Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit that one of the things that makes me less interested in Core is that there are no oracles, cavaliers, inquisitors or alchemists*. There are still bards -- my favorite class in Pathfinder -- but I like having a diversity of options.
APG is a fantastic book. To me, it defines Pathfinder because it was the first book Paizo made where they weren't just following D&D's footprint. I know that the appeal of core is its simplicity, but it would be nice to have in it a book that has more of Paizo's own vision.
Thoughts?
Hmm
*I know that for some people there would be a concern that APG would let in Summoners, but so long as Pathfinder Unchained is not let in, the summoner also would be out in the cold.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. Dumb suggestion, never mind...
There are no "dumb" suggestions. Others may see merit in your suggestion and it's certainly worth discussing if they do.
I just fear that if the door is opened a crack for any non-Core rules, there will be no closing it against the inevitable stampede of requests for additional non-Core rules.
Core would be more popular if it were opened just enough to allow everyone's favorite non-Core rules.
Which would be.... if taken together... all of them?
Which would be.... if taken together... all of them?Exactly. Core would be more popular if it employed the same rules as the Standard Campaign. I don't believe anyone would deny that.
;-)
Then what would be the point of having it at all?
|
|
I was pondering this at work today.
CORE has been the 'add-on' to Classic.
What if there were some new scenarios written specifically for CORE (that could be run with Classic characters) that gave rewards more tuned for CORE campaign than Classic?
Or perhaps even some boons such as 'unlocking access' to some of the APG classes, or the like?
Still thinking about it, it feels like a shame and a loss that it either becomes *the* thing in a given area or *not a thing*.
|
I'll admit that one of the things that makes me less interested in Core is that there are no oracles, cavaliers, inquisitors or alchemists*. There are still bards -- my favorite class in Pathfinder -- but I like having a diversity of options.
APG is a fantastic book. To me, it defines Pathfinder because it was the first book Paizo made where they weren't just following D&D's footprint. I know that the appeal of core is its simplicity, but it would be nice to have in it a book that has more of Paizo's own vision.
Thoughts?
I agree that there is content that makes Pathfinder feel like Pathfinder, rather that a level of polish on the original 3.5 rule set. However, I don't think adding more books to the campaign is the correct way to go. Putting the slippery slope fallacy aside, one of the main reasons for core existing as a campaign option is the lower level of complexity, and players not needing to invest/bring additional books.
The best I've been able to come up with (and it's far from perfect) is that a 'Core Player's Guide' could exist, in a similar fashion to a player guide for an AP. This document could include all the functional details of the core campaign to save space in the PFS Guide, provide background & lore on PFS, and include additional character options, primarily from the APG & Pathfinder Society Field Guide/Primer. It would also be a good place to include the traits from the additional traits document, either removing or replacing the traits that are not PFS legal so that everything looks on the level instead of tacked on.
The kicker is that the document would have to be free. Great if something like that could increase interest in the core campaign, but if it doesn't, then it's just wasted a whole bunch of developer time.
What if there were some new scenarios written specifically for CORE (that could be run with Classic characters) that gave rewards more tuned for CORE campaign than Classic?
Or perhaps even some boons such as 'unlocking access' to some of the APG classes, or the like?
It would certainly be an interesting boon to receive at the end of a three part adventure, along the lines of 'In proving yourself exceptionally honorable in rescuing the maiden fair from the tower of doom, a young squire bearing the banner of his house has chosen to accompany you. You may (once) create a character that has levels in the cavalier class in the core campaign, providing a copy of this chronicle with that character. This character may also take teamwork feats from the APG, but only as bonus feats awarded by the tactician class feature'.
|
|
My lodge is small, so I certainly can't offer any core games where I am. I could only see using it to allow players to replay scenarios in a home game environment, but then, no one locally has asked for core so its existence doesn't hurt anything here.
I would like to see core characters able to play at regular tables without losing their core status, allowing members of the old guard a chance to replay old scenarios with new players. But this is simply because, as you say BNW, it splits the player base otherwise.
|
See, I like Core because it's a great way to introduce new players to the game. As an example, my lodge has a Core night on Wednesday and a Classic night on Thursday. We had a couple of new players start showing up on Wednesdays to play Core, because it was easier to get into. Less rules to know, less initial expenditure, just less overwhelming in general. They had a blast, and when I started running a Core Daughters of Fury in Campaign mode, I invited them to play. I told them that because this was campaign mode, they could use Paizo's PRD and make a character with anything they found there. One made a Bloodrager, one made a Slayer, and again a great time was had. Now they've begun showing up on both Wednesdays and Thursdays, having bought the ACG, APG, Unchained, and UE on PDF.
Core let them enter the shallow end of the pool and start learning the strokes without getting overwhelmed. When they were ready, they asked what books they should pick up to expand their playing. Now, they're kind of staples of our group. To me, that's what Core should be about.
|
|
The one thing that has bee said here that I can agree fully with is allowing core characters in "classic" tables. Unfortunately, reporting system does not currently allow this. However, this would also only work if spellcasters cannot learn spells from non-core sources from RPG characters.
I.e., a core wizard could learn haste from a noncore character, but not unnatural lust (sorry Lucius!)
To me, this would be an effective compromise.
|
|
Here in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill "Triangle" area of North Carolina Core seems popular enough. One of the stores in the area offers Core games one night a week.
While Core+APG I think is a nice idea, it would be the "nose" of the proverbial camel trying to get into the tent.
This past sunday 9/4/16, at Atomic Empire in Durham, There were two tables of the confirmation being offered. One was Core the other was "normal". the Normal table didn't make it but the core one did.
This was the first time our GM was GMing. I think she would have felt much more out of her depth if she had to deal with the entirety of the range of possibilities in PFS.
As it was, I think a Core confirmation game was a good first adventure for her to run.
We also had fun. I was the one player who had signed up but didn't get to play on the regular non core confirmation table. I had a new character I wanted to start out.
But I still had fun anyways. I just used a core character of mine.
|
|
The one thing that has bee said here that I can agree fully with is allowing core characters in "classic" tables.
In effect, there wouldn't be two campaigns anymore; there'd be the Standard Campaign and everyone would get to play each scenario twice for credit, once with a Standard character and once with a Core character. I couldn't agree to that.
I do however like the ideas proposed by Wei Ji and the other Jack (Jack Amy). A boon on some Chronicles just for Core characters (i.e., "If this scenario is played in the Core Campaign, characters with this Chronicle now have access to x from book y.") or a boon after completing a series that opens access to something even greater (a class or archetype, for example).
|
|
Would personally enjoy Core campaign that included RPG line books only, specifically the APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and the ACG. Archetypes would be banned. As would the summoner.
I'd leave Occult Adventures, Unchained, and Ultimate Intrigue by the wayside as they add too many complications or are too genre specific.
Of course this is just my two cents, and may not really be feasible.
I like the idea of modules geared toward Core (where you can DM only needing the Core Rulebook - no other classes or spells from other books). It would be like year 0 mods, but that doesn't mean it has to be easy. A good intro for new DMs. They could be played classic as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the idea of adding APG to Core. APG adds a lot to the game without really bloating it.
The problem is where you draw the line. It's no longer "Core." It's "Core + APG." Then why not add Ultimate Magic, or Ultimate Combat? Ultimate Intrigue? Ultimate Equipment?
That's really where I would have a problem with it. I actually *really* like the idea of a Core + APG campaign, though.
|
I don't think Core would be a good book to go with, but I do think that Core would really benefit from opening up a little. The main issue with the APG is that there are too many classes and options in there that are just outright better than Core classes. Part of the reasoning behind Core was to forbid thing like the Witch's Slumber Hex from dominating entire scenarios and removing the original Summoner class without actually removing it from PFS completely. Reintroducing things like that would just kill Core play. And while there are a lot of options out there that do make some classes much more feasible in PFS, I'd rather see a few Archetypes/Feats/etc. . . that allow the CRB classes to dip just a bit into those options than to reintroduce the otherwise problem classes themselves.
One sort of concept I'd really like to see perhaps implemented in some way is if each Player could "unlock" one smaller book (like a Player's Companion) for their characters to use in some fashion, otherwise following all of the other rules for what is otherwise legal in PFS.
I do say "unlock" on purpose, as I'd like for it to be a something like an achievement and reward for doing so, not something just handed out to everyone.
Maybe something like for every 15 tables of Core you run and also 15 tables you play, you unlock one single other book for all of your Core Characters, but only from a select pool of soft cover book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A significant part of the Core concept was to have a simplified campaign for players and GMs who do not want to deal with the full array of Pathfinder rules. I strongly suggest we do not start opening up new rules for the Core campaign, or it will eventually become indistinguishable from PFS.
|
|
While true, I think that that is also one of the main factors that keeps a lot of folks from being interested in Core. For example, I have purchased a lot of PF books, and in many cases I bought a book just so I can use it in PFS play.
My understanding is that the main things that Core was intended for was to start allowing more people to play together. There was a base assumption that PFS was going to be a way to introduce people into the game, and once they found a good group at a local store, they would move on to things like APs in a home group setting. That tends not to be the case too much, or rather, when it is, people usually do not stop playing PFS instead. This leaves a lot of folks that can't legally run in games with the constant flow of new players.
Alternatively, as the game has grown, some really basic character classes can basically steamroll over the older scenarios singlehandedly. There was also issues, like I mentioned where some classes where extremely problematic, (the Gunslinger, the Slumber Witch, the Summoner, are big examples), but PFS was sort of caught between a rock and a hard place and couldn't simply ban them, because part of PFS's job has always been to highlight Paizo products.
The third reason was to try to scale back and simplify the game, making it more easily gotten into by new players that didn't own a lot of the extra material, or wouldn't really play enough to find it worth purchasing, or at least often.
In practice though, (in my semi-educated opinion), Core really only partially serves #2 and to a degree #3, and in some ways has split the fanbase instead of fixing #1. (It has also made it less likely that #1 will see much of a real fix anytime soon, but that's a bit of a different topic, and I might be a bit bias, as to me #1 is the most glaring issue I face).
#2 is sort of it's own problem, because it's really, really subjective, (and also a little objective) just as too what options are considered broken, or cheesy, or overpowered, or freaking ridiculous.
Even in Core, #3 is still somewhat of an issue, because there some of the more powerful options are fully legal in Core, (ie Wizard).
So, while Hmm was, I believe, more interested in opening up some of the more skill heavy classes that are more fun than the less skilled ones of the same basic role from the Core book, I'm a bit more concerned with making Core play both more interesting and also better able to tackle the main issues it was originally intended for, but, in my opinion, fails to do to a decent degree. Unfortunately, the only real cure is wildly dependent on what material is "ok" and/or needed for Core.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought the same thing since Core was first introduced.
Without APG, there are no traits, archetypes, alternate favored class bonuses, along with some of the most popular feats, spells, and equipment in the game. Those are the things that really define Pathfinder as a game, distinct from 3.5.
But anything more than Core and APG, and you're into "too much for new players to handle easily" territory.
This would have been my suggestion when Core was first introduced, but it's too late now.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
It was the more skilled classes of APG that interest me most. I just feel like APG is the book that defines Pathfinder and makes it awesome. I'd love to see options in core chronicles that open up Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors and Alchemists as "boon" classes.
Ah well. If I ever do anything with my core GM blob, at least I still have bards! Every party needs bards!
Hmm
|
|
I'm more than happy to not see the APG added to CORE.
I'm more than happy to not see Inquisitor, Alchemist, Witch, Summoner or Oracle at my table (as a Player or as a GM). I'm more than happy to not see other broken spell/feat/magical object at my table from the APG.
I'm quite happy to only have the CORE rulebook to play (and happy to find some other options on my chronicles).
CORE is CORE and in my community, people play both Standard and CORE and both campaign is strong (despite the fact we are a small community).
Veterans like me as well as brand new player play together.
I don't need CORE to be expanded, my players don't need CORE to be expended to work well.
|
I think the idea of having certain scenarios "unlock" some abilities, archetypes, or feats is perfect. That way, you don't see too many of certain things running around, but the diversity is still there. What I like about Core so much is that the chronicle rewards are much, much more valuable due to it being the only way to have certain items. It makes having those items feel much more special, because not that many people will have the same stuff. Imagine if you unlocked an archetype for your character. You would be mega proud to be at a table and be the only "special snowflake" of your class, and also you would have a feeling of accomplishment for having earned it.
Now, I also think these should be rare, and extremely limited. For instance, at the end of a scenario trilogy should you unlock such a thing. I.e. You finish destiny of the sands with a rogue. You get you chronicle, and on it is a boon listing each core class, and an archetype for each that is osiriani themed. You then gain the ability to take the corresponding archetype with your character that you did the trilogy with, permanently, to represent being in that environment for so long. You would have to have all of the chronicles from Destiny of the Sands, and you would have to have the chronicle notated by the GM that you are taking that archetype at that time.
The same would work for animal companions (although you can sort of do this if you play WBG in core for a certain "flavored" animal companion), feats, etc.
It would be a lot of work on Paizo's end, but I think it would be an epic way to enhance Core play without adding anything "game breaking".
|
|
Probably, but I'm not sure it doesn't defeat the purpose of Core.