|
I played Silent Tide with a six man team, all brand new PCs. In the final battle we ended up with the sorcerer and cleric in the negatives and weren't sure we were going to make it. Naturally, the effect of having no cure light wounds wands contributed to our troubles as well.But how did core make the difference?
At first level? Hard to say. I didn't have alternate armors to choose from for my barbarian. The sorcerer spent full round actions to summon. The cleric didn't have a daze effect on his channel. Things like that.
|
I have no idea what the alternate armors your barbarian might have used
The first example that comes to mind
Four Mirror Armor is both cheaper (5gp) and has a higher armor bonus than Scale Mail for new level 1's proficient in medium or heavier armor, you'd need a 16 Dex to break even on AC.Or if using light armor for speed
Leather Lamallar armor is cheaper than a chain shirt (40gp), for the same AC bonus requiring an 18 Dexterity to make the chain shirt 1 AC better.
|
|
Yep, I ran Silent Tide on Core with a team of 4 fresh fish. Druid, 10 Con double Axe paladin, cleric, wizard. I think the druid's ape got hit hard, that was it. They weren't really in danger at any time.
And honestly, it is as was said above - low AC, single digit HP on all but boss. Combats were fun, but not "challenging"
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal anecdote? Ok.
Our local Core scene has cultivated an outlook of "Oh, people say this option is bad? Let's make it good!" and so far that's been the perfect level of challenge for us. Playing with tables of 3-6 people, even in Season 0s, has provided us with nailbiter combats and amazing roleplaying situations*.
Traditionally "weaker" options people are playing:
Monk
Rogue
Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster
Paladin/Rogue/Shadowdancer
Fighter/???/Duelist
TWF Ranger with two one-handed weapons
Melee Cleric
We only have 1 barbarian, 1 druid, and 1 straight wizard out of 15-20 characters. So we aren't flocking to the stronger core options, as was predicted by some when core was announced.
There are three things that I have realized more and more with Core.
Consumables are key to consistent success. Thunderstones, smokesticks, tanglefoot bags--tons of great consumables are accessable in Core. Wands of faerie fire, scrolls of darkvision, oils of daylight--all the usual tricks are also in Core.
Strategy is key to consistent success. Getting flanking in general. Denying flanking for enemy rogues. Interrupting spellcasters, removing holy symbols, disarming fighters, etc. Things that could be in regular PFS but often are neglected because RAWR DAMAGE is a stronger option. Since those RAWR DAMAGE builds are fewer in our local scene, smart playing becomes key.
Any class is viable when played intelligently. Even core only monks. Even rogues. Even non-early entry arcane tricksters. So what, the build isn't as good as another one. You can still enjoy it and be an important member at your table. My highest core character (lvl 6) is a monk and contributes to the table.
In the game I played just tonight, I used my character to shove one end bosses overboard, steal the enemy cleric's unholy symbol, trip the enemy cleric, and used a wand of faerie fire to reveal the cleric when he went invisible.
None of those used my class abilities, and I was still able to help out. Any class is viable when played intelligently.
|
I played Silent Tide with a six man team, all brand new PCs. In the final battle we ended up with the sorcerer and cleric in the negatives and weren't sure we were going to make it. Naturally, the effect of having no cure light wounds wands contributed to our troubles as well.
Well, your GM was obviously cheating, running it wrong, and, in addition, a terrible personTM. ;^) Seriously, though, my dice were fairly hot in that last combat. That made it much rougher than it would have been. Some 'interesting' tactics by the sorcerer also contributed to some horizontal behavior.
|
|
I played Silent Tide with a six man team, all brand new PCs. In the final battle we ended up with the sorcerer and cleric in the negatives and weren't sure we were going to make it. Naturally, the effect of having no cure light wounds wands contributed to our troubles as well.Well, your GM was obviously cheating, running it wrong, and, in addition, a terrible personTM. ;^) Seriously, though, my dice were fairly hot in that last combat. That made it much rougher than it would have been. Some 'interesting' tactics by the sorcerer also contributed to some horizontal behavior.
Hopefully, you all remembered to roll for concealment due to dim light, since that combat, IIRC, happens after nightfall...
|
|
I like that there's a hard line between core and standard PFS.
I understand that means people can come up with times where they may not get to do everything they want. However, it makes record keeping a lot easier if we keep that hard line.
As a new GM, I don't want to spend a lot of time auditing character sheets. I'd rather have a quick look, and get to what's fun for everyone, playing the scenario at hand.
|
|
Core was intended to be less complex, not harder. (It merely fails at the former; the latter was never claimed.)
I'm sorry, but as far as the first claim, this is patently false. By its very nature CORE is significantly less complex. Being restricted to [essentially] the CRB as opposed to the hundreds of NORM legal books reduces the amount of material the players (and the GM) need to be concerned with. Significantly reducing the options available to the character makes the game system and therefore the choices a player has to make less complex. This is one of the primary themes of the marketing of 5E.
|
|
I was curious too. I'm a new player. I played last week at a store a non-core campaign level 1 campaign (without knowing) but my character is core (only used the core rule book to create him) I receive my chronicle sheet which doesn't give anything outside of core (I think) Then I learned that the non core table usually play much higher level so I won't be able to join them often, but the core table is just starting so I should be able to join them, but I was into allowed to bring my character to that table, I had to do an exact copy of the character, loose my chronicle sheet.
It's no big deal, it's just one game, but I would still have appreciated to be able to continue on, instead of restarting again.
Making it with only core doesn't necessitate it being a core campaign character.
|
|
Core was intended to be less complex, not harder. (It merely fails at the former; the latter was never claimed.)I'm sorry, but as far as the first claim, this is patently false. By its very nature CORE is significantly less complex. Being restricted to [essentially] the CRB as opposed to the hundreds of NORM legal books reduces the amount of material the players (and the GM) need to be concerned with.
Need to be? Is there some minimum number of required sourcebooks to make a standard character that I've missed? Players don't need to be concerned with any books but the ones they choose to buy. The GM needs to know about whatever bestiaries and sourcebooks the scenario uses - if the boss is a magus, you've got to figure out how to run a magus, core or not.
|
|
Scenarios are not where a sessions complexity comes in. That comes from the players input into the scenario, and when you play Core, that is a stable input as opposed to the wide variety that exists in Normal. The complexity of the scenarios mechanics never changes, although some scenarios are more complex than others.
|
|
Scenarios are not where a sessions complexity comes in. That comes from the players input into the scenario, and when you play Core, that is a stable input as opposed to the wide variety that exists in Normal. The complexity of the scenarios mechanics never changes, although some scenarios are more complex than others.
The player's input to the scenario is 100% the choice of the player - if the player used options beyond the CRB it's because they felt prepared for it (and desired it enough to pay money for the sourcebooks allowing it). The complexity from the GMs side doesn't change - again, a magus boss is a magus boss, Core or Standard.
|
|
But if the magus is in the scenario, you know to brush up on it.
You don't know what the players are going to bring, and what you will need to be aware of and adjudicate.
Core narrows the field of possibilities so you have less material to possibly rule on.
You know what the scenario is going to bring, the player knows what the PC is going to bring. The interaction between the two will be no more complex if the limited number of options actually present at the table are from "new" (often meaning "5 years old instead of 6") books rather than an older one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's complex enough that I don't even question players when they bring new rules to the table. I just expect them to be right, and roll with it.
And when they DON'T know how the rules work, I have to examine and rule on them. That is far more complex than ruling on Core material that everyone has been playing with from the start. As opposed to figuring out how the Arcanist works at table.
|
|
It's complex enough that I don't even question players when they bring new rules to the table. I just expect them to be right, and roll with it.
And when they DON'T know how the rules work, I have to examine and rule on them. That is far more complex than ruling on Core material that everyone has been playing with from the start. As opposed to figuring out how the Arcanist works at table.
Figuring out how the arcanist works is no more complex - in fact, considerably less so - than figuring out how the druid works. And figuring out how an entire class works at the table is not something the GM has to do - if there's some odd interaction between a particular part of a PC build and whatever the scenario is doing, you just read that particular rule, pick an answer and move on. It's just not that hard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not individual complexity of one class that matters; it's the overwhelming quantity of options that gives the complexity that CORE removes. Sure, individually the Druid may be more complex than the Arcanist, but it's way less complex than the multitude of classes and archetypes outside of the CRB all put together. And while, no, your players won't bring all of them at once, they could, so it's a whole lot to be ready for if you really want to adequately perform the "rules auditor" part of the GM. Much easier just to be familiar with the CRB classes.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dave, with all due respect:
It is routine for players to use a combination of obscure spells, class abilities, feats, and magic items, pulled from different sources, to achieve serious combat advantages or hamstring opponents. A novice GM has to rule on them, based on FAQ posts and decisions that the PFS campaign leadership has posted, as well as the rules printed in the books.
This is indeed hard, and decisions can have fairly serious ramifications. If a GM wants to restrict himself to 11 of the simplest and most familiar classes, a shortened list of spells, feats, and equipment, that can spell the difference between a confident GM having a successful session, and a disaster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I created Thora Kor specifically for Core games and she was registered as a Core PC. At some point, paizo changed her, removing her Core designation. She has only played in Core games. Isn't someone able to correct this? Just doesn't seem like it should be that difficult.
Heres the problem. If ANYONE at the table is a non core character, the table isn't core.
If the DM hits the wrong button the table isn't core.
If Bobs Core fighter next to you, 5 sessions ago, sat in table where he sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who wasn't core then the first person spread non coreness all the way over.
So "non core" spreads like the zombie Apocalypse.
They're aware of the problem and I'm sure they're working on it.
To help avoid metagaming? For instance for the easy season 0's I'll play the PC on a core table, but to get the goodies on those nasty year 4 chronicles maybe I'll tag along with the Zen Archer and Old School Summoner I happen to know at one of their normal tables.
|
|
Figuring out how the arcanist works is no more complex - in fact, considerably less so - than figuring out how the druid works. And figuring out how an entire class works at the table is not something the GM has to do - if there's some odd interaction between a particular part of a PC build and whatever the scenario is doing, you just read that particular rule, pick an answer and move on. It's just not that hard.It's complex enough that I don't even question players when they bring new rules to the table. I just expect them to be right, and roll with it.
And when they DON'T know how the rules work, I have to examine and rule on them. That is far more complex than ruling on Core material that everyone has been playing with from the start. As opposed to figuring out how the Arcanist works at table.
Dave, as mentioned, the problem is not figuring out how the Arcanist works, but the Arcanist [Zuvembie], with the Swashbuckler [Aurochs], the Fighter [Lore Warden], the Magus [Kensai, Bladebound], and the legacy Aasimar Oracle of Life who channels for 4d6+1.
It doesn't take much work on any one player's part to increase the complexity level. Add in another 2-5 players, and the complexity can go way up. Add in all the options in Standard play, and even saying, "I am playing a Rogue." becomes more complex. Core, Unchained, Scout, or other archetypes?
Core: 7 races, 11 classes, hundreds of builds.
Standard: 11+ races, 28+ classes, dozens (hundreds?) of archetypes, thousands of builds.
Not even counting the non-Core spells, feats, traits, and mundane & magic items.
|
|
I don't see how you can say running a game with every option from Normal campaign is no more complex that running a game with just the Core Rulebook. But I have said my piece and you obviously aren't convinced by it.
I have never seen this complexity problem you're talking about, and that's after close to 90 tables as GM starting in season 4 with the APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic already in play. I feel if the problem existed I would have seen it by now.
|
|
Some of us have had almost 20 years to figure out the druid...
If you're taking since 3e,a bit short of 15 actually. But wild shape and animal companions are two of the most significantly changed class features from 3.5 to Pathfinder, so you've had 6 years to figure it out at most. And 5 to figure out the summoner.
|
|
Dave, I would like to sit at your table than. I have set with GMs with over 300 tables and not one of them was always able to understand and catch when players were misunderstanding what there characters could or should do. Got those that know me, when I play or GM, I have several tabs loaded to the PRD. I am constantly checking to see if someone's item or ability does as they say. It's a curse. I for one don't know alot of stuff, like gunslinger. Perhaps someday I can sit at your table.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I created Thora Kor specifically for Core games and she was registered as a Core PC. At some point, paizo changed her, removing her Core designation. She has only played in Core games. Isn't someone able to correct this? Just doesn't seem like it should be that difficult.Heres the problem. If ANYONE at the table is a non core character, the table isn't core.
If the DM hits the wrong button the table isn't core.
If Bobs Core fighter next to you, 5 sessions ago, sat in table where he sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who sat in a table with someone who wasn't core then the first person spread non coreness all the way over.
So "non core" spreads like the zombie Apocalypse.
They're aware of the problem and I'm sure they're working on it.
The good news is that your physical chronicle sheets trump anything happening in the cyberverse. So as long as you have your physical sheets for that character, and can show your GM that they have Core-only credit, you'll be fine.
To that end, GMs may want to start designating Core chronicle sheets as such whenever they run a table.
|
|
Got those that know me, when I play or GM, I have several tabs loaded to the PRD. I am constantly checking to see if someone's item or ability does as they say. It's a curse.
Why on earth are you doing that at the table? That's auditing, not GMing.
Perhaps someday I can sit at your table.
If you're serious, and in the Dayton, OH area on the first or third Sunday of a month, I'm the store coordinator for PFS games at Epic Loot in Centerville. I GM there most times (except, in the near future, the weeks of GenCon and DragonCon).
Warhorn page here. Haven't got the games for the next session posted yet but they'll be up soon.
|
|
Dave, with all due respect:
It is routine for players to use a combination of obscure spells, class abilities, feats, and magic items, pulled from different sources, to achieve serious combat advantages or hamstring opponents. A novice GM has to rule on them, based on FAQ posts and decisions that the PFS campaign leadership has posted, as well as the rules printed in the books.
How do the supposed "serious combat advantages" of these obscure options (or, y'know, pouncing cat companions) generate a need to dig into rulings about them? The GM is responsible for the rules of the scenario, the player for applying the rules to build their PC. Once in a while there's reason to think the player might have got those rules wrong, maybe even in rare occasions to believe they did it wrong enough to make it necessary to examine at the table. But "turns out to be effective" is no reason to start rules-lawyering apart a PC when I'm supposed to be running a game.
If a GM wants to restrict himself to 11 of the simplest ... classes,
Then Core is not the place to look.
This is indeed hard, and decisions can have fairly serious ramifications. If a GM wants to restrict himself to 11 of the simplest and most familiar classes, a shortened list of spells, feats, and equipment, that can spell the difference between a confident GM having a successful session, and a disaster.
I keep thinking that most of the supposed benefits of Core are a lot more hypothetical than real. The fact that I keep seeing the point of view of "novice" GMs recounted by 5-stars and VOs is particularly telling. I started GMing mid-Season 4 with the APG, UM and UC in full effect, and never had any of these problems.
|
|
Dave, as mentioned, the problem is not figuring out how the Arcanist works, but the Arcanist [Zuvembie], with the Swashbuckler [Aurochs], the Fighter [Lore Warden], the Magus [Kensai, Bladebound], and the legacy Aasimar Oracle of Life
I've seen multiclass characters, but never one with that particular combination of five classes.
who channels for 4d6+1.
Roll 4d6+1, heal everyone within 30' for the result. For more details, see the Cleric class description in the Core Rulebook.
Core: 7 races, 11 classes, hundreds of builds.
Standard: 11+ races, 28+ classes, dozens (hundreds?) of archetypes, thousands of builds.
7th level Standard PC: 7 class levels (from between 1 and 7 classes), 4 feats, 2 traits.
7th level Core PC: 7 class levels (from between 1 and 7 classes), 4 feats, 2 traits.
|
|
I keep thinking that most of the supposed benefits of Core are a lot more hypothetical than real. The fact that I keep seeing the point of view of "novice" GMs recounted by 5-stars and VOs is particularly telling.
The only thing it should be telling you is that I am considering my novice GMs in this case.
|
|
I keep thinking that most of the supposed benefits of Core are a lot more hypothetical than real. The fact that I keep seeing the point of view of "novice" GMs recounted by 5-stars and VOs is particularly telling. I started GMing mid-Season 4 with the APG, UM and UC in full effect, and never had any of these problems.
I am that novice GM.
My group agreed to a Core campaign at my urging because I want to provide the best game experience for all of us. Part of the enjoyment for me as a GM is to have a good understanding of the game system. That is easier for me if the system is simpler. And that's not necessarily simpler in pure mechanical terms, it's simpler in that there are fewer rules, feats, etc to grasp.
Granted, my first session in the campaign is not until next Saturday, but my preparation has been much more focused on building a story, and less on trying to absorb material from multiple rule books.
Also, I'm kinda cheap and don't want to buy a lot of rule books.
|
|
So, there are plenty of complex abilities, and people use them incorrectly all the time.
It drives me a little nuts but I'm still trying to train myself to trust the players more and not worry so much about them getting things wrong. (Even though they do with disturbing frequency)
In Core there are just way fewer abilities, I know which spells in Core have a 1 round casting time. If we're playing Core and a character burning hands for 5d4+10 at level 1 I'm pretty confidant that something's gone wrong. If we're not playing core, I just don't know.
Other feats require finding obscure posts to learn how they work.
In addition there are legitimately unclear pieces of rules that require GM adjudication:
Escape Route while Mounted
Is Bewildering Koan language dependent?
The Taiaha + Swashbuckler's Finesse
Stingchucks
Weapon Cord "may interfere with finer actions."
What fits in a wrist sheath
Also there are some legacy issues floating around.
ex. I have a character with an exotic heirloom weapon
|
|
Dave, as mentioned, the problem is not figuring out how the Arcanist works, but the Arcanist [Zuvembie], with the Swashbuckler [Aurochs], the Fighter [Lore Warden], the Magus [Kensai, Bladebound], and the legacy Aasimar Oracle of LifeI've seen multiclass characters, but never one with that particular combination of five classes.
who channels for 4d6+1.Roll 4d6+1, heal everyone within 30' for the result. For more details, see the Cleric class description in the Core Rulebook.
Core: 7 races, 11 classes, hundreds of builds.
Standard: 11+ races, 28+ classes, dozens (hundreds?) of archetypes, thousands of builds.7th level Standard PC: 7 class levels (from between 1 and 7 classes), 4 feats, 2 traits.
7th level Core PC: 7 class levels (from between 1 and 7 classes), 4 feats, 2 traits.
Dave, please stop being intentionally obtuse.
That was a list of five separate PCs, since you are dealing with a table with 4-7 Pcs for a legal table, every time. That is 4-7 different sets of the 28 classes, plus any of the applicable archetypes for the class, plus any of about 20 races, counting boon races, plus racial traits, plus all the various feats from umpteen books, and spells from all of those book sand more.
1-7 different classes, each with 0-2 archetypes, each with its own set of feats, any caster class with spells prepared/known, plus spellbooks for prepared casters, or divine spell lists for divine prepared casters, and various FCB beyond the basic +1 hp/sp.
I have been GMing PFS since 2010, and it comes up, because you sometimes need to verify that character X can do unlikely thing Y, or has some way of being able to do damage in the googleplex range.
So, I listed a group of PCs, all with different classes, with those classes modified by one or more archetypes, one of them using a racial FCB to be able to use their ability at a significantly higher level of ability than normal for class and level.
And your comment about 7th level PCs? It is NOT just a SINGLE 7th level PC, it is 4 to 7 such PCs at the same time.
In Core, all the PCs fall within a set of 11 basic classes, from 7 basic races, using feats, spells and abilities primarily from one rulebook. So, 7 7th level PCs: 49 class levels, up to 56 feats, 14 traits, potentially adding some multiple of 2 to that.
In Standard, you get the same numbers, but the source is much wider, with the possibility of someone accidentally using something that is not PFS legal, or has been removed form legality (see dinosaur animal companions, Undead Lord, Synthesist, APG Summoner, etc.); and the interactions of all those things, including some that fall under the law of unintended consequences.
I have a Standard campaign Wizard who actually has two schools of magic that are forbidden to him, not just difficult to use, but, due to a single level dip, can cast spells from those schools without a problem. Figuring out what is going on, however, requires using multiple books and references, even before you get into his spellbook. At this point, and the reason I, as a GM, like to know what is going on, is because it is incredibly easy to get some of these pieces confused.
And we won't even get into the stuff that falls into gray areas, or requires GM adjudication. And, even in PFS, there are things that do so.
Is a fauchard a polearm?
Would a small Fauchard, wielded by a medium character, still give Reach?
Does a Reach weapon threaten on the corner diagonal non-adjacent squares?
Of those three questions, only one applies in Core.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dave,
It's clear from your responses that the players in your area show up, well-informed and forthright about their characters' abilities. That is obviously a credit to the GMs in the area, and you have a right to feel proud of that accomplishment.
It seems clear, too, that the players in your area limit limit much of their game elements to the hardcover books, since you call out "the APG, UM, and UC." There are dozens of AP volumes, and dozens of smaller books, each with spells, feats, and equipment. The players in your area apparently don't scour all of them looking for this or that game element.
It is perhaps also clear that if a player shows up at your table, perhaps with a 1st-level character with both an animal companion and a familiar, as did a young lady I met last week, you assume that she knows what she's doing. If a rogue tries to sneak attack someone with concealment, you're cool with that; after all, that player knows how to play his character.
That's not been my experience. Most casual players at my table don't know the game rules that well. Most of them don't know that rogues can sneak attack undead in this game. People who play gunslingers generally don't keep track of the range limitations of the class. Somebody needs to know how the game works, and if it isn't the player, then it needs to be the GM.
I would invite you to step up your mentoring of new folks in the community, both players and GMs. Pathfinder is a mature role-playing game, easily as complicated as 3.5 during the end of its lifetime. You have encountered this complexity piece-meal, each new subsystem as it is introduced to the game environment. Encountered as a whole, it can be daunting. And, as Rob has pointed out, each subsystem has its own backyard of FAQ and errata and board post clarifications.
If you don't find all of that challenging, cool. Neither do I, personally, because I've already invested a lot of time and effort in learning the new systems. (That's why I build reasonably complicated PCs: to learn how the new systems work, so I can be a better GM when a PC with a similar build hits the table.) But you are getting push-back because you are coming across as claiming that there is something wrong with someone who *does* find Standard PFS rules to be overwhelming.