|
So there has been at least one recent boon on a session chronicle sheet that allows 'any' PFS character to take a particular archetype. Does that apply to CORE characters as well?Is that what this would refer to?
No idea. I am not familiar with the boon/chronicle to which you are referring.
From the blog post, I point out this one bullet point:
"At no time may any trait, feat, equipment, magic item, skill, animal companion, familiar, or any other character option come from a source beyond these three resources unless it appears on a Chronicle sheet. Race boons found on Chronicle sheets may not be used in the Core Campaign."
While archetypes aren't specifically called out here (and they aren't called out elsewhere in the post), they would fall under, "...or any other character option..."
So, unless the campaign leadership says otherwise, I would presume that an boon on sceanrio's chronicle sheet which allowed a character to take an archetype is valid, and thus, the archetype is opened for that character.
I'll stand corrected if someone else shows me where they are explicitly prohibited (like races found on boons, for example, are expressly prohibited.)
|
But I think even the very best Core characters are significantly helped as well. The extra spells, the good archetypes, the feats, the magic items, etc significantly help even the [insert whatever class you think is most powerful].
I agree that a highly optimized Core team can still easily defeat all but a few scenarios. But how often does that sit down at the table? And even that highly optimized team would win quicker with less charges of CLW used if they were Regular characters
I thought the point of CORE was that players didn't have access to extra spells, archetypes, anything outside of the CORE rules?
If that's a Gross Conceptual Error, please correct me?
Sorry, I was unclear. I was comparing Core campaign characters with Regular Campaign characters.
|
Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.I'd say about half wrong, depending on how you look at it.
The expanded game only increases the power levels over the maximum a little bit The dwarf druid that turns into a pouncing velociraptor and his pouncing velociraptor, the battlefield controling wizard, the two handed weapon using barbarian etc. do some power up.
But what the expanded game does is make a lot of bad options (dex fighter, two weapon fighting, rogue) go from bad to pretty badass, so instead of 2 competent people in a fight 3/4 or even your entire party can dish out some punishment. The expanded game makes bad options viable, so it vastly reduces the number of bad characters.
A party can almost double their damage going from fighter wizard healbot skill guy to fighter wizard unchained rogue Smashy cleric, and for social encounters they can mop the floor with it moving from skill guy to Fighter with skills, wizard with int to diplomacy, cleric with skillpoints and unchained rogue.
I agree that the expanded game helps some characters far more than others and that the strongest characters are helped far less.
But I think even the very best Core characters are significantly helped as well. The extra spells, the good archetypes, the feats, the magic items, etc significantly help even the [insert whatever class you think is most powerful].
I agree that a highly optimized Core team can still easily defeat all but a few scenarios. But how often does that sit down at the table? And even that highly optimized team would win quicker with less charges of CLW used if they were Regular characters
Core basically makes 2 things significantly more difficult - adamantine/hardness (for archers only), and swarms. Other than the ability to handle these invariably tedious and unfun mechanics, Standard doesn't add any substantial power beyond what's available in Core. Maybe some corner-case advantages, but nothing substantial. Maybe someone somewhere spent an extra wand charge or whatever, but is that actually worth the cost, or any cost at all?
|
Core basically makes 2 things significantly more difficult - adamantine/hardness (for archers only), and swarms.
"Significantly" is very much a stretch here.
There are plenty of AoE options in the CRB (plus, in most cases, you can just run away). Swarms have existed from the beginning. So long as you prepare for their possible appearance, you're fine.
Adamantine arrows as well. A quiver is only 1201 gp. I have two characters that have already bought one, and only one of them is a dedicated archer. Plus, a +4 ranged weapon overcomes DR/Adamantine, so that'll handle high level casters and Stoneskin.
Perhaps a change of perspective? Just imagine that newer sources made playing multiple concepts easier, not that reverting to Core makes things more difficult.
|
|
Core basically makes 2 things significantly more difficult - adamantine/hardness (for archers only), and swarms."Significantly" is very much a stretch here.
There are plenty of AoE options in the CRB (plus, in most cases, you can just run away). Swarms have existed from the beginning. So long as you prepare for their possible appearance, you're fine.
Adamantine arrows as well. A quiver is only 1201 gp. I have two characters that have already bought one, and only one of them is a dedicated archer. Plus, a +4 ranged weapon overcomes DR/Adamantine, so that'll handle high level casters and Stoneskin.
Perhaps a change of perspective? Just imagine that newer sources made playing multiple concepts easier, not that reverting to Core makes things more difficult.
I think we're agreeing here - there's no actually significant power difference between Standard and Core characters. Those were just the two situations I could think of where it's even arguable.
|
|
Core basically makes 2 things significantly more difficult - adamantine/hardness (for archers only), and swarms. Other than the ability to handle these invariably tedious and unfun mechanics, Standard...
First, thanks for the previous apology/admission to exaggerating.
In my experience Core means that characters have to bring their A game. A well prepared, well built and fairly balanced party playing in sub tier will have only a little bit more difficulty (well built, not hyper optimized).
But the extra difficulty shows up when the group is 5 players barely making the subtier, when the players are new or just poor, when characters are inefficient, etc.
I find that I miss comparatively minor things a lot. Things that clearly SHOULD exist in world. Blunt arrows and smelling salts, for example, make it SUBSTANTIALLY harder to not just kill things. Lack of smoked goggles make daze attacks much harder. No flank trick. Etc, etc, etc.
|
|
On the Flank trick issue, the lack of it should not prevent an animal companion from moving to flank. I highly doubt most people would think an animal companion incapable of flanking prior to the publication of the stupid trick.
The awareness that there are options that are not allowed does sometimes mean that things that were previously (before books were published) under GMs control are now outlawed.
I've seen a GM disallow an AC moving safely but indirectly into a flank. I've seen a GM disallow drinking a potion underwater
|
On the Flank trick issue, the lack of it should not prevent an animal companion from moving to flank. I highly doubt most people would think an animal companion incapable of flanking prior to the publication of the stupid trick.
The awareness that there are options that are not allowed does sometimes mean that things that were previously (before books were published) under GMs control are now outlawed.
I've seen a GM disallow an AC moving safely but indirectly into a flank. I've seen a GM disallow drinking a potion underwater
how many times have you seen someone running a PFS game disallow something that was perfectly within the rules set? Something basic? Happens all the time.
IMHO: If there is no rule covering something (and in CORE there isn't for both your examples), then it is something to be decided on by the person running the game at the time.
|
|
I think we're agreeing here - there's no actually significant power difference between Standard and Core characters. Those were just the two situations I could think of where it's even arguable.
But there are vast differences between standard and core PARTIES.
If all your area wants to do in terms of build is pick the most powerful options then going from core to standard is a marginal increase.
But if your groups have even half of people that come in with an underpowered concept: rogue, two weapon fighting, a lightly armored swshbuckling fighter, rogue, healbot cleric, two weapon fighting rogue etc then core opens up some pretty big powerups. Since your party is very likely to have some of these, the party's getting a big power up.
|
|
BNW - sorry, you lost me on this. I mean, I didn't even understand it enough to disagree. I have no idea what you are trying to say in that last paragraph... Must be Friday and my brain has shut down...
Lets say you have two groups in Springtown and Shelbyville. They both run standard mode and core mode.
Shelby ville is a wretched hive of scum and villiany filled with irreverant power gamers. They want to crush the scenario before the mission briefing is over, light it on fire and bathe in the DMs tears. To that end they take the most powerful options possible, slumber hex happy witches, kitsune enchanters that make you save 6 times at DC's best expressed in scientific notation, and a hungry hungry hippo druid that needs a hand cart to carry his dice for the bite attack.
Springfield has more casual gamers. While there is the occasional munchkin most of the party showed up, saw a picture they liked said "ooo i wana make that" and went with the stock options: a dex based rogue, the spoony bard standing in the back and singing, a two weapon fighting ranger etc.
In shelbyville the difference between core and standard's power levels isn't going to be that big. Its still going to be there, but it largely amounts to the difference between squashing a fly with a 1 ton or two ton wrecking ball.
In springfield the difference is going to be HUGE. Their core rogue move flanks hits moves flanks hits for meh damage. Their standard campaign unchained rogue is whacking away with dex to damage, their sorcerer that casts magic missile every round is knocking 4 people over with toppling in addition to meh damage, and the life oracle is keeping people up long after a cleric would have ran out of god juice.
Shelvyville moves from crushing a scenario on 5 clw charges to to 10 going from standard to core. SPringfield moves from mostly easy fights with the occasional run away to having to run away a lot.
|
|
thanks! now I understand...
shouldn't your first post said...
"But if your groups have even half of people that come in with an underpowered concept: rogue, two weapon fighting, a lightly armored swshbuckling fighter, rogue, healbot cleric, two weapon fighting rogue etc then core opens up some pretty big powerups. Since your party is very likely to have some of these, the party's getting a big power up." shouldn't that be "...then standard opens up..."?
eyup. Happens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the spoony bard standing in the back and singing,
Hey, no dissing the spoony bard in the back singing (probably my favourite character in both Core and Regular :-) :-) ). Even in Core he is fairly decent as long as there are a couple of fighting sorts to buff.
Admittedly he gets a quite significant power up in Regular but he does just fine in Core.
|
|
the spoony bard standing in the back and singing,
Hey, no dissing the spoony bard in the back singing (probably my favourite character in both Core and Regular :-) :-) ). Even in Core he is fairly decent as long as there are a couple of fighting sorts to buff.
Admittedly he gets a quite significant power up in Regular but he does just fine in Core.
The bard is a great class, but just standing in the back adding a few to hit onto a martial or two really doesn't add up to the opportunity cost of having another person there. There's a reason they made the pathfinder bard able to do that AND contribute to combat.
|
|
The bard is a great class, but just standing in the back adding a few to hit onto a martial or two really doesn't add up to the opportunity cost of having another person there. There's a reason they made the pathfinder bard able to do that AND contribute to combat.the spoony bard standing in the back and singing,
Hey, no dissing the spoony bard in the back singing (probably my favourite character in both Core and Regular :-) :-) ). Even in Core he is fairly decent as long as there are a couple of fighting sorts to buff.
Admittedly he gets a quite significant power up in Regular but he does just fine in Core.
My Spoony bard also casts spells, knows stuff, scares and debuffs enemies and can bypass quite a few encounters by using his social skills. It is a quite rare scenario when I'm not contributing my fair share to a scenario. And NO character shines in every scenario.
I think bards are often under appreciated because quite often their contribution is easy to miss. It's easy to forget that it was a bit of knowledge history that gave a vital clue, or his diplomacy that got you in without a fight, etc.
|
|
And NO character shines in every scenario.This I actually disagree with. Certainly past the very low levels most full casters have such an array of tricks at their disposal that it's hard to find a situation in which they cannot do something really useful. Especially the Int primary ones who also come with a giant boatload of skill points or those invested in summoning who have an array of extra help available.
Yeah, you're right. Especially with the various ways that exist (especially in non Core) to get Int as the relevant stat or boost Cha based skills wizards can even rock the social skills.
After all, it was my Core Wizard who talked down the Roper :-). My Student of Philosophy non Core witch can do even better.
|
|
I think bards are often under appreciated because quite often their contribution is easy to miss. It's easy to forget that it was a bit of knowledge history that gave a vital clue, or his diplomacy that got you in without a fight, etc.
The higher level the bard is, the harder it is to miss (both in game and out of game :p). The bonuses for a bard go stir crazy once level 7 is hit.
I usually recommend to people aspiring to make bards "Specialize in something other than buffing and charisma skills. Your character is a bard...those aspects will take care of themselves." Really, heroism and haste are all you need to be a fantastic buffer, and a skills points are all you need to be a great face. Inspire courage will progress on its own so you don't have to worry there.
A bard with high dex and all his feats in archery buffs just as well as a high charisma bard, and has diplomacy almost as high, but can really pack a punch when they need to while still filling all the buffing and face needs of a party.
A well built bard is a sight to behold, and it is no exception in .
|
|
Inspire courage will progress on its own so you don't have to worry there.
A bard with high dex and all his feats in archery buffs just as well as a high charisma bard, and has diplomacy almost as high, but can really pack a punch when they need to while still filling all the buffing and face needs of a party.
A well built bard is a sight to behold, and it is no exception in .
The Core Bard is substantially weaker than the Regular bard for inspire courage. For PFS it essentially maxes out at +2 (yes, +3 at level 11). While +2 is nice its no +5 ( flagbearer and banner).
In Core there are definitely way less ways of spending those feats. Archery bard is obviously possible, but a sky high charisma casting bard is also quite viable (mine also has dazzling display).
|
|
The Core Bard is substantially weaker than the Regular bard for inspire courage. For PFS it essentially maxes out at +2 (yes, +3 at level 11). While +2 is nice its no +5 ( flagbearer and banner).
In Core there are definitely way less ways of spending those feats. Archery bard is obviously possible, but a sky high charisma casting bard is also quite viable (mine also has dazzling display).
Not every bard has the hand slots free for a flag. Also, heroism. (IMO, the attack bonuses are typically more important anyway)
|
|
Not every bard has the hand slots free for a flag. Also, heroism. (IMO, the attack bonuses are typically more important anyway)The Core Bard is substantially weaker than the Regular bard for inspire courage. For PFS it essentially maxes out at +2 (yes, +3 at level 11). While +2 is nice its no +5 ( flagbearer and banner).
In Core there are definitely way less ways of spending those feats. Archery bard is obviously possible, but a sky high charisma casting bard is also quite viable (mine also has dazzling display).
Any buffer bard will have the hands free for the banner somehow.
Heroism is nice but a bard doesn't get enough slots to hand them out like candy. Even if that is ALL that they are using spells for.
But I realize that I'm not sure where, or even whether, we actually disagree.
I'm claiming that
1) a Core Bard is substantially weaker than a regular bard. This is especially true for a buffer bard
2) a very high charisma bard is viable in both Core and Regular
3) Archer bards are viable in both Regular and Core but in neither are the "only way" to build a quite reasonable bard
Do you disagree with any of those statements?
|
|
1) a Core Bard is substantially weaker than a regular bard. This is especially true for a buffer bard
Disagree with the first sentence, agree with the second sentence. (In other words, it's pretty pronounced for a buffer bard, but not really for other builds)
2) a very high charisma bard is viable in both Core and Regular
Agreed.
3) Archer bards are viable in both Regular and Core but in neither are the "only way" to build a quite reasonable bard
Agreed.
|
|
1) a Core Bard is substantially weaker than a regular bard. This is especially true for a buffer bardDisagree with the first sentence, agree with the second sentence. (In other words, it's pretty pronounced for a buffer bard, but not really for other builds)
Ah, now at least I know what we're arguing about :-).
But surely an Archer bard is also substantially weaker. Not so much from the reduced bardic goodness but from the lack of archer goodness (clustered shots, gravity bow, blunt arrows if you like not killing people, etc etc etc).
Similarly for other builds.
I think that a good case can be made that the Buffer bard is MORE affected. But they're all quite significantly affected.
|
|
But surely an Archer bard is also substantially weaker. Not so much from the reduced bardic goodness but from the lack of archer goodness (clustered shots, gravity bow, blunt arrows if you like not killing people, etc etc etc).
My bard doesn't have clustered shots. He just IDs the monster and picks out the DR (He's a no-archetype bard, so he has knowledges). He also doesn't use gravity bow...waste of an action really.
The biggest things missing are:
1. Blunt Arrows
2. Ghost Salt
3. Durable Arrows (I actually never bought these in any of my bard's 15 levels, but they do help)
4. Some various nice "get out of jail free" spells (Saving Finale, Liberating Command, etc.)
Ghost Salt can be replaced by a backup bow with ghost touch. Expensive, but worth it. No Durable Arrows also just means more money. #1 and #4 are harder to compensate for. Just means you kill people more often instead of knocking them out, and certain spells/grapples are more dangerous to your party.
Honestly, I think archers aren't that much weaker at all in in general. Just more expensive.
Ghost Salt can be replaced by a backup bow with ghost touch.
Ghost touch is a melee weapon enchantment.
|
|
The Core Bard is substantially weaker than the Regular bard for inspire courage. For PFS it essentially maxes out at +2 (yes, +3 at level 11). While +2 is nice its no +5 ( flagbearer and banner).Inspire Courage plus good hope accomplishes the same thing.I agree that its not at all a bad substitute but:
1) Only comes online at all at level 7 (flagbearer comes online at level 1 for a buffer bard)
2) +2 is less than +3
3) 3rd level spell slots are fairly valuable. Core buffer bard probably has to reserve all or nearly all for buff spells. Regular bard can use some for combat fun.
4) Its a standard action to cast. Admittedly, at caster or twice caster level minutes it lasts a long time (lesser extend metamagic rods are cheap).My Core buffer bard is only level 4 so I don't have experience as to how much weaker it "feels" in actual play at level 7 (or even 5). But at levels 1-4 it feels weaker. Losing that +1 from flagbearer hurts.
It's a feat (on a class with zero bonus feats), an 18,000 gp item, and both of your hands all of the time. There's got to be something better to do with all that. Probably archery, with all those bonuses you've got running after round one, and the cost of a +3-equivalent bow freed up.
(Hmm, I've got a core slot to build. Was going to just do a horrible cat-wielding doodad, but I think I'll make this guy instead. Human bard, start with point blank and precise, should be able to cover the lock-and-trap technician slot as well.)
|
|
It's a feat (on a class with zero bonus feats), an 18,000 gp item, and both of your hands all of the time. There's got to be something better to do with all that. Probably archery, with all those bonuses you've got running after round one, and the cost of a +3-equivalent bow freed up.
Define "better". My regular campaign buffing bard is more than powerful enough for my tastes (arguably over powered with the right group). And I enjoy playing it a lot. More than I enjoy going pew pew with an archer :-).
|
Define "better". My regular campaign buffing bard is more than powerful enough for my tastes (arguably over powered with the right group). And I enjoy playing it a lot. More than I enjoy going pew pew with an archer :-).
It's a feat (on a class with zero bonus feats), an 18,000 gp item, and both of your hands all of the time. There's got to be something better to do with all that. Probably archery, with all those bonuses you've got running after round one, and the cost of a +3-equivalent bow freed up.
Still going buffer, but buffer with a bow instead of the Banner and Flag Bearer feat.
Lower levels; Round 1: Start Inspire Courage, get bow out.Higher levels, start Inspire Courage, cast Good Hope, then bow on later rounds, with a good bonus to hit and damage, while able to do buffs as needed.
|
|
Define "better". My regular campaign buffing bard is more than powerful enough for my tastes (arguably over powered with the right group). And I enjoy playing it a lot. More than I enjoy going pew pew with an archer :-).
It's a feat (on a class with zero bonus feats), an 18,000 gp item, and both of your hands all of the time. There's got to be something better to do with all that. Probably archery, with all those bonuses you've got running after round one, and the cost of a +3-equivalent bow freed up.
I mean "not less powerful" - what I've been arguing against is the idea that Core is in some way significantly more difficult. Not arguing that it wouldn't be less fun for you.
(Not mechanically weaker, quite possibly less fun? Of course - it's Core, after all.)