Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

By now, most of us have seen the Core Principles: Conversion in the Pathfinder ACG blog entry (and the resulting discussion) and the Conversion Guide.

One of the replies in the blog entry discussion prompted me to action:

cartmanbeck wrote:
So, awesome community folks, who wants to be in charge of making updated character sheets for all these characters? *Touches nose*

Many of us, myself included, create our own versions of the character sheets, or variants thereof (such as Parody’s excellent character tents). I have a template that looks almost like the official one. My legacy version character sheet used the standard character card greens instead of the blues on the official sheets; and my brand spanking new core version character sheet uses the old character card green for the decorations (the Curse of the Crimson Throne characters used a maroon instead of the green that the Core Set characters had). Suffice to say that I use my own character sheet for the custom characters that I like to (poorly) design.

Tyler Beck’s question was a V-8 moment for me. I hadn’t considered converting the legacy characters to the Core Set style sheets, but it seemed like a “duh” solution to create new sheets for the characters that are covered in the conversion guide, and perhaps for everyone else, too. I created my template so that I could make my homegrown characters look sexy, but updated sheets for legacy characters based on the conversion guide seemed much more useful. So I’ve begun working on these sheets (and I’m sure other players either are also doing this, or will be doing it soon). I’m starting with the APs, working backwards (almost done with the Mummy’s Mask characters, then Wrath of the Righteous, and so on), and then I’ll cover down on the class/character/add-on decks. However, I wanted some input from others before I get too deep into this. Note that I’m not “in charge” by any means.

First, of course, is whether or not Paizo/Lone Shark plan on providing official versions. I’m sure that there’s a lot more important stuff, going on, but it would be great if this were anywhere on the list of stuff to do. Regardless, I’m going to assume that this is so low on the official priority list that it’s something enterprising members of the community will have to take care in the interim.

My main question, though, is whether or not players think it would be wise to update the phrasing of characters’ powers to match the formats used in the Core Set. For example, we no longer see “a character at your location,” and see “a local character” instead. Also, we generally don’t see “a [card] with the X trait,” and see “an X [card]” instead. There are probably a bunch of other small changes to phrasing that need to be incorporated (I’m really going to have to study the cards in depth to get a better feel for these changes). I’m not talking about changing rules – just updating the phrasing to match the current templates.

Aside from that, I just have to be sure to comply with the Community Use Policy (e.g., no character images that either don’t appear in blogs or aren’t part of the Community Use Package, no logos/icons that either don’t appear in blogs or aren’t part of the Community Use Package).

My personal priority for this effort is to take care of the characters that are mentioned in the Conversion Guide, but I might extend the effort later to cover down on the rest of the legacy characters (and their cohorts, where applicable). Naturally, that’s a very time-intensive effort, extended by taking the time to convert phrasing to match the current templates. So I want to make sure that I'm not wasting time with unnecessary/imprudent actions.

Thoughts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I can put together more cohesive thoughts later, but I'd at least really like to see some updated Alchemist character sheets (as you even mentioned), since they're the most significantly hit characters out there.

I'd love to modernize templating and rules (references to 'local', 'reload', etc), too, especially because it helps familiarize players with terminology that is now standard - and will continue to be in the future.

However, I think the Conversion Guide is not sufficiently cohesive to understand how to - or whether to - update some pre-existing characters beyond using the Local/Distant/"X card"/Reload terminology set. "Recovery" can basically not be injected freely into old powers because they would create functional (and not officially supported) distinctions with the original power. Take, for example, S&S Alahazra's "Tempest" Role, where she can gain the Arcane skill until the end of an encounter when casting an Arcane Attack spell. Post-Core, this means that she wouldn't have the Arcane skill or proficiency during the Recovery step, rendering such spells consigned to being banished.

That's probably not in line with the intent. A community-driven effort to bring this power to mimic* it's pre-Core functionality would have to be out-of-scope of such a change, as it would be a non-official, functional card errata. Almost any reference to the Recovery phase (or even the use of the term 'Freely', since a lot of old powers with similar modifiers on the cards you played order in which they were played) would not be able to be entered in as they represent nonsupported character changes, and I think this kind of issue will come up quite a lot. You'll find powers that don't quite work, but nor can actually be re-written and maintain perfect accuracy.

* A proper errata would pretty much have to give her Proficiency with Arcane Attack Spells, and then give her the Arcane skill when she's playing one or making a check against one in Recovery.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Yep. Giving her arcane skill during the encounter phase and recovery phase seems to be best solution Until we get official errata...
And, Yep errated character sheets would be very usefull. How easy it is forget some of those changes, while using old character sheet... very...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

In this, I see two broad categories. The first is basic template changes (e.g., recharge, local, "X with the Y trait" to "Y X," etc.). I don't include any "freely" additions in this category. The second category is rules/powers that are more complicated and will require official decisions.

I think that the first category is within the scope of the community to implement on homegrown sheets/tents/whatever. There might be room for discussion to fine tune (e.g., if I implement these changes on the sheets I'm developing, I'll run them by the community for feedback before I finalize the sheets).

I think that rules/powers in the second category should be left alone (on homegrown sheets), but should be brought up here on the forums. The Paizo/Lone Shark team might have already identified cases and have plans for them, but there might be some that they've missed or haven't gotten around to yet, so we can help them out by calling their attention to these cases.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I agree - the only changes we should make are ones where it has no functional changes, only updated wording.

Maybe we could have a shared document/spreadsheet where we could contribute and verify the changes before you go through the work of creating your character sheets?

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I agree that we should not change ANYTHING functionally when we make these, for the sake of not confusing players. But including the basic template changes where appropriate is great, in my mind.

I'm happy to help with wording and such as much as my schedule will allow. Perhaps you could make a shared Google document where current wording of characters can be dropped in, and updates can be suggested? That would probably give the best shot of making sure that no mechanical changes are accidentally made.

Thanks for taking point on this, as always the community is stepping up where it's needed! :)

EDIT: Mark ninja'd me!! :)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


Brother wrote:
Do Paizo/Lone Shark plan to released updated versions of the legacy character sheets to conform to the Core Set conversions?
This is not [on the list of things to do].

With this official answer, I think that this becomes a valuable community effort.

MorkXII wrote:
Maybe we could have a shared document/spreadsheet where we could contribute and verify the changes before you go through the work of creating your character sheets?

Hmmm...now I'm going to have to build an Excel spreadsheet...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I'm working on the spreadsheet now. I'm trying to get an exhaustive list of these so that I can pre-populate recommended revisions before putting the file up online for review and recommendations. I'll probably organize the spreadsheet with the APs in order of release, then the CDs/AODs in alphabetical order. I've come up with four categories of powers (with regard to their wording):

- No change
- Template change
- Conversion guide change
- Complex

"No change" is self-explanatory.

"Template change" means that phrasing has to be changed to align with Core Set phrasings, but nothing functional has changed. The trick here is getting a complete list of the Core Set phrasings that have changed.

"Conversion guide change" is something that is covered in the official conversion guide. There may be some hybrids here, where the conversion guide addresses specific portions, but doesn't competely address other things that might fall in to the "template change" category.

"Complex" means that the power doesn't work with Core Set phrasings and rules, usually that it will require a functional change. Powers in this category are those that will be addressed to the developers for official resolution (i.e., we won't touch them).

Do these categories accurately capture the range?

Should the fifth (hybrid) category be added?

What are examples of template changes?


We should also consider backporting new characters to the old ruleset, noting things like "all characters have Light Armor proficiency". Not everyone is going to want to play the old sets with the new rules.

This would be more useful if new Character Decks are released.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Brother Tyler wrote:

I'm working on the spreadsheet now. I'm trying to get an exhaustive list of these so that I can pre-populate recommended revisions before putting the file up online for review and recommendations. I'll probably organize the spreadsheet with the APs in order of release, then the CDs/AODs in alphabetical order. I've come up with four categories of powers (with regard to their wording):

- No change
- Template change
- Conversion guide change
- Complex

"No change" is self-explanatory.

"Template change" means that phrasing has to be changed to align with Core Set phrasings, but nothing functional has changed. The trick here is getting a complete list of the Core Set phrasings that have changed.

"Conversion guide change" is something that is covered in the official conversion guide. There may be some hybrids here, where the conversion guide addresses specific portions, but doesn't competely address other things that might fall in to the "template change" category.

"Complex" means that the power doesn't work with Core Set phrasings and rules, usually that it will require a functional change. Powers in this category are those that will be addressed to the developers for official resolution (i.e., we won't touch them).

Do these categories accurately capture the range?

Should the fifth (hybrid) category be added?

What are examples of template changes?

Excellent. If you would like to share the spreadsheet with me to edit, I'm happy to help out. I think this is definitely a worthy effort! :)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.