Irrevocability of switching to non-Core Campaign


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Hi folks,

I'm curious about the rationale for the decision to irrevocably switch characters over to the non-Core Campaign once they have played in a non-Core game. As long as the character doesn't have any options from non-core sources, why restrict a player from moving back and forth between the two play "modes"?

I'm envisioning the following sort of scenario: a new player joins a group, playing PFS Core. She plays several games and enjoys it. Then she goes to a local convention, sees "Pathfinder Society" offered, and plays a game. Then she happily takes her character back to her local group after the convention and is told that she can't play their games anymore because her character is "non-core".

I totally understand restricting characters from rejoining the Core campaign once they have taken non-Core options. But I'm curious why, if a character still obeys all the "Core Only" rules, it would not be allowed to play another Core game after earning a non-core Chronicle sheet.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tamago wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm curious about the rationale for the decision to irrevocably switch characters over to the non-Core Campaign once they have played in a non-Core game. As long as the character doesn't have any options from non-core sources, why restrict a player from moving back and forth between the two play "modes"?

The player isn't restricted at all. Just make characters for both campaigns.

The point of locking down Coreness is to keep the flavor of the campaign as "Core". It kind of loses the intent if players are allowed to shuttlecock between the two modes, and flood the Core campaign with non-Core mechanics and items.


LazarX wrote:
Tamago wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm curious about the rationale for the decision to irrevocably switch characters over to the non-Core Campaign once they have played in a non-Core game. As long as the character doesn't have any options from non-core sources, why restrict a player from moving back and forth between the two play "modes"?

The player isn't restricted at all. Just make characters for both campaigns.

The point of locking down Coreness is to keep the flavor of the campaign as "Core". It kind of loses the intent if players are allowed to shuttlecock between the two modes, and flood the Core campaign with non-Core mechanics and items.

How so? "As long as the character doesn't have any options from non-core sources", how is the Core campaign being flooded with non-Core mechanics and items?

You certainly wouldn't want to bring non-Core characters into Core, but a Core character who plays a non-Core game doesn't automatically pick up non-Core abilities, even though they're technically a non-Core character.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The core character benefits from being at a non-core table both directly and indirectly:

Directly: Can have non-core spells and effects cast on him (Vanish, Greater Infernal Healing, Family Subdomain ability Community Ties, etc) as well as use items given to him by party members ("here's some ghost blanch arrows").

Indirectly: A core backline squishy never is threatened because the super-reach abyssal longarm bloodrager (who was hasted by the early-haste Summoner) never let anyone near the rear.


Sammy T wrote:

The core character benefits from being at a non-core table both directly and indirectly:

Directly: Can have non-core spells and effects cast on him (Vanish, Greater Infernal Healing, Family Subdomain ability Community Ties, etc) as well as use items given to him by party members ("here's some ghost blanch arrows").

Indirectly: A core backline squishy never is threatened because the super-reach abyssal longarm bloodrager (who was hasted by the early-haste Summoner) never let anyone near the rear.

But none of that, other than survival, comes back to the Core campaign with him.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

LazarX wrote:

The player isn't restricted at all. Just make characters for both campaigns.

If you have enough play opportunities to have multiple characters of different levels in each campaign, that's great. But if a player only has a single PC of moderately high level, it'd be frustrating to be unable to play with the "core" group anymore because she dabbled in the "normal" campaign, even once.

4/5

thejeff wrote:
Sammy T wrote:
Directly: Can have non-core spells and effects cast on him (Vanish, Greater Infernal Healing, Family Subdomain ability Community Ties, etc) as well as use items given to him by party members ("here's some ghost blanch arrows").
But none of that, other than survival, comes back to the Core campaign with him.

A wizard can bring those spells back with him. Sitting at a non-core game every couple levels would allow a wizard to easily acquire every non-core spell he wants. Especially, if he arranges to always do so with his buddy's non-core wizard.


GinoA wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sammy T wrote:
Directly: Can have non-core spells and effects cast on him (Vanish, Greater Infernal Healing, Family Subdomain ability Community Ties, etc) as well as use items given to him by party members ("here's some ghost blanch arrows").
But none of that, other than survival, comes back to the Core campaign with him.
A wizard can bring those spells back with him. Sitting at a non-core game every couple levels would allow a wizard to easily acquire every non-core spell he wants. Especially, if he arranges to always do so with his buddy's non-core wizard.

That would, at the very least, be tacky. Easily ruled against though and hardly worth the complete ban we have in place.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tamago wrote:
LazarX wrote:

The player isn't restricted at all. Just make characters for both campaigns.

If you have enough play opportunities to have multiple characters of different levels in each campaign, that's great. But if a player only has a single PC of moderately high level, it'd be frustrating to be unable to play with the "core" group anymore because she dabbled in the "normal" campaign, even once.

Then don't dabble.. or Dabble with a pregen of the level you want to toy with dedicate the XP to a new level 1 character. There ARE plenty of play opportunities, especially if you open yourself to online options.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's an issue of bookkeeping, it's waaaaaayyyyyyy easier to keep things straight.

"How did you get that non-core item?"

"Oh, here it is from my chronicle sheet"

is way easier to track than,

"How did you get that non-core item?"

"Oh, you see, this one time, in a non-core module......"

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
But none of that, other than survival, comes back to the Core campaign with him.

That's a pretty big caveat considering it's more likely you as an individual will use less resources & have easier encounters in the standard campaign if you're being carried by folks with the newest, shiniest synergized options.

Let's say you were a L6 core barbarian and you fought the same encounter in with a Core party and a Standard party--I think we can generally agree that the Standard party will have an easier go of it on average. The Core character will start to accrue subtle advantages when they return to Core--maybe they have more charges left on their CLW wand thanks to a Life Oracle, maybe they didn't have to use an Oil of Daylight because there was an Aasimar, maybe they never used their Ghost Touch arrows because a caster used a Mnemonic Vestment to use a Mass Ghostbane Dirge scroll...so, when that character returns to the Core game, he has a material advantage over those people who maybe had to use up more of their wand charges and burned another 2PP, used their oil of daylight and spent 750 gp for another, or bought Restorations because they struggled with Shadows who ambushed them.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sammy T wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But none of that, other than survival, comes back to the Core campaign with him.

That's a pretty big caveat considering it's more likely you as an individual will use less resources & have easier encounters in the standard campaign if you're being carried by folks with the newest, shiniest synergized options.

Let's say you were a L6 core barbarian and you fought the same encounter in with a Core party and a Standard party--I think we can generally agree that the Standard party will have an easier go of it on average. The Core character will start to accrue subtle advantages when they return to Core--maybe they have more charges left on their CLW wand thanks to a Life Oracle, maybe they didn't have to use an Oil of Daylight because there was an Aasimar, maybe they never used their Ghost Touch arrows because a caster used a Mnemonic Vestment to use a Mass Ghostbane Dirge scroll...so, when that character returns to the Core game, he has a material advantage over those people who maybe had to use up more of their wand charges and burned another 2PP, used their oil of daylight and spent 750 gp for another, or bought Restorations because they struggled with Shadows who ambushed them.

That's all true... but the Core campaign isn't being promoted as "Hard Mode." In fact, it's specifically being touted as beginner-friendly. So to say that Core games will somehow be tainted by characters who have had an easier time because they played in non-Core games elsewhere isn't really the issue.

2/5

Core mode isnt marketed as "hard mode" but every experience I've had with it vastly outdoes any hard mode options out there.
More to the question for reporting sake it is easier to just keep them separate.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What I think needs to happen more is that Game days and Conventions need to more accurately market their experiences before. Nobody should be arriving at a Game day or convention without knowing in advance if the game they are attending is either core or non core. It should be known to all well in advance.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Tamago wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm curious about the rationale for the decision to irrevocably switch characters over to the non-Core Campaign once they have played in a non-Core game. As long as the character doesn't have any options from non-core sources, why restrict a player from moving back and forth between the two play "modes"?

I'm envisioning the following sort of scenario: a new player joins a group, playing PFS Core. She plays several games and enjoys it. Then she goes to a local convention, sees "Pathfinder Society" offered, and plays a game. Then she happily takes her character back to her local group after the convention and is told that she can't play their games anymore because her character is "non-core".

I totally understand restricting characters from rejoining the Core campaign once they have taken non-Core options. But I'm curious why, if a character still obeys all the "Core Only" rules, it would not be allowed to play another Core game after earning a non-core Chronicle sheet.

Thanks!

One of the reasons, if not the major reason, is database-related, as it is easier to set up a one-way pass-through, and not have to add a gated pass-through back from the more permissive campaign.

Remember, a Core PC going Standard has nothing that is not legal in Standard. A Standard PC has to be individually audited to make sure that they don't have something illegal for Core that is not covered by a Chronicle.

Best to make sure that, if you run a Core campaign, you educate your players on the differences, and that, if they decide to play their Core PC in a non-Core game, they will need to start a new PC for Core.

4/5 *

If playing one non-core game is OK, what about 2? More? And who decides? Did they benefit from non-Core options during the game and just didn't keep them?

The solution we have now is simple, but has some corner cases which cause problems. A solution that covers all bases, but is too complex to actually administer, is not a solution at all.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer keeping characters separate for the sake of simplicity more than anything.

The one way core to regular PFS transition for characters is a good inclusion, since regular PFS is more popular and enables core only tables to still recruit for PFS.

The fact that those characters can't come back to core is important as well, as it ensures that core is treated as a distinctly different campaign mode. That said, everyone I play core with are the same peopleI play PFS with. We have had a few PFS people that don't like core for one reason or another, but most participate in both campaigns. And we haven't encountered situations where people want to transition from core to PFS, then back to core.

3/5

Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:
Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to "guest star" and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.

I'm not sure what you mean by "super-busted Easy Mode character", but the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

4/5

I'd say that early on is beginner friendly. I don't think that still holds true when you get to the higher tiers, specifically with the newer seasons.

You can still make a few twinked out concepts with just the Core Rulebook alone, so I really don't think the argument of "it removes OP characters" is a valid one.

Ultimately, the two are separate for the sake of bookkeeping. The plus side is that a Core character can go Standard campaign at any time. I wonder how many have already done that just to retrain?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mattastrophic wrote:

Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.

-Matt

Of course, no discussion of Core would be complete without gratuitous insults directed at Standard players.


Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.
Of course, no discussion of Core would be complete without gratuitous insults directed at Standard players.

Well good, now we've checked that box and can move on. :)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

thejeff wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.
Of course, no discussion of Core would be complete without gratuitous insults directed at Standard players.
Well good, now we've checked that box and can move on. :)

Nah, still gotta squeeze in a roleplay vs. rollplay somewhere.

Grand Lodge

Dave Setty wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.
Of course, no discussion of Core would be complete without gratuitous insults directed at Standard players.
Well good, now we've checked that box and can move on. :)
Nah, still gotta squeeze in a roleplay vs. rollplay somewhere.

And Paladins falling.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Requiring that the entire table be made up of Core characters also means that a super-busted Easy Mode character is simply not allowed to join the table and wreck the Core experience. I am very glad to know that Core means Core.
Of course, no discussion of Core would be complete without gratuitous insults directed at Standard players.
Well good, now we've checked that box and can move on. :)
Nah, still gotta squeeze in a roleplay vs. rollplay somewhere.
And Paladins falling.

That's only for alignment threads where that's a mandatory inclusion.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I still maintain that Core should be "Core Rulebook or chronicle sheets only". None of this shifty trying to sneak more things into Core crap. If that were the case then transferring characters between campaigns wouldn't be the big issue it is now.


Granted, I don't play pathfinder society at all, but that said, this seems needlessly restrictive. As long as you don't have non-core stuff on your character sheet when you come back, you should be allowed to play in whatever damn adventurers you want.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Constantine wrote:
Granted, I don't play pathfinder society at all, but that said, this seems needlessly restrictive. As long as you don't have non-core stuff on your character sheet when you come back, you should be allowed to play in whatever damn adventurers you want.

To be honest, I think you aren't understanding the restriction that is being referenced.

For PFS, you can play the exact same scenarios, modules and AP segments in both Core and Standard mode. You can, even, play it for credit once in each mode.

If you want to play Core, however, you have to play a Core PC who has never been used in a Standard mode game. That is the restriction, and it has a basis in multiple sources, one the way the two modes work, and the other in the way the reporting system works.

In the reporting system, once a PC has had a non-Core game reported on them, they are no longer Core, so no longer eligible to be used in a Core mode game.

For the way the modes work, Core is very restricted in what is available to the PCs in it. Core Rule Book, faction material (including traits) from the Guide to PFS OP, the languages on the blog, the traits form the Web Trait document. What the PC finds on chronicles.

Now, a Core PC, in general, is going to have a bit more difficulty with some games than others. Waking Rune, for instance, is going to be a tough game, even in normal mode for a Core PC. Now, if a Core PC were to play it with a bunch of Standard Mode PCs, and be able to go back to Core mode, does the unlock that scenario provide go to Core mode, or stay in Standard mode?

4/5

thejeff wrote:
the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

But if Core characters can play Standard mode and come back to Core, there is nothing to prevent a Standard mode character from sitting at a Core table.

If a Standard character sits in at a Core table, then the table just reports as Standard. The Core characters just promise not to bring anything back to Core at their next Core game, so they can continue in Core. There is nothing that separates the two campaigns any more.

The biggest problem with this is if somebody at the Core table already has credit for the scenario in the Standard campaign. Suddenly, they can't play this scenario, because the table is now reporting as Standard.

I think the most important thing we need to do is try to avoid the confusion in the first place. We're starting up convention season, so we're looking for ways to help make sure Core tables and Standard tables are clearly identified so that no player accidently loses a Core character.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

But if Core characters can play Standard mode and come back to Core, there is nothing to prevent a Standard mode character from sitting at a Core table.

If a Standard character sits in at a Core table, then the table just reports as Standard. The Core characters just promise not to bring anything back to Core at their next Core game, so they can continue in Core. There is nothing that separates the two campaigns any more.

The thing that would prevent the Standard character from sitting at the Core table would be if they had used any non-Core resources for their character. If there is nothing on the Standard character's sheet that isn't from the Core sources, then why not let them play in a Core game?

(I realize that the two "modes" are separate for reporting purposes right now, and that what I just said wouldn't work in actual play given the current rules. But to me, it seems reasonable to allow characters to mix & match "modes", as long as a "core" table only has PCs built in "core mode".)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tamago wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

But if Core characters can play Standard mode and come back to Core, there is nothing to prevent a Standard mode character from sitting at a Core table.

If a Standard character sits in at a Core table, then the table just reports as Standard. The Core characters just promise not to bring anything back to Core at their next Core game, so they can continue in Core. There is nothing that separates the two campaigns any more.

The thing that would prevent the Standard character from sitting at the Core table would be if they had used any non-Core resources for their character. If there is nothing on the Standard character's sheet that isn't from the Core sources, then why not let them play in a Core game?

(I realize that the two "modes" are separate for reporting purposes right now, and that what I just said wouldn't work in actual play given the current rules. But to me, it seems reasonable to allow characters to mix & match "modes", as long as a "core" table only has PCs built in "core mode".)

Just because it "seems reasonable" to you, doesn't mean it is reasonable. There are enough problems with reporting logistics under the current system as it is. Having people flip-flop at will would make the whole thing explode.


kinevon wrote:
Constantine wrote:
Granted, I don't play pathfinder society at all, but that said, this seems needlessly restrictive. As long as you don't have non-core stuff on your character sheet when you come back, you should be allowed to play in whatever damn adventurers you want.

To be honest, I think you aren't understanding the restriction that is being referenced.

For PFS, you can play the exact same scenarios, modules and AP segments in both Core and Standard mode. You can, even, play it for credit once in each mode.

If you want to play Core, however, you have to play a Core PC who has never been used in a Standard mode game. That is the restriction, and it has a basis in multiple sources, one the way the two modes work, and the other in the way the reporting system works.

In the reporting system, once a PC has had a non-Core game reported on them, they are no longer Core, so no longer eligible to be used in a Core mode game.

For the way the modes work, Core is very restricted in what is available to the PCs in it. Core Rule Book, faction material (including traits) from the Guide to PFS OP, the languages on the blog, the traits form the Web Trait document. What the PC finds on chronicles.

Now, a Core PC, in general, is going to have a bit more difficulty with some games than others. Waking Rune, for instance, is going to be a tough game, even in normal mode for a Core PC. Now, if a Core PC were to play it with a bunch of Standard Mode PCs, and be able to go back to Core mode, does the unlock that scenario provide go to Core mode, or stay in Standard mode?

I do understand. I read the whole thread, and I've read other threads about PFS play as I've been thinking about getting into it. I understand the difference between core and standard. In your post above, you seem to indicate that core is supposed to be some kind of hard mode. Nothing paizo has put out says this is the case. Perhaps its you who really don't understand the difference between core and standard? Regardless, I don't feel core or standard should restrict what you play, as long as you yourself don't have anything on your character sheet that isn't core, you should be allowed to play. And, I certainly don't think that because someone made a mistake and had something non-core on their character sheet, and the gm didn't notice, that all the players at that table should be restricted from core, which seems to be happening.


LazarX wrote:
Tamago wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

But if Core characters can play Standard mode and come back to Core, there is nothing to prevent a Standard mode character from sitting at a Core table.

If a Standard character sits in at a Core table, then the table just reports as Standard. The Core characters just promise not to bring anything back to Core at their next Core game, so they can continue in Core. There is nothing that separates the two campaigns any more.

The thing that would prevent the Standard character from sitting at the Core table would be if they had used any non-Core resources for their character. If there is nothing on the Standard character's sheet that isn't from the Core sources, then why not let them play in a Core game?

(I realize that the two "modes" are separate for reporting purposes right now, and that what I just said wouldn't work in actual play given the current rules. But to me, it seems reasonable to allow characters to mix & match "modes", as long as a "core" table only has PCs built in "core mode".)

Just because it "seems reasonable" to you, doesn't mean it is reasonable. There are enough problems with reporting logistics under the current system as it is. Having people flip-flop at will would make the whole thing explode.

Well, the reverse works as well. If you find something unreasonable, does not mean it is. I agree that there are problems with the reporting logistics now, but those will be ironed out in time.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Constantine wrote:


I do understand. I read the whole thread, and I've read other threads about PFS play as I've been thinking about getting into it. I understand the difference between core and standard. In your post above, you seem to indicate that core is supposed to be some kind of hard mode. Nothing paizo has put out says this is the case. Perhaps its you who really don't understand the difference between core and standard? Regardless, I don't feel core or standard should restrict what you play, as long as you yourself don't have anything on your character sheet that isn't core, you should be allowed to play. And, I certainly don't think that because someone made a mistake and had something non-core on their character sheet, and the gm didn't notice, that all the players at that table should be restricted from core, which seems to be happening.

Let me get this straight--You have never played PFS, and you are arguing about how the CORE campaign is going to be handled?

The CORE campaign has been brought in as a separate, distinct campaign. Never the two shall cross. This is a good thing. Keep them apart.

For long-term players, these scenarios are a kind of replay. There will be some familiarity with the scenarios that have been played before, but that will be somewhat balanced by the fact that the characters will tend to be weaker than characters built with the plethora of options from the legacy campaign.

For new players, the limited amount of books to be purchased and the simpler ruleset will lower the bar for entry, allowing those with trepidation to join more easily. Their characters won't be overshadowed by the existing player base, and they will have less to master to jump in and start running games.

If you have never played PFS before, you have a wide-open scope of what and how to play. You have not 'used up' all of the scenario options, as some who have been playing for six years have. (I have only been playing for three years, and there are dates I have to stay home because of what is offered). You have a choice, Legacy or CORE. Mixing the two takes that choice away from people who have already completed many years of scenarios.

About hard mode, here is an example:

Caster Level is very important for spellcasters. There are no feats to boost Caster Level in the core rulebook, and other effects are rare or quite expensive, like an orange-prism ioun stone. In contrast, my first character started with the feats Varisian Tattoo and Spell Specialization. She was caster level four with a scaling spell at first level. Swarms were never a problem for her parties.


OK, sure, but where did Paizo say Core was intended as hard mode? Does it actually say that anywhere?

And, yes, as someone who is interested in PFS play, but has never before participated, and a member of these forums, I will express my concerns about this topic.

Sovereign Court 4/5

Constantine wrote:

OK, sure, but where did Paizo say Core was intended as hard mode? Does it actually say that anywhere?

And, yes, as someone who is interested in PFS play, but has never before participated, and a member of these forums, I will express my concerns about this topic.

Nowhere has anyone ever said this was hard mode.

You are more than welcome to you concerns, however until you've become part fo the PFS community and have played and GMed a lot, your concerns may not have the context required to fully understand the differences and nuances that exist in an OP environment that don't show up in home games.

These are seperate parallel campaigns and never the twain shall meet. Period.


Dave Baker wrote:
Constantine wrote:

OK, sure, but where did Paizo say Core was intended as hard mode? Does it actually say that anywhere?

And, yes, as someone who is interested in PFS play, but has never before participated, and a member of these forums, I will express my concerns about this topic.

Nowhere has anyone ever said this was hard mode.

You are more than welcome to you concerns, however until you've become part fo the PFS community and have played and GMed a lot, your concerns may not have the context required to fully understand the differences and nuances that exist in an OP environment that don't show up in home games.

These are seperate parallel campaigns and never the twain shall meet. Period.

Except the phrase "hard mode" keeps being used. In Desolate Harmony's post just above, for example.

And the campaigns do meet. If they could never meet then you couldn't move a Core character to standard, but you can. You can even do it accidently, though hopefully that will be rare. An entire table (minus one) of Core characters can be turned into standard characters if a standard character sits down with them.

Sovereign Court 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to ask and ensure that everybody at the table has a Core character.

And yes, if nobody bothers asking, and someone plays with a Standard character, then it's nobody's fault but your own when the game gets reported as Standard and your character is shifted over.

All Desolate Harmony mentioned about the game being 'hard' is that you can't be a 4th level caster as a 1st level character. Let's stop using the word 'hard' to define Core and start using the word 'easy' to describe Standard and 'regular' difficulty to describe Core.

The original game never intended a 1st level character to be a 4th level caster.

"Hard mode" is a very specific set of conditions played on a very limited set of scenarios. The OP annecdotally suggested that several Core scenarios are more challenging than "Hard mode" Standard.

Core is more challenging in the fact that 'no character is an island'. No character has some of the extremely over-powered options that exist in regular mode and can easily solo scenarios. You need to use teamwork to the extreme in Core mode as a result. It's a team game, not unlike <insert favourite team sports metaphor here>.

5/5 *****

Dave Baker wrote:

Core is more challenging in the fact that 'no character is an island'. No character has some of the extremely over-powered options that exist in regular mode and can easily solo scenarios. You need to use teamwork to the extreme in Core mode as a result. It's a team game, not unlike <insert favourite team sports metaphor here>.

The majority of the most powerful options are sitting right there in the CRB and I would expect a goodly number of 5-11th level full casters could very easily solo many scenarios. For some it would be actively easier than having to drag along a bunch of other party members because they could make use of the wide variety of stealth, scouting and divination abilities available to them without some yahoo kicking in the door first.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dave Baker wrote:
Let's [...] start using the word 'easy' to describe Standard and 'regular' difficulty to describe Core.

How 'bout let's not do that, since it's both insulting and completely false? Core was intended to be less complex, not harder. (It merely fails at the former; the latter was never claimed.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

andreww wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:

Core is more challenging in the fact that 'no character is an island'. No character has some of the extremely over-powered options that exist in regular mode and can easily solo scenarios. You need to use teamwork to the extreme in Core mode as a result. It's a team game, not unlike <insert favourite team sports metaphor here>.

The majority of the most powerful options are sitting right there in the CRB and I would expect a goodly number of 5-11th level full casters could very easily solo many scenarios. For some it would be actively easier than having to drag along a bunch of other party members because they could make use of the wide variety of stealth, scouting and divination abilities available to them without some yahoo kicking in the door first.

There's also the fact that the guy who'd otherwise make you drag a life oracle around will probably play a +cleric instead and might actually do something proactive.

On the other hand, you're more likely to get a rogue.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dave, Andrew, you guys obviously have axes to grind. Please take it elsewhere, because your repeated mantras aren't contributing in a positive manner.

-Matt

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mattastrophic wrote:
Please take it elsewhere,

Not sure where else I should respond to posts made in this thread.

Mattastrophic wrote:
because your repeated mantras

Repeated mantras? I have posted twice to this thread.

Mattastrophic wrote:
aren't contributing in a positive manner.

I responded to a suggestion to use deliberately insulting terminology with a suggestion not to. I'm trying to be as level headed as possible.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
because your repeated mantras
Repeated mantras? I have posted twice to this thread.

I count four.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
because your repeated mantras
Repeated mantras? I have posted twice to this thread.
I count four.

Ah, two last week. Didn't realize this was the same thread.

5/5 *****

Mattastrophic wrote:

Dave, Andrew, you guys obviously have axes to grind. Please take it elsewhere, because your repeated mantras aren't contributing in a positive manner.

-Matt

I will post as I choose thanks. I post entirely within the guidelines. Accusing me of having an axe to grind however seems to breach them so I would look at your own posting before complaining about others.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dave Baker wrote:


Core is more challenging in the fact that 'no character is an island'. No character has some of the extremely over-powered options that exist in regular mode and can easily solo scenarios. You need to use teamwork to the extreme in Core mode as a result. It's a team game, not unlike <insert favourite team sports metaphor here>.

That's what makes it "hard mode" to a lot of folks used to essentially soloing the game on raw power and munchkin builds. Team play becomes an atrophied skill.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

LazarX wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:


Core is more challenging in the fact that 'no character is an island'. No character has some of the extremely over-powered options that exist in regular mode and can easily solo scenarios. You need to use teamwork to the extreme in Core mode as a result. It's a team game, not unlike <insert favourite team sports metaphor here>.
That's what makes it "hard mode" to a lot of folks used to essentially soloing the game on raw power and munchkin builds. Team play becomes an atrophied skill.

Any good anecdotes about this? Actual situations where this sort of thing has happened, so I could give some advice to any players that want to try core? Anything specific you've got I'd like to hear.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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?

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Irrevocability of switching to non-Core Campaign All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.