|
Is it a good idea for any player to have at least one Core and one Standard character?
I've made my first character and successfully played my first scenario. Now looking at making other characters to have a variety to choose from. I just like playing. I really, really like playing, but I don't know how often I'll run into the ability to play the Core character. (As I understand it Core only plays with Core right?)
|
The answer probably depends on your local scene more than anything else. If there are core and standard games running regularly then it makes perfect sense to have both types of characters ready to go, but if there is only one type of game played locally then there isn't much reason to worry about the other type of character unless you plan to attend conventions where the other campaign is running.
In my local area I am the only GM who has run Core games, and while I hope that it gets more popular I don't know how many of the other GMs are keen on running games for it so my Core GM baby might only get played at cons until such a time as Core grows around here.
You are best off talking with people who you play with locally to see what options there are for games and make your decision depending on what opportunities you expect to have to play.
|
It's worth having at least one of both types. Only a Core character can join a Core scenario. But either can join a Standard scenario. The cravet is that any character used in a Standard session automatically becomes Standard. Thus a Core character can (accidentally or intentionally) become a Standard character. Conversely a Standard character can never become a Core character.
This is important. For character creation and general play a Core character can only use the core books, so mainly the Players Guide. Even the PFS faction guide isn't allowed in Core. The only way for such a character to gain access to non-core options is to have a Core flagged chronicle that lists it. For example my monk Xao Li Quin is Core. But one of my chronicles for that character grants me access to buying ghost blanch and silver blanch, which are from an additional resource.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need to have any character you are not intending to play. If you find that you are going to play a Core game, it is simple to make one on the spot. If you have a concept, it's very helpful to have the character prepared and registered beforehand, but not required.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
It's worth having at least one of both types. Only a Core character can join a Core scenario. But either can join a Standard scenario. The cravet is that any character used in a Standard session automatically becomes Standard. Thus a Core character can (accidentally or intentionally) become a Standard character. Conversely a Standard character can never become a Core character.
This is important. For character creation and general play a Core character can only use the core books, so mainly the Players Guide. Even the PFS faction guide isn't allowed in Core. The only way for such a character to gain access to non-core options is to have a Core flagged chronicle that lists it. For example my monk Xao Li Quin is Core. But one of my chronicles for that character grants me access to buying ghost blanch and silver blanch, which are from an additional resource.
Actually, you can't use the APG. CORE means CRB only, not even hardcover books from the core line.
|
|
Sorry, I've played D&D for decades. it's terminology has become kind of standard for me. When I say "players guide" I refer to THE core book used by players, not anything published after it. Thus in my mind "core books" means "players guide (or core rule book in this case), Dungeon Masters Guide (Game master's Guide here) and Monster Manuel (or Bestiary as Pathfinder calls it). These are the three books you need at the very least to run a game.
If I was talking about the Advanced Players Guide, I would have actually stated Advanced Players Guide.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a Core character.
I may start one when I've played so many of the 1-5 scenarios that I have trouble finding a session I can play in. Until then, I prefer having more options.
how is NOT having a Core character "...having more options"? Isn't that restricting you more? Means you can't play Core games, right?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
how is NOT having a Core character "...having more options"? Isn't that restricting you more? Means you can't play Core games, right?I don't have a Core character.
I may start one when I've played so many of the 1-5 scenarios that I have trouble finding a session I can play in. Until then, I prefer having more options.
There have not been any occasions where lacking a core character has prevented me from playing.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have not been any occasions where lacking a core character has prevented me from playing.And I have seen CORE games switched to Standard several times because one player had no CORE PC - and refused to run an Iconic with a new number. So everyone else had to pull out alternate (Standard) PCs.
I don't think anyone in our area would support such a switch. If the game is advertised as CORE, that is what it will be.
Personally, I would consider it very rude for someone to come in insisting that a table switch like that. If such a situation came up, I would run the Iconic and allocate a new character number for it.
|
|
That's nothing! Last Standard session my local PFS table ran we had a walkup. There was plenty of time since everyone showed up an hour before the session was scheduled to start. And he had almost all the Pathfinder books in PFS legal pdf form in his personal Dropbox folder, yet had never actually played.
Rather then play the pregen cleric that had been recommended... He made a kitsune haunted spiritualist. Spiritualists are complicated enough at base.
Thankfully the class and archtype were so confusing he did end up playing Kyra that session, with plans to read up on the class and archtype.
*frowns* Wait, misremembering I think. I know the haunted spiritualist was recent. Was it an online game? Or in person. Know the guy had never played before.
|
|
And I have seen CORE games switched to Standard several times because one player had no CORE PC - and refused to run an Iconic with a new number. So everyone else had to pull out alternate (Standard) PCs.There have not been any occasions where lacking a core character has prevented me from playing.how is NOT having a Core character "...having more options"? Isn't that restricting you more? Means you can't play Core games, right?I don't have a Core character.
I may start one when I've played so many of the 1-5 scenarios that I have trouble finding a session I can play in. Until then, I prefer having more options.
To be fair if I knowingly showed up at a Core game I'd either play a pregen or have a level 1 character made up (to more-than-likely later apply non-core credit to).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I have seen CORE games switched to Standard several times because one player had no CORE PC - and refused to run an Iconic with a new number. So everyone else had to pull out alternate (Standard) PCs.
How does that not fall under the rule of don't be a jerk. If I was running (or playing) a core scenario and one player tried insisting that I let them play with a non-core PC, I would politely insist that they not play at all. Seems far less disruptive to tell one player to stop being a jerk than to make everyone else change characters.
|
|
At least some of those instances may be the person not realizing they are forcing everyone to switch characters or have their Core character change format.
Speaking of which, let's hypothetically say I have a core character with a plethora of chronicles earned already. Now let's assume someone joins the table and sneaks in something that's not Core, a feat or piece of equipment not listed on any of their chronicles (ghost blanch for example). The GM doesn't notice this till mid way through the scenario when that person uses Ghost Blanch on their arrows before fighting a wraith. When he checks the player's chronicles he realizes this was a Standard character, not Core.
For this situation, if I'd already earned many of the same chronicles in Standard on another character what happens? And would this still count against my Core credit for playing in those scenarios even though the character has been forced to be Standard?
|
|
For this situation, if I'd already earned many of the same chronicles in Standard on another character what happens? And would this still count against my Core credit for playing in those scenarios even though the character has been forced to be Standard?
This situation has been addressed previously. The short answer is work with your VC. Having a table's worth of characters forced into standard is squarely in "jerk" territory, and your officers will help you resolve it.
|
I am not a fan of Core. I like options. So I do not run or play Core games. I would never force a table to change to just suit me. If the table / game is Core, I will just find other things to do. There are tons of things that I like to do. Some are as simple as just reading a good book. Forcing others to play in a way to just suit you is being a "jerk" imho.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Someone showing up with a Standard character to a Core game is the same to me as someone showing up with an out of tier character. He simply can't play that character.
I'm not going to call him a jerk, he just doesn't get to play that character. I wouldn't let him play a L9 character in a 3-7 scenario, and this is the same.
|
|
I am not a fan of Core. I like options. So I do not run or play Core games. I would never force a table to change to just suit me. If the table / game is Core, I will just find other things to do. There are tons of things that I like to do. Some are as simple as just reading a good book. Forcing others to play in a way to just suit you is being a "jerk" imho.
Well in running a core game the dm should not really have to adjust. Your PCs are just from one book. I guess if you like dming for a vast amount of choices. But if players wanted a core game I will gladly run them a core game.
|
|
Some folks see Core as another option, but others see it as something that takes away their chance to play (because they refuse to play core) and so they react very negatively to it.
I have yet to see anyone really get riled up about it in my area, but there are a few people who have expressed that they aren't interested in playing core. From the attitude some people show on the boards here I think there must be some local scenes that have been impacted more by core play than what my region sees.
|
|
Core is good. Dare I say I prefer Core now. The glut got to me and I'm a glutton. I loved all the archetypes and options and gear, but everyone has their breaking point and I hit mine. If you havn't hit yours yet then more power to you. But I find there is a challenging simplicity to Core that breeds better players and characters. Options are less likely to bail you out of trouble in Core. I think it lends itselfs to more dependence on your team and tactics. But as my children constantly remind me, what do I know.
|
|
Unless I am running a full caster, I think I would have some difficulty with Core.
Also, I see a number of PCs that are cliche to the point of being ridiculous. It not that it's all bad, just way more often than I expected.
After I DM'd a game, in which I asked the players what their PCs looked like, and had one respond "Average, Human, Fighter", and got rather flustered when I asked for more details, like, height, clothing, race, to which were mostly answered with "Average", I got a bit let down, but then, later, inspired.
With this, I built a Core PC that is an Average Human Fighter, with Average stats, and fights with your average Longsword.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
why all the core hate?
In my case it isn't hate, just a lack of interest. Why should I play in something that doesn't interest me?
For many the existence of Core means they can play some more. Those who have been in PFS Organized Play for a long time have likely played most of the previous season scenarios. They can play scenarios faster than they are produced.
For others, they are just starting out in PFS organized play and may not have many of the Pathfinder rulebooks. Starting in Core keeps the investment much more manageable, and does not preclude them from later branching out into standard mode. If I were just starting in PFS Organized Play, I would be very interested in Core Campaign.
I'm not in either of those situations. There are still enough scenarios for the characters I have. I already had several of the other books by the time Core came into existence.
I can understand and support having a Core campaign. Some people would have a hard time playing without it. I just am not in either of the groups that has a strong reason to want to play Core.
|
This is why, when Core was rolled out, my Lodge added days and time slots to our current Standard lineups, so Core replaced nothing, and nobody lost opportunities to play.
I have seven Core characters. Levels 5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1. I bring them with all my other characters to any session. We've found that if a Standard game ends early (or we had a session of something replayable, like The Confirmation), we often have enough time to squeeze in a Core game.
Furthermore, I really enjoy planning characters to go through certain story arcs. Storylines that I was unable to partake in fully with my other characters because many leveled out of Tier before the scenario was released.
I have experienced animosity against Core, and it baffles me as well. It probably comes from ppl who found their normal Standard sessions replaced with Core sessions, but that's the fault of the organizers, not Core.
|
|
Misplaced animosity is the only thing I would expect.
Still, I have gotten a few "Well, I prefer a real gamer's game. Most of those who prefer Classic are just min-maxing rollplayers anyways." types of comments.
This is in no way a common thing. It does seriously give me a "dafuq?" reaction when it does happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, one of the more fun options in Core (for me) has been creating character concepts that seem like they're not Core.
I have a "Hellknight". He rides a black horse, primarily uses a lance, wears ominous looking Black Dragonhide Full Plate, is LN, worships Asmodeus (unholy symbol and all), and casts a plethora of Fire spells such as Produce Flame and Flaming Sphere.
He's a Fighter-1/Druid-X with a Convention Boon that increases his Druid Level by 1 for purposes of determining his Horse Companion.
But I've had people assume he's a Paladin, a Cleric, a Cavalier, or tell me that Hellknights aren't Core. It's fun replying with, "He's 100% Core legal".
I plan to take him through as many of the Hellknight scenarios as possible.
|
|
Personally, I'd say it's dependent on your location, if there was Core play around here I would take part, since there isn't I don't bother. If your location separates events by day, no need to bring both, if core games run on the same day at the same place as standard games, I personally would bring both just in case.
I have 1 core character with 2 parts of Silverhex on it, but I don't even really bother counting that, it's mostly just a GM baby I created in case I needed to run a core table at one of the various cons I went to this year.
Core hasn't had much interest locally I believe for a couple of reasons.
1 Our FLGS does a lot for us and doesn't want to run core.
2 The most prolific players are almost universally in at least 1 if not more APs,
3 We offer tables twice a week as is, and relatively few players are actually at the saturation point where they can almost never play unless it's a new scenario.
|
|
I have no problem with Core, but as yet I don't have a Core character.
Unfortunately, I have difficulty reigning in a character concept once it starts germinating.
I tried building a Draconic Sorcerer (with the intent of working toward Dragon Disciple) to have on hand for Core games, decided a fire-related bloodline (red/brass/gold) was a bit too generic for my tastes, and opted for blue. In order to get the most out of my blasting spells, I thought I'd go Crossblooded with Elemental [air] so that I could have some limited admixture. Idea was taking shape as an up-and-coming Qadiran Trade Princess with just a dash of Misaka Mikoto (and drifting away from a Dragon Disciple build, but that's an aside), but the instant I decided I wanted to add in Crossblooded (UM), the character could no longer be Core.
I could either ditch the Crossblooded (which, in my mind, had become more vital to the character than Dragon Disciple was), or go back to the drawing board.
Dragon Disciple attempt number two: Shoanti from the Cinderlands.
Hey, isn't there a feat for Shoanti tribal tattoos? (ISWG)
Attempt number three: Tian refugee in Varisia.
Hmm, this trait lets your bloodline be tied to an Outer Dragon. (People of the Stars)
And so on. Ended up with four or five half-formed Draconic Sorcerers floating around in my head, not one of them Core legal.
I guess I just like my options too much...
|
|
why all the core hate? I am baffled.
I play D&D in all it's forms some are better than others but I am amazed by the animosity between it's versions. Even something as closely related as core pfs and standard.
Not sure...
As a player I prefer Standard. But then that's because I've played D&D since the late 80's. I've played so many fighters, thieves (rogues), clerics, and wizards it's not even funny. In part this is due to AD&D 2nd Edition having hard to achieve requirements to play anything other then those classes. Since 3rd Edition came out I've also played a stupidly high number of monks, sorcerers, paladins, and bards. And eventually you just run out of ideas for unique concepts with those classes. I've found I love the kineticist class, and am seriously intrigued by spiritualists and occultists. These aren't options in Core though.
I was kind of reluctance to make a Core character for local PFS sessions. But I did so, and I find I'm rather enjoying them. But as a GM myself I can definitely see the appeal of running core. I only have PFS legal copies of 2 of the Additional Resource books. And I flat out don't have a copy of most of the books, folios, and what not. As such for my gaming group there was one guy in it that really worried me balance wise. He by preference only uses classes from the Advanced Players Guide. Which to be honest seem kind of overpowered.
Then again he may be misrepresenting the effectiveness of those characters. Probably not though. He was all excited about his "min/maxed" synergist summoner. Once I had a copy of the books he'd used I through together a test build, turned out he was 100% right on the power... but it was a fairly average build. Still not sure if he was running his alchemist correctly.
With Core you don't have to worry about such things throwing the game out of balance. You still get corner cases, but those corners aren't so common it becomes a tetrahedron.
|
|
Globally: Since core is the "solution" to the replay problem, we likely won't be getting a better solution to it any time soon.
At some locals core took over some slots, sometimes the only night people could make.
It takes up slots at conventions that could be used for something else. I know I've skipped days at conventions that I might have otherwise gone to if they scheduel had something i could play on it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, everyone has a few options.
A] Have CORE PCs, complain about Standard games.
B] Have Standard PCs, complain about CORE games.
C] Have both, be happy.Bonus choice!
D] GM. CORE or Standard doesn't affect your side of the screen.
E] All of the above. That way, you get to play everything AND complain about everything.