda like this core only concept.

Both from the challenge aspect and the get to replay a few favorites point of view.

qwerty1971 wrote:

how do i get his PFS registration labeled as CORE if he was made prior to the CORE tab for making a new character? i do not want to lose the number for no reason whatsoever.

Make sure his first session is a Core session. If the GM has trouble reporting him as a Core character, contact customer service to see if it can be adjusted on the server side.

I just went through this exercise and the word from Paizo IT passed along through Mike Brock is to re-create the character as a Core character. So I deleted the original character registration and re-registered it as a CORE character. It was the last character on my list so I got the original number back.

/edited for diction

deusvult wrote:

People who drink Coke can also drink Pepsi; they just obviously don't drink both at the same time. Only the very rare fanatic will turn down drinking brown fizzy sugar water entirely if they can't have their preferred flavor.

I don't know very many PFS members who play only one character. I don't think I know ANY, in fact. There's nothing stopping you from participating in Vanilla and Core concurrently, and in fact the nature of PFS in general gives you every incentive to actually do so.

I don't think you're understanding what's being talked about here.

To some people, yes, it's basically a flavor choice.

But to some people, they've already played so many PFS scenarios that they CANNOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

To others, there are things so objectionable about regular PFS that they WILL NOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

And not only do both of these categories of people exist, but they've both been branded as intended targets of this new campaign.

I don't know how you missed that, especially since I told you in the post to which you were replying.

Stay classy, Jiggy.

But, to answer your not-so-subtle accusation I don't know how to read, allow me to rebut.

You bring up two kinds of people: those who have played every PFS thing ever, GM'd same, and run out of replays they're willing to burn (I'll call them group A) and people who refuse to ever play the Core (group B) or Vanilla (group C).

Group A can still play both campaigns; they're just obviously playing more Core. But there's still two scenarios published every month they can play in Vanilla as well. They're not "stuck in Core".

As implausible as group A is, groups B and C are boogeymen. There might be individuals who meet one of those critieria, but there won't be enough of them to throw things out of whack. Eventually people will at least try the other, and few will be so sour as to refuse to participate.

Groups B and C are as incompatible as Home Gamers and PFS gamers are: not at all.

You're insisting on seeing walls where there are none.

Alright BNW, I'm not doing the "quote everything and respond to it parsed out" thing again--it took me 30 minutes last time and didn't help getting my points across.

So let's try this from a different angle.

Its the crux of the argument because its the reality at both local venues I've played at here.

Since this is a reality for your play group, let's get your VO involved. Who is he/she? Even if you have limited FLGS space, there are lots of other locations you can host a table of PFS at, and that is something that a VO can help you organize.

Quote:

Also, sometimes I just want to play rather than GMing… again.

Someone should be able to do that twice a month at least.

I don't know what this comment was intended to do, but all it did was leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know if this was the intention, so I'll assume it wasn't and respond.

Maybe I don't want to play those scenarios yet, maybe they would work better with specific PCs that aren't high enough level yet, maybe we aren't hosting those scenarios yet, maybe I am planning on playing them at a convention--the list goes on.

The fact remains, for a lot of people 2 tables of play a month isn't enough for them, and it has lead to them leaving the campaign or throttling back their interest.

Stay classy, Jiggy.

Sorry, I realized a while after posting that my last line probably sounded terrible, but actual work kept me from getting back for an edit before the timer ran out. Sorry about that.

Anyway, my main goal was just trying to help clarify BNW's points.

Though I will point out you left some people out of Group C: those whose reason for never playing "vanilla" PFS is that the mountain of books is so unapproachable for a newbie. Maybe you think there are so few players who would (at least for a while) play strictly Core-only that the group is a "boogeyman", but the fact that the Core Campaign is partially aimed at exactly that demographic means that PFS leadership disagrees with you.

I just tell people to use as many books as they are comfortable with. Core-only PCs are still usable in the standard campaign, and are still better than pregens most of the time. It's hard for me to see how the number of books warrants this offshoot campaign. Maybe I'm not seeing everything, though.

I just tell people to use as many books as they are comfortable with. Core-only PCs are still usable in the standard campaign, and are still better than pregens most of the time. It's hard for me to see how the number of books warrants this offshoot campaign. Maybe I'm not seeing everything, though.

I think the idea is that, to someone who hasn't tried Pathfinder yet, it's hard to believe that they really can get by with just the CRB, and so they don't bother joining up. Additionally, the prospect of beginning to GM can be daunting for those who want to know how all their players' characters work, when those characters collectively use 10 different books. So, kind of an "entry point" for those who might be intimidated by the (perceived) need to absorb thousands and thousands of pages of rules to get going.

You bring up two kinds of people: those who have played every PFS thing ever, GM'd same, and run out of replays they're willing to burn (I'll call them group A) and people who refuse to ever play the Core (group B) or Vanilla (group C).

Group A can still play both campaigns; they're just obviously playing more Core. But there's still two scenarios published every month they can play in Vanilla as well. They're not "stuck in Core".

As implausible as group A is, groups B and C are boogeymen.

AWESOME, I'm a BOOGEYMAN!

I am part of group B. I have no interest in Core-only. I have no inspiration at this time for characters restricted to that limitation. Add to that the ton of money I have invested in my gaming library and I have no interest in even further limiting what I can use for my characters. I am willing to admit this could change but at this time I can not forsee it. Its always nice to be marginalized.

For the record I am not against the existence of the Core-Only campaign, I just have concerns.

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios.

You seem to imply here that those of us who don't build juggernauts that inevitably dominate season 0 to 3 scenarios lack the ability to do so. Am I wrong?

EDITED for clarity

Kinda yeah, there is a clear difference between what I prefer to run, and what is most effective. I really don't like to dump Charisma to 7, and avoid a number of other things like the plague.

But in this instance where someone decides to talk negatively about the chosen play style of other players, and plenty of other posters make the assumption, that the introduction of core makes certain excesses impossible, well it isn't far fetched to say that they are asking for it.

Obviously you can make a very good summoner, gunslinger or magus, without feeling that you personally scrape the bottom or the barrel for the really cheap/nasty options, but when other players take those toys away from you, (yeah they don't but bear with me) since you can't be trusted with them. That might motivate a certain kind of player to throw all self censorship and gentlemans agreements out of the cart and design something that breaks scenarios.

I don't agree, that this is the proper way of conflict resolution, but it would be nice to end some internet arguments.

Oh, and I think that the construction of CORE just keeps certain builds from being possible/good, it is unlikely to seriously weaken the best tactics (summoning, battlefield control, archery).

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon, also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

Link.

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

However the people that are interested in the Core Campaign are coming from the exact same player base as those that are not interested.

This is a bit less than half correct.

Core appeals to two types, those who have played everything and quit PFS. Core can bring them back on a more regular basis. But so could the two scenarios being published every month. These people are more or less outside of PFS

And then there are new players who are going to walk in without having any idea of the difference. PFS Core and PFS Classic are both drinking out of the same well here.

I havent read much of this thread, but this is nothing but wrong. Ive got plenty of stuff left to play, definitely am not a new player, and I am more than a little bit interested in it. Not cause Im a VO, but because I am.

Edited to remove aggressiveness. Not my intention. Apologies.

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%

Jiggy wrote:

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%

Dunno about those other spells he mentioned, though. Haven't looked.

Thanks Mike and the rest of the Paizo folks for this new option for playing PFS.

The core campaign has me very excited, it will be refreshing to start a fresh "campaign" without having to deal with as many corner cases built around options coming from all of the books. I look forward to playing and GMing these. I also can't wait til I get a Core character to 11 and play Waking Rune on Hard mode(Bandersnatch or not).

P.S. I wanted to say a lot more, but have refrained because of the huge negative attitude towards venture officer opinions being displayed in this thread.

Kevin Ingle wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%

Dunno about those other spells he mentioned, though. Haven't looked.

Oh yeah, you can use polymorph effects to forms from other Bestiaries...I missed that part of the post.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Arnvior wrote:

Pathfinder like any other game has experienced power creep . . .

[discussion of Core Campaign elided]

I think that this is a good option for those of us who want play Pathfinder this way. For those who don't good for them they can continue to creep along.

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios. Frankly comments like creep along, only motivate such a behavior.

I'm pretty sure Arnvior's use of the words "creep along" was a joking characterisation of folks who play the variety of Pathfinder that includes "power creep", and not intended as a derogatory dismissal.

Ending that particular post with trigger words like those really did not help. It transformed " I kinda like a more simplified game" into "my preference is clearly the classy choice you terrible person, go back into the flogging cellar".

Obviously I don't take things like this seriously, but I have problem when someone is telling others, that they are having BADWRONGFUN. So yeah, I don't advocate, to set fire to all two weapon fighting rogues just.

Dunno about those other spells he mentioned, though. Haven't looked.

Wildshaping too

I am 99% confident that Bestiaries 2-4 are off limits for all such effects. This will apply to GMs, too, for NPCs that use those spells. I don't have a link, but Mike said earlier that GMs can only use books outside of CORE for elements that appear within the scenario they are running. It seems only fair play that players face that same restriction.

I am 99% confident that Bestiaries 2-4 are off limits for all such effects. This will apply to GMs, too, for NPCs that use those spells. I don't have a link, but Mike said earlier that GMs can only use books outside of CORE for elements that appear within the scenario they are running. It seems only fair play that players face that same restriction.

This would prevent the use of anti magic Bandersnatches since they nest in Bestiary no 3 ^^

It would prevent the use of a lot of options. That's kind of the point?

Yes, Core and Classic will, in some cases, compete for resources (table space, players, etc). I think denying something so self-evidently true might be what is provoking such a negative response in some folks.

I absolutely believe that the situation can be managed, and that in a majority of cases, the benefits of Core will outweigh the drawbacks. But I still understand why people are concerned. I can only speak for my region, but we are very cognizant of the concerns, and we humbly request that folks withhold judgment until we've all had a chance to kick the tires on Core a bit.

Core appeals to two types, those who have played everything and quit PFS. Core can bring them back on a more regular basis. But so could the two scenarios being published every month. These people are more or less outside of PFS

And then there are new players who are going to walk in without having any idea of the difference. PFS Core and PFS Classic are both drinking out of the same well here.

And no more than two! ;)

I love the idea of Core, and I don't match either of your assumptions there. I only mention this because many of your arguments in these threads seem to rest on making judgements about people you believe to be prejudicing their experiences over yours (or, to fine the point exceedingly, your hypothetical experiences).

---

This is a weird environment, these contentious threads. People seem honestly threatened by this development, to the point of policing posts for Orwellian language violations as if English were algebra and context and diction didn't exist. I don't understand it. There was one way to play. Now there are two. Option one still exists and will be supported, if one takes Paizo's announced publication schedule into account, far more than option two. Option two is literally dependent on option one continuing to survive and thrive for its own existence. This is a symbiotic, not a parasitic relationship.

And no more than two! ;)

I love the idea of Core, and I don't match either of your assumptions there.

I forgot I was on the internet. I could have phrased it "two sources of untapped players" or "two major sources of untapped players" rather than rely on the context of the conversation.

Or just added the asterix and the subtitles "take with grain of salt. Do not use if nursing pregnant or may become pregnant. If symptoms persist for more than four hours discontinue use and contact your local shaman..."

to fine the point exceedingly, your hypothetical experiences).

Nothing hypothetical about them.

This is a weird environment, these contentious threads. People seem honestly threatened by this development, to the point of policing posts for Orwellian language violations as if English were algebra and context and diction didn't exist.I don't understand it

*points up*

Yes, Core and Classic will, in some cases, compete for resources (table space, players, etc). I think denying something so self-evidently true might be what is provoking such a negative response in some folks.

It will. But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

Aaron Motta wrote:

Yes, Core and Classic will, in some cases, compete for resources (table space, players, etc). I think denying something so self-evidently true might be what is provoking such a negative response in some folks.

It will. But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

No one is asking to not offer cheese pizza. We just want to make sure they make enough supremes even though cheese is the new flavor.

No one is asking to not offer cheese pizza. We just want to make sure they make enough supremes even though cheese is the new flavor.

But we aren't ordering takeout, we're baking the pizza ourselves. So it is up to each apartment to hash toppings out with their roommates.

But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

redward wrote:

But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

That's why you ask what people want before you put in the order. Or to put the terrible metaphor aside, you schedule based on demand.

If your venue only has one table per week, I would assume you would determine Core or Original Recipe by:

• What your GMs are willing to run
  
• What the majority of players want to play

*Because you know, once you've got 4 people on the same page, the solution should be pretty obvious.

Imbicatus wrote:

No one is asking to not offer cheese pizza. We just want to make sure they make enough supremes even though cheese is the new flavor.

But we aren't ordering takeout, we're baking the pizza ourselves. So it is up to each apartment to hash toppings out with their roommates.

I don't tend to mention this, but I cook .. at lot. So when I invite 20 of my closest friends (happens about once per month^^) and offer pizza, or sushi as the main course, there is a limit. In the pizza example my oven has space for 3 pizzas at the time, that is a rather hard limit.

Sushi is only really limited by my prep time, but if some kind proves to be in higher demand...

What I am trying to say using food based metaphors is that, some people are aware of the limited resources involved: gaming events per week, number of tables, number of GMs and number of players. Each and every one has the potential to fall below a a critical threshold.

Or in other words, if none of my friends are available(or a critical number don't eat carbs that week) neither sushi nor pizza is happening.

Jiggy wrote:

redward wrote:

But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

That's why you ask what people want before you put in the order. Or to put the terrible metaphor aside, you schedule based on demand.

If your venue only has one table per week, I would assume you would determine Core or Original Recipe by:

• What your GMs are willing to run
  
• What the majority of players want to play

Roughly in that order. If one lonely player gets left out, that sucks, but why should everyone else have to suffer just to maintain the status quo for one person? Or two? Or three*?

*Because you know, once you've got 4 people on the same page, the solution should be pretty obvious.

This only works if the number of available GMs is large enough. If only one is ever willing and able to GM that logic won't work.

That said, I think that scenario is pretty rare, in my usual PFS group at least 4 people GM regularly, so most of us know the pains of sitting at the receiving end of a crit.

redward wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

redward wrote:

But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

That's why you ask what people want before you put in the order. Or to put the terrible metaphor aside, you schedule based on demand.

If your venue only has one table per week, I would assume you would determine Core or Original Recipe by:

• What your GMs are willing to run
  
• What the majority of players want to play

Roughly in that order. If one lonely player gets left out, that sucks, but why should everyone else have to suffer just to maintain the status quo for one person? Or two? Or three*?

*Because you know, once you've got 4 people on the same page, the solution should be pretty obvious.

This only works if the number of available GMs is large enough. If only one is ever willing and able to GM that logic won't work.

That said, I think that scenario is pretty rare, in my usual PFS group at least 4 people GM regularly, so most of us know the pains of sitting at the receiving end of a crit.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for players who are unwilling to GM. If they're intimidated by the multitude of rules I hear there's a new option that significantly lowers that bar.

The Fox wrote:

I am 99% confident that Bestiaries 2-4 are off limits for all such effects. This will apply to GMs, too, for NPCs that use those spells. I don't have a link, but Mike said earlier that GMs can only use books outside of CORE for elements that appear within the scenario they are running. It seems only fair play that players face that same restriction.

This would prevent the use of anti magic Bandersnatches since they nest in Bestiary no 3 ^^

It would prevent PC's from creating them with Simulacrum, I dont believe GM's are similarly limited especially as they have to access non core material used in the actual scenario.

Also Mike specified only Bestiary 1 for PC use of spells like Planar Binding and Elemental Body and class abilities like Wildshape. It's earlier in the thread, somewhere in the first 5 or 6 pages I believe.

And the official titles to be used in the updated guide are Core Campaign and Normal Campaign.

Pathfinder Society Core Mode or Pathfinder Society Normal Mode

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

Just Bestiary 1 unless a different sourcebook is specifically called out.

I am willing to bet that, if the introduction of CORE mode were to have substantial negative impact on PFS, the campaign management will (a) notice and (b) try to fix the solution.

Remember when we jumped from 0 replays to 5 (one chronicle per faction)? Remember when the requirements for 5-star GM status went from "4 stars and we like you" to something terrible and onerous? Those changes to the campaign didn't work, and the campaign leadership corrected the issues. On the other hand, there have been changes to the campaign, like full gold on a GM Credit chronicle, and people playing their real PCs at their regular experience levels for modules, that have worked out nicely.

Can those of us wringing our hands and tearing our faction t-shirt garments right now give this project at least a little chance to work? It may not be perfect, especially at first, but it sounds to me like there are more up-sides than down-sides*. And if not, I trust Mike, John, and the VCs to see what corrections need to be made.

(And I'm kind of groovin' with the idea of a half-orc barbarian / stalwart defender...)

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

I don't think this has been answered yet. I have a question about something that was asked earlier in the thread about wizards being able to add spells to a wizards spell book that are found on chronicles. What about other classes? If a class that doesn't have a spell book will they be allowed access to the new spells? If not I can see a lot of wizards and less of the other spell casting classes.

I doubt that we will have a Core only messageboard, but who knows, such things might happen.

"Who's got two thumbs and just got made a fool of?"

This guy!

talbanus wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios.

You seem to imply here that those of us who don't build juggernauts that inevitably dominate season 0 to 3 scenarios lack the ability to do so. Am I wrong?

EDITED for clarity

Kinda yeah, there is a clear difference between what I prefer to run, and what is most effective. I really don't like to dump Charisma to 7, and avoid a number of other things like the plague.

But in this instance where someone decides to talk negatively about the chosen play style of other players, and plenty of other posters make the assumption, that the introduction of core makes certain excesses impossible, well it isn't far fetched to say that they are asking for it.

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

Obviously you can make a very good summoner, gunslinger or magus, without feeling that you personally scrape the bottom or the barrel for the really cheap/nasty options, but when other players take those toys away from you, (yeah they don't but bear with me) since you can't be trusted with them. That might motivate a certain kind of player to throw all self censorship and gentlemans agreements out of the cart and design something that breaks scenarios.

I don't agree, that this is the proper way of conflict resolution, but it would be nice to end some internet arguments.

So, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make something even more broken?! So, we should just not threaten toy restriction, because, then, they'll show us what broken really looks like? Wow. Power gamer terrorism -- apparently it's a real thing now?

Oh, and I think that the construction of CORE just keeps certain builds from being possible/good, it is unlikely to seriously weaken the best tactics (summoning, battlefield control, archery).

Build =/= tactics. Tactics are making sure you get the rogue a flank, make sure you're in the proper location to maximize the benefit of your channels, etc. However, I do agree with what I think your intended point was - that certain powerful builds will still exist in core (damage machine archers, conjurer's with enhanced summoning, etc). I encourage authors of future scenarios to more often use things that balance out such icons (windwall or gust of wind (forget which), giving baddies a way to dismiss or minimize the impact of summoned creatures, etc).

This is great and gives Chronicles a special dimension they lacked before.

I have seen the reporting system, and I can see it informs you if a character is Core or Normal.

Imagine I organize a Core session, everybody brings Core characters. Then on the reporting system, those characters that follow the Core rules, they are not recognized by the system as Core for whatever reason (the player used the wrong button on character creation, or he played a normal session without noticing).
Some questions arise:
1) Is the session report now considered Normal? Does that revert all the characters who played convert to Normal automatically?
2) How this can be prevented to happen?
3) Can a Normal character somehow be fixed to Core? (I often play PbP and if a character makes a post he cannot be deleted anymore)
4) Is there an easy way for the GM to check if a character is Core before starting the game? (as far as I see there are only two ways right now, accessing the Player PFS my account and see if it has the (Core) title attached, or use the characters PFS code in a fake report to check for the Core state, and both ways seems a bit too complicated, required extra input from players)
5) Can a player block being reported in a Normal Campaign?

Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

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.