Introducing the Core Campaign

Corner case question (slightly different from the one asked up thread):

I play a Core PC in the Core Campaign and earn 1 Core Chronicle XP.

I then pile on 5 level's worth of Core GM credit.

But, then, I pile on 2 level's worth of non-Core GM credit.

Such a character would normally still be eligible for a complete rebuild.

Am I then allowed to rebuild him into a Magus?

No.

This is probably an incredibly stupid question/point, but I will post it here to at least get an official reference to it should something arise in the future:

The point has been made that GM'ing a game regardless of Core versus Traditional will apply towards GM star accrual. However, does USING a GM star to replay a scenario remain equivalent between systems?

Example:

A: A 3-star GM uses 3 of his stars to replay three different scenarios as PC that he has already played in the Traditional System. He cannot use those stars to replay any scenarios he has already played in the Core System using the Core System, as they have already been used up.

OR

B: A 3-star GM uses 3 of his stars to replay three different scenarios as a PC that he has already played in the Traditional System. He may then replay 3 scenarios in the Core System that he has already played in the Core System, as those stars were not used in the Core System.

Once again, there is probably an obvious answer here, but I'm asking this now just to get out of the way now. Thanks!

Mike answered this above.

You only get your star replays once.

I'm not sure if this suggestion has been thrown out there, so I apologize if I'm repeating something:

Set up a "Core PFS Campaign" section for the PFS boards. It will likely remove some confusion for questions that get asked. If you do, I'd likely start participating in the messageboards a lot more, again. Not sure if that last point is a "plus" for you though...

MR. Brock Core only Campaign seems to defeat the whole purpose of PFS
PFS if I understand it correctly is a marketing tool for Pazio to introduce players to Pazio products.

I already don't like not being able to use Pazio produced material that I have bought in PFS, now the PFS staff wants to further restrict what I can and cannot play. You can count on me never playing in core only Campaign.

If I were running PFS I would open PFS up to all Pazio produced material as well as 3PP produced products. There are loads of really good 3pp produced material, the Spellless-Ranger and SKR's summoner and elilodon are off the chain. It would also help end the bias that I see from many younger players against 3pp products.

IMO core only leads to lazy GM's and underdeveloped players. You have to think all the time when new material is released each month. Core only will hurt Pazio IMO.

Also, just wanted to add that I absolutely LOVE this.

We're already planning a Core Emerald Spire run.

off-topic: Any thoughts on increasing the GM Star limit? Maybe from 5 to 6, or even higher? With all this new GM credit potential, achieving 210 table's worth seems fairly plausible.

(I'm aware of the GM Star boons and GMing more than 200 games, but figured I'd ask if other plans were in the works)

MR. Brock Core only Campaign seems to defeat the whole purpose of PFS

PFS if I understand it correctly is a marketing tool for Pazio to introduce players to Pazio products.

I already don't like not being able to use Pazio produced material that I have bought in PFS, now the PFS staff wants to further restrict what I can and cannot play. You can count on me never playing in core only Campaign.

If I were running PFS I would open PFS up to all Pazio produced material as well as 3PP produced products. There are loads of really good 3pp produced material, the Spellless-Ranger and SKR's summoner and elilodon are off the chain. It would also help end the bias that I see from many younger players against 3pp products.

IMO core only leads to lazy GM's and underdeveloped players. You have to think all the time when new material is released each month. Core only will hurt Pazio IMO.

I have to respectfully disagree, Lou. As a store owner I have seen sales slow down on Paizo products due to the sheer overwhelming volume of available material. New players are frightened off by the perception that getting involved requires hundreds of hours of reading. This solution gives them an easy "in" to this game: 1 book. From there, if they like it, they will branch out and get involved in the Classic campaign.

Again, as a store owner, I am very much looking forward to the results this will have on my sales.

First I'd like to say that I think this is a creative solution to several issues. I applaud campaign leadership for coming up with it. In smaller areas, where only a couple of tables are possible on a game day, I see this as an excuse to hold more game days. If you're worried about getting the wrong mix of Core and Non-Core players/characters, schedule a Core only day and see how that goes.

As to the implementation, I'd like to add my vote for making the languages from Inner Sea World Guide available without a boon by way of the guide or in the interim, maybe a blog post. One of the best things about Pathfinder is the world that Paizo created. Having a character from a region who not only doesn't get the language of that region for free, but who can't even spend a skill point on Linguistics to learn it, could make it harder to get new players invested in the world of Golarion. It's not fun to design a background for a character along the lines of an Osirion sage, only to run into a scenario that requires speaking Osirion or Ancient Osirion, but not having any way to learn those languages. Even fudging things a little to allow a Linguistics roll to take the place of known languages is not ideal, as suddenly the character who invests in Linguistics knows every language equally well and can speak Tien better than a character who grew up there.

In short, the background of Golarion is a big draw for a lot of new players. Having a disconnect between the background of the campaign setting and the available mechanics of something as basic as speaking the language of your homeland, while having scenarios that are built with the assumed availability of those languages, could lead to issues attracting new players.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

They'll be forced to play the 6 player version of low subtier, I think. Best challenge I can see is 1 11, 2 10s, and a level 7 pregen Harsk.

Playing with any level pregen Harsk is automatically Hard Mode. :-)

Poor biter. After I was done buffing him he outshone his dwarf. He said he felt badly about it, but only needed three honeycombs to get over it.

You turned Harsk's badger into a honey badger?!?

Now we need a third offshoot that does away with these silly cure light wounds wands!

You turned Harsk's badger into a honey badger?!?

Mage armor, Dire collar, Greater magic fang, strongjaw, barkskin, Life Bubble, Battle Cry (yay!)...

If I'd added slow poison THEN he would have been a honey badger.

In the discussion of the pregens, one thing seems to have been overlooked: Seoni uses a non-core archetype. Will she be unavailable for Core PFS, or will there be a Core version of her made up for use with the Core PFS campaign?

Finally! Been waiting for this to go live for months...

David Neilson wrote:

One question is will you need to have a group all playing in one mode or the other?

The entire table must be Core-only to play Core and vice versa.

This alone will eventually cause PFS or at least Core-Only to decline/fall out of use.

Why?

Your player base is hitting a critical mass. You chose to divide it. It's counter productive as you're just cannibalizing your own player base. If you have 6 players and 4 decide they want to core only the other two are out in the cold. If you have 10 and 6 decide to do one and 4 do the other then one of the groups at some point will die. It's just the nature of the game. You're accelerating that destruction.

It doesn't solve a problem.

A core only druid is still more powerful than 95% of options available despite books creeping and a core wizard/cleric is still absurdly strong. It's still really hard for a GM to know the magic system so it doesn't fix that except perhaps at level 1-2.

I know I will not be participating in this because my very first character is core only minus 1 rule which could be easily changed (Superior summons) and doesn't really effect the long term potency of the character.

I already don't like not being able to use Pazio produced material that I have bought in PFS, now the PFS staff wants to further restrict what I can and cannot play. You can count on me never playing in core only Campaign.

If the PFS staff wanted to further restrict what you can play, they would have just converted the current campaign to the Core Campaign instead of giving you the choice.

This will take some time to sort out I'm sure. If this backfires, they can always have Core characters be shunted into the normal campaign and go back to the way things were before.

And it is a reason we are considering languages for a boon. Whether it be a convention boon, novel boon, holiday boon, or another type altogether is yet to be detailed.

We do have a Boon for Varisian and Tien.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Finally! Been waiting for this to go live for months...

David Neilson wrote:

One question is will you need to have a group all playing in one mode or the other?

The entire table must be Core-only to play Core and vice versa.

This alone will eventually cause PFS or at least Core-Only to decline/fall out of use.

Why?

Your player base is hitting a critical mass. You chose to divide it. It's counter productive as you're just cannibalizing your own player base. If you have 6 players and 4 decide they want to core only the other two are out in the cold. If you have 10 and 6 decide to do one and 4 do the other then one of the groups at some point will die. It's just the nature of the game. You're accelerating that destruction.

It doesn't solve a problem.

A core only druid is still more powerful than 95% of options available despite books creeping and a core wizard/cleric is still absurdly strong. It's still really hard for a GM to know the magic system so it doesn't fix that except perhaps at level 1-2.

I know I will not be participating in this because my very first character is core only minus 1 rule which could be easily changed (Superior summons) and doesn't really effect the long term potency of the character.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This doesn't divide the player base, it just gives them more options. While groups of "core only" participants might develop, I don't think any of the PFS regulars you see showing up are going to quit it cold turkey to play with less material.

Instead, I think we will see long term participants that had drifted from PFS coming back to participate in the Core Campaign, and we might see new players that would otherwise be turned away from PFS (from the financial burden they might feel) be instead directed to Core Campaign.

We have already gotten confirmation from the Brock-star that there will be convention play that features both PFS and Core tables working together in the same event. There is *nothing* preventing anyone from participating in both campaigns, if anything I'd say participating in both is encouraged. In the end, I feel like a lot of this is the same sort of rabble rousing that happened when the Adventure Card Game organized play option came about. That didn't kill PFS growth in my area, it just gave my participants more to do. Now we just have a second set of scenarios we can all participate in for credit, with different character creation guidelines.

People have already invested countless hours into their PFS characters. We aren't flushing them down the drain to play Core, but we are rolling up new ones to give it a shot. That's more participation in organized play, not less. I'll still keep my folder of PFS characters ready for the next two scenarios that I can play for credit, but in the mean time this Core-only PC will be fun to roll up.

Think of it like adding a harder difficulty to a video game. Even if you don't want to play on "Dante Must Die" or "Inferno," you're still going to play the game if it interests you. And if other people that play want to give those other options a shot, what's the issue?

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?

I'm intrigued and curious what the ultimate purpose of the core campaign is? Is it to provide players a simpler environment in which the more egregious optimization will struggle to take root or provide new players a place to start? I have a hard time seeing it support both for long.

In any case, I plan to give it a shot. I look forward to a game where I don't have to screen my tables to avoid playing with the newest summoner/gunslinger/magus cheese.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This doesn't divide the player base, it just gives them more options. While groups of "core only" participants might develop, I don't think any of the PFS regulars you see showing up are going to quit it cold turkey to play with less material.

You misunderstand. People move. Get new jobs. Have new work schedules. If someone prefers Core only they'll go Core Only. In other words they'll vote with their feet.

Instead, I think we will see long term participants that had drifted from PFS coming back to participate in the Core Campaign, and we might see new players that would otherwise be turned away from PFS (from the financial burden they might feel) be instead directed to Core Campaign.

How would those who don't PFS even learn of this? Those individuals are largely long gone.

We have already gotten confirmation from the Brock-star that there will be convention play that features both PFS and Core tables working together in the same event. There is *nothing* preventing anyone from participating in both campaigns, if anything I'd say participating in both is encouraged. In the end, I feel like a lot of this is the same sort of rabble rousing that happened when the Adventure Card Game organized play option came about. That didn't kill PFS growth in my area, it just gave my participants more to do. Now we just have a second set of scenarios we can all participate in for credit, with different character creation guidelines.

While there are advantages of this most of them are to be able to replay the adventures with a group of friends you didn't have when you first played the adventures. Which, admittedly is cool. Unfortunately that's heavily limiting.

Think of it like adding a harder difficulty to a video game. Even if you don't want to play on "Dante Must Die" or "Inferno," you're still going to play the game if it interests you. And if other people that play want to give those other options a shot, what's the issue?

I've beaten each of those modes on most games along with far harder games (IWBTG, Dark souls lvl 1 run come to mind) the difference is that the CRB has clear winners and losers and I need 3 other people to agree with me. The CRB Druid, wizard, sorcerer, cleric, bard, and paladin are all winners even in core only each of them getting 90% of their power even if they do lose cool options from other books.

not sure this is a good idea. on the one hand limiting access will be great for new players and new GMs alike, but on the other hand, based on my experience with LFR, adding more replay will make it harder to get people to GM. I'm also not thrilled with the concept of having to have a second character on the fly. Show up to play a 5-9 or 7-11 and find out one of the players signed up with his core PCs because he's replaying? and you don't have a CORE pc of the correct level? so now you're playing a pregen or nothing?
this is going to make organizing signups more complicated.

I still miss the Core/Metaregional/Regional scenario system of Living Greyhawk.
Imagine the Core scenarios would be PFS missions, Regional and metaregional games would be "day job"/outside/faction-focused adventuring...

From what I can see from the looks of this blog and the Pathfinder Society Online Collective (if you haven't already, I suggest you check it out) many people are already creating Core characters and setting up Core games. In fact, mlst importantly I am seeing many 3 to 5 star GMs who are getting excited about joining up again.

With the guidance of older players in the Core Campaign, PFS suddenly becomes a lot more friendly for new players or those who may not want to buy anything more than the CRB. Those who wish to expand to other books can do so while those who don't, will not. Increasing participation is certainly best for business and if this is the route Paizo thinks is best to increase sales/retain customers, I fully support this decision as should we all.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Instead, I think we will see long term participants that had drifted from PFS coming back to participate in the Core Campaign, and we might see new players that would otherwise be turned away from PFS (from the financial burden they might feel) be instead directed to Core Campaign.

How would those who don't PFS even learn of this? Those individuals are largely long gone.

You don't seem to be paying attention to the rest of the discussion, with numerous GMs chiming in on their eagerness to jump back into the Core campaign.

I'm intrigued and curious what the ultimate purpose of the core campaign is?

Mike explains that in the opening sentence,

As the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign and the Pathfinder RPG itself has developed over the last several years, players have expressed increasing concerns about the availability of replay, new players being overwhelmed or overshadowed by over-optimized characters, Chronicle sheet rewards not having much meaning, and other concerns related to the sheer amount of information and options available to PFS players.

Like any rule/s it is not going to do everything for everyone. Some players will argue that CORE does not address any of the topics it claims to solve, while others will tell you it not only resolves those, but others as well. Only your local group/s can decide how best to use this new option to improve and enhance their gameplay.

Remember, this is just another OPTION for you. If it doesn't work for your local group, don't use it. CORE is no different than running modules, adventure paths, older scenarios, whatever. The local groups have complete control over what is/not running in their area. And assuming conventions are organized with even a modicum of skill, the events will be clearly identifiable as CORE or not. You should have [near]complete control over what you play and/or GM.

The funny thing is the people who can snap-judge a knee-jerk reaction to the proposal before the ink is even dry and declare CORE a complete failure without so much as a "we'll see" or a "I'll give it a try."
*sigh*

If you want to debate "Core Campaign winners" I won't participate in that discussion, but if you're genuinely of the mind that this will create less interest in Pathfinder organized play I would like to hear how.

Because I guess I don't understand your argument then, Undone.

Initially you said that the introduction of a second play system will divide us, but I'm just not getting that. I know that my local area is pumped for this, especially all us old farts that get to finally replay some scenarios. That sounds like more people participating in organized play, not less.

Can you clear it up, perhaps?

Well so if I would point out if Core does not play much in one area, and then you move you either do not actually get the mobility in the Core dominate area. That or you spread a break out of non-Core play mode. I have no interest in creating a core only character to give it a shot.

Coming from the perspective as someone who has yet to play a single PFS session this is perfect. It is my way in and yes, eventually I will move on from Core and utilize all the books available for PFS play.

For someone like me just starting, I don't want to have to endure the icy glares I've seen from the maxed players who look down on those who aren't 'up to their snuff'. Quite frankly it has turned me off to the potential experience of even playing PFS.

Now, I can sit at a Core table and actually enjoy myself before it even starts. The arrogance I have witnessed, albeit not all the time, has set me off. That is simply a product of the GM not controlling the sessions that I have stood and watched firsthand as I was trying to get a sense of what it would be like. But it also is directly on the shoulders of those players who are not providing a very conducive environment to the veterans or newcomers alike.

And besides, if Core isn't your thing then why worry about it? Others like me can step in too, that isn't bad, is it? If this is a way to bring back folks how is that a bad thing?

Just my $0.02.

No Dirty Trick?

This handled everything from "throw sand in eyes" to "pull his pants down", or any other wacky thing a player would pull.

New players pull this stuff all the time.

Now, what rules do I use?

Do I just tell the player that the Golarion universe renders the action an impossibility?

No Dirty Trick?

This handled everything from "throw sand in eyes" to "pull his pants down", or any other wacky thing a player would pull.

New players pull this stuff all the time.

Now, what rules do I use?

Do I just tell the player that the Golarion universe renders the action an impossibility?

You can still run it like every GM did before the APG came out.

Its still obviously a combat maneuver, so you can still use CMB and CMD to represent it. And if a new player is doing it, they're definitely not proficient so it would provoke an AOO as normal.

yay ... Nuff said

Do I just tell the player that the Golarion universe renders the action an impossibility?

Completely up to you. There are a plethora of ambiguities in the rules left to the GM to adjudicate. If you simply want to say, "no, you can't do that" it is certainly within your right. If you choose to be a more inventive GM and allow the player some imaginative flexibility, more power to ya. Losing Dirty Trick is both a bane and a boon. While the player no longer has a specific rule to define their custom action/s, you are no longer bound to strictly apply the rule as it exists outside of CORE. The important thing will be to apply your best judgement in such as way as to be as inclusive as possible without letting the player get away with murder.

OTOH, as the GM, you are still empowered to use all the rules in all the books at your disposal. So if to make things easier, you want to apply the mechanics for Dirty Trick to the player's actions as an aid in adjudicating the results, go for it.

Please please please please let core characters sit at the same table as non-core characters without losing there core only status.

I understand this will take work on the reporting system as you havent planned for this. But not doing this will kill pfs in smaller locations. As it is with my local group I am up to char 10 and still have only played one character over level 7. dividing characters and players further is going to inly make this worse and i really dont want to end up with 20 level 5 characters to get my gaming fix in

Can you clear it up, perhaps?

The argument is clear (note, I don't agree with the argument, but I do find it clear).

If the new option doesn't bring in substantially more players and GMs then we have 2 campaigns competing for the same limited resources (players, GMs, venues, tables, etc). This means each campaign gets less, quite possibly causing each campaign to drop below the thresholds where they are viable. At the least, it means less tables and options for the regular PFS campaign.

Please please please please let core characters sit at the same table as non-core characters without losing there core only status.

I disagree. Reporting is not the driving issue here. If a player with a CORE character is sitting at a mixed table, s/he gets to benefit directly or indirectly from non-CORE content through their interactions with the non-CORE characters at the table. That is not what CORE is about.

If the new option doesn't bring in substantially more players

Who is to say what "substantially" is? What if it just creates more play with roughly the same player-base? Would that be a fail? With all the moving parts, how can you determine with any level of certainty that CORE is responsible for bringing more players in? Just because a new player is reported, doesn't mean the reason they played is because of the CORE rules.

Been waiting for this. So happy!! T_T

Coming from the perspective as someone who has yet to play a single PFS session this is perfect. It is my way in and yes, eventually I will move on from Core and utilize all the books available for PFS play.

For someone like me just starting, I don't want to have to endure the icy glares I've seen from the maxed players who look down on those who aren't 'up to their snuff'. Quite frankly it has turned me off to the potential experience of even playing PFS.

Now, I can sit at a Core table and actually enjoy myself before it even starts. The arrogance I have witnessed, albeit not all the time, has set me off. That is simply a product of the GM not controlling the sessions that I have stood and watched firsthand as I was trying to get a sense of what it would be like. But it also is directly on the shoulders of those players who are not providing a very conducive environment to the veterans or newcomers alike.

And besides, if Core isn't your thing then why worry about it? Others like me can step in too, that isn't bad, is it? If this is a way to bring back folks how is that a bad thing?

Just my $0.02.

Coming from the perspective of someone who has played over 150 sessions, not that it really matters. I am just not interested in a Core only campaign. So ironically it is one option they have offered, that I really do not want to indulge. I do agree that no one is taking anything away, unless of course core simply grows simply so dominate in an area that its the only real option.

As for it being a nicer crowd now, I respect the PFS campaign management but I doubt they have the ability to change human nature. I can easily see people being just as snobby about core only as anything else.

Hi

I absolutely love this idea.

As I GM I can't afford to keep buying all the latest splat books, which tend to break up in transport anyway, as the spines go. I avoid GM'ing high tier stuff because of all the new stuff I have to keep up with.

With Core, it's not a problem. I know the stuff from CRB & it's much simpler to GM even high tier games.

(For those that know me, I suffer from 'Minor Cognitive Impairment', which means I have memory issues, so simpler games are easier to run)

Lastly, by running Core games, it means the other stuff is that more 'special' and I appreciate it more.

Thanks
Paul H

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Can you clear it up, perhaps?

The argument is clear (note, I don't agree with the argument, but I do find it clear).

If the new option doesn't bring in substantially more players and GMs then we have 2 campaigns competing for the same limited resources (players, GMs, venues, tables, etc). This means each campaign gets less, quite possibly causing each campaign to drop below the thresholds where they are viable. At the least, it means less tables and options for the regular PFS campaign.

I see now. The argument is there is a limited amount of resources (time, GMs, players, etc) and now need it is "split" between two campaigns.

And I suppose I still disagree.

If you want to play PFS, play PFS.
If you want to play Core, play Core.
If you want to play both, play both.

Everyone I have heard from in my local area are planning to either play only PFS or to play both. This will lead to more legal tables of organized play in my area, not less.

I sincerely doubt that people that are currently playing PFS will stop playing PFS and only play Core. I wager we will see simply more play out of this in the long run.

At the very least, it gives all of us veterans an opportunity to participate in a full 7 years of scenarios once more, which is exceedingly awesome.

I seriously doubt that CORE will grow to outshine PFS. Players like their toys afterall. There may be a big response over the next couple of months, but I expect overall, once the initial fervor subsides, CORE will be less than 20% of our total events.

Another thing I thought of and don't recall seeing brought up is that this means there are twice as many options for specials since they can be offered both CORE and non-CORE. Areas where a lot of, but not all players, have already played previous season specials may benefit from being able to offer them again in CORE format and everyone can play AND GM for credit. As a bonus, GMs actively trying to earn their 5th star, now have more options to fulfill the 10-special requirement.

This is a very interesting development.

As somebody who was involved in Society play at the very beginning, it has been great to see how successful it has become.

However, as somebody who had to step back from it for a while, the thought of all of the extra classes, races, archetypes, etcetera that I would have to learn has made it overly daunting to try and run a table again.

While I'm not ready to leap back in yet, this makes it much more possible for that day to come.

Who knows? It might even make me want to run a table on the cusp of July and August...

Another thing I thought of and don't recall seeing brought up is that this means there are twice as many options for specials since they can be offered both CORE and non-CORE. Areas where a lot of, but not all players, have already played previous season specials may benefit from being able to offer them again in CORE format and everyone can play AND GM for credit. As a bonus, GMs actively trying to earn their 5th star, now have more options to fulfill the 10-special requirement.

My usual group discussed that issue literally yesterday, but I have to ask:

How many of you are just happy to be able to replay some scenarios? (And do not care all that much for the core limit).

Until we get a new exclusive I'm not sure I agree that there are more options for the 10 special requirement under this system.

I'm excited for the option to play more scenarios, although the core only game does skew things towards certain character options. I have concerns about coordinating, but hopefully those won't come to fruition. We'll have to see how things play out.

The ability to play the 116 scenarios I've already played again is certainly awesome :).

Until we get a new exclusive I'm not sure I agree that there are more options for the 10 special requirement under this system.

There are more options because now you can offer a CORE special and draw both those who didn't plat it the first time as well as those who did, all for credit. Some areas have had difficulties filling enough tables to qualify to run specials because players attended GenCon or other conventions where they were offered. This leaves the local, non-traveling players at a disadvantage. Also, since everyone will be eligible for another GM credit through CORE, there are fewer excuses for those GMs who only do it for the rewards.

I am quite conflicted on this issue, since I only recently started playing PFS, so replaying old scenarios really isn't an issue for me. But I do tend to notice that on some pfs days the number of players tends to drop a bit, and it seems that is caused by a number of players being unable to replay a scenario. So this issue does affect me.

At the point of writing I have played about 20 scenarios and GMed 2, unsurprisingly I had to play pregens quite often, and while my praise for the new ones is pretty universal, the old pregens are quite often just not very interesting to play/are lackluster when it comes to dealing with certain problems (DR). Chances are, that unless GMs only offer 1-5 scenarios (not all that likely since many might offer specific chronicle generators for their original campaign character - of course this is pure speculation) so the chances are pretty good that I would come have to play those old iconics again (either I lack a character or I bite the bullet to play the bard in an all barbarian party).
And I am really not looking forward to that.... can someone please lock Mark Seifter in a room for as long as it takes to bring the old iconics in line with the new ones... pretty please ?^^

And my biggest bugbear with the whole idea, is that I am pretty much done with the core classes, especially without archetypes. I think that the newer classes offer a better experience (well they are easier to break, no contest there ) and I really can't picture a situation where I would pick an ninja over a slayer.
That doesn't mean, that I would stay at home, if my usual group needs a 3rd player to make the table legal, but I already decided to miss two recent games, where the adventure on offer wasn't attractive enough to justify 2.5 hours of driving.

All I will say is this is awesome.

Oh and a few other things

Old players showing new players the ropes? Win

New GM's getting their feet wet without the complexity of extra books. Win

Already planning to schedule this stuff at a new location opening up in a month and a half.

Problems, nothing we can't handle at a local level with clear scheduling.

Also, for those who do not live in the continental US or Europe, a chance to have people travel to cons and make new friends/experience new groups. All good things.

With Warhorn accommodating some additional language, I don't see scheduling this to be a problem.

Except for those places that use something janky, like Meetup, but that's a whole different issue...

ZomB wrote:

The AP players guides appear to be off limits, and any mechanics or items in there for adding campaign flavor look to be banned for core campaigns. Probably want to make access to the player guide a standard boon in the APs.

Hmm, are ethnicities (eg Shaonti) and even suggested names (eg Ancrym) from an AP guide non-core character options?

You can name your character whatever you like. You can also be a Shaonti warrior for roleplay purposes. You just can't get any mechanical benefits from choosing Shaonti warrior from a book outside of core. As a matter of fact, your character can utilize any of the countries in the Inner Sea World Guide for RP flavor. They just can't take any of the mechanical options from the ISWG unless it appears on a Chronicle (or when we update the Guide if we add languages and the like).

That's similar to what exist now without a sourcebook. I've had a character at a table I GMed that claimed he was from Arcadia. He had absolutely no mechanical benefits from it and it was strictly roleplay flavor, but he advised his character was from Arcadia. The same applies when someone says their character is royalty or a Blakros family member and the like. If something is taken for fluff only, and strictly roleplay purposes, you can use any of the source material. You just can't take any mechanical benefit from it.

This is just so awesome that I'm gonna print it and frame it...

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Another thing I thought of and don't recall seeing brought up is that this means there are twice as many options for specials since they can be offered both CORE and non-CORE. Areas where a lot of, but not all players, have already played previous season specials may benefit from being able to offer them again in CORE format and everyone can play AND GM for credit. As a bonus, GMs actively trying to earn their 5th star, now have more options to fulfill the 10-special requirement.

My usual group discussed that issue literally yesterday, but I have to ask:

How many of you are just happy to be able to replay some scenarios? (And do not care all that much for the core limit).

If there's a scenario I like and a character in tier who hasn't played it and there are no other PFS tables running and they could use another player to make the table legal, I'm usually quite happy to play for no credit.

On the flip side my first month of playing Pathfinder I purchased half a dozen pdfs. I suspect if I were confined to playing core content, rules as written, I would have given up on Pathfinder within two months. This isn't for me though I may still indulge in a core game from time to time and I certainly won't give someone a hard time if this is actually something they would enjoy.