We've Got Class, And We Know It

I could get behind add on packs for only the decks with 4 characters, and only with the cards required to bring those characters to the same level of playability as the new decks. They'd have to be pretty cheap as well, people shouldn't have to pay at all to have decks that truly take advantage of their powers, but obviously free wouldn't happen.

Singles I can't get behind at all, either a single pack that fixes the decks, or nothing. That, and of course, a rule that you can't just buy multiple packs and use them, you are limited to using one add on pack just like you can't build your fighter from two fighter decks.

Yeah. I'd envisioned what I was talking about coinciding with a rule/list of maximum number of certain cards.

Here is the other reason I would like add-on packs/singles: As more and more adventure paths come out, I'm sure there is going to be a spell I'd like in my Wizard deck or a weapon I'd like in my fighter deck. If I could supplement the class deck with an add-on or singles, then I could include those in my character's deck.

If we take Vic's numbers from above (admittedly they seemed to just be examples, but they're all we've really got right now)

moving from 4 to 3 characters, gives us ROUGHLY 5 more specific cards per characters, with minimal change to the utility cards.

7 Decks. 4 characters - that's 28 characters.
20 cards per deck, or 140 total.

If Paizo do 55 or 110 card packs, that's not an ideal fit. To make it 110 takes you down to just over 4 per character.
Admittedly, some characters (Valeros and Harsk spring to mind straightaway) don't really need these kind of specialist cards.

I guess the question then becomes "would 4 cards per character [3 for Valeros and Harsk] bring the characters from the first 7 class-decks in line with the new ones?"
- the alternative (splitting it up into multiple products, having more cards per deck) feels like it would quickly get messy and make the decks too big to ever hope of getting the specialised cards.

Andrew L Klein wrote:

I could get behind add on packs for only the decks with 4 characters, and only with the cards required to bring those characters to the same level of playability as the new decks. They'd have to be pretty cheap as well, people shouldn't have to pay at all to have decks that truly take advantage of their powers, but obviously free wouldn't happen.

Based on the card products Paizo has released, it seems like they have two main formats: 110 packs and 55 pacts of cards (the 55 card packs usually being used for things like their Face Cards products). Considering that, I'd think $11, 55 card packs would be the best format for Paizo if they were to make Add-On Decks for the first seven Class Decks. However, just introducing these as "patch decks" might not be very marketable, so I would think it would be best to also have one new character in each Add-On. Yes, this would mean that the original seven decks would now have 5 named characters available to their classes compared to only 3 for the rest of the classes, but I don't think that's a big deal.

Anyway, with a new character card, token, and role, and probably a little rule card like what is packed in with the Class Decks, that would leave 51 new boons for each Class Deck. Using the Fighter as an example, I think that would be plenty of cards to provide one or two new polearm and bludgeoning weapons per set indicator (including B) and enough fun spells for Flenta (including Attack spells). Even after that, there should still be room for more than ten other cards that you can use for whatever, like new fun armor or items or cards to support something fun for the new character.

You can do the same thing for the other Class Decks....

Bard: Add more Gambling and unarmed combat supporting itmes and more items in general and maybe a few new weapons, spells, and allies.

Cleric: Add more spells, including maybe some arcane only spells for Zarlova - Theurge...

A generic 55 card add-on boon deck for the Class decks would be able to address many of these concerns mate.

To an earlier point. If such a deck was available through print on demand, people could buy the complete add-on deck OR the individual cards from it that suit their Class deck character.

As such the $ involved would not be great for the OP only player IF they wished to flesh out their character, while allowing completionists to buy the whole thing (or even extra cards if they have more than one OP character running concurrently)

I really don't see a downside to such an offering, except for the designing/balancing of said cards and whether that would be monetarily effective for Paizo, to which I will bow to more informed opinions.

I think what you'll see is that the characters in the deck can actually be a little *more* diverse.

...

Thanks, that's a good explanation of what's happening.

Character versus Play-Style Diversity

My issue with diversity isn't just on a character basis. Each hero in the class decks (or in the campaign sets) represents a play style for us as gamers to utilize. And reducing the number of heroes from 4 to 3 is a 25% decrease in the number of those play styles within the upcoming class decks. There's something important to be said for that.

Going to 3 characters may well mean that the play styles we're given *might* stand out even more than they have so far. That's good. I get that. I hope that's what we discover from it.

CLASS DECKS: Iconics versus Non-Iconics

Because Iconic characters are inherent to campaign and add-on sets, I would prefer to see them dropped from the class decks. The 3 characters on offer should represent something beyond the core and be enabling of their more unusual play styles when compared to Iconics.

Within each campaign sets, let the Iconics represent the *iconic* form of their class as flavored by the setting; within the class decks, give us something unusual and toward the perimeter of the class.

Because Iconic characters are inherent to campaign and add-on sets, I would prefer to see them dropped from the class decks. The 3 characters on offer should represent something beyond the core and be enabling of their more unusual play styles when compared to Iconics.

The problem you have here is if the Organized Play player only owns the class deck, they may not have access to an iconic character to play. I suppose that they can download a character and role from the web site.

I would support some sort of collection of cards that makes the original class decks more playable.

I think that Print on Demand would work well for this.

I also have concerns about the viability of the class decks as the OP seasons progress. Will the characters and the mix of cards work well with the theme of each season? Season 0 has a lot of cards related to Skull & Shackles. How well will these cards work with Wraith of the Righteous?

Might there be a possibility of a generic or even character specific season upgrade pack which introduces cards that fit the elements of that season's base box?

Based on the card products Paizo has released, it seems like they have two main formats: 110 packs and 55 pacts of cards (the 55 card packs usually being used for things like their Face Cards products).

In case you're wondering why that is, most card printers built their trade with playing cards, which are printed two decks per 110-card press sheet—10 rows of 11 cards. (Poker decks usually contain 52 regular cards, 2 jokers, and a poker rules card.) So a full sheet makes either 1 110-card deck or 2 55-card decks.

You can actually have any number of cards in a product, but they're generally going to be printed on 110-card sheets anyway. For example, if your game really needed to have exactly 100 cards, they'd print it on a 110-card sheet with 10 blank cards that are immediately discarded. (It will cost the same as if you had printed 110 cards per deck, of course.)

Since Class Decks include a rules card, and we want to fill the rest of the sheet, it's a 109-card product.

Wow, I've always wondered why you guys stick to those sizes. Makes a lot more sense now.

Pluvia, I know you and I haven't agreed much on ways to improve OP, but I agree that's the right way to go. A 55 card add on pack would be the right number of cards to really bring each class to a proper power level. Even adding a fifth character, 51 cards (minus 3 for the character, 1 for the explanation card of how to use the pack in OP) should be enough. Of course, it could be hard trying to explain that part of the product.

"So, we know we had too many characters and that meant the cards weren't optimized for them. To fix that, we decided to release this add on pack. However, we thought you might not want just a pack of boons, so we added... another... charac... wait, isn't that what caused this problem in the first place?"

Pluvia, I know you and I haven't agreed much on ways to improve OP, but I agree that's the right way to go. A 55 card add on pack would be the right number of cards to really bring each class to a proper power level. Even adding a fifth character, 51 cards (minus 3 for the character, 1 for the explanation card of how to use the pack in OP) should be enough. Of course, it could be hard trying to explain that part of the product.

"So, we know we had too many characters and that meant the cards weren't optimized for them. To fix that, we decided to release this add on pack. However, we thought you might not want just a pack of boons, so we added... another... charac... wait, isn't that what caused this problem in the first place?"

Haha, yeah, I've noticed that we don't agree too often. But hey, maybe the fact that we actually agree on something means it might actually be something that can work? Or it's a sign of the apocalypse. (Apocrypha?)

And yes, it is amusing about adding another character while fixing the problem mainly caused by having too many characters. But I do think it could still work, as long as the total cards are looked at very closely when designing the new character in each deck. With access to 148 boons, I'm sure they can put a new spin on the cards to come up with a character for each class that is both unique and functional.

Fantastic news. Really hoping, once the core classes are done, to see some rpg class favorites of mine like the oracle and the warpriest who had awesome characters in S&S, but did not get physically because I did not get S&S (you know, pirates+me=meh)

Pluvia, I know you and I haven't agreed much

Haha, yeah, I've noticed that we don't agree too often.

You both agree on the most important thing: PACG is awesome!

. A 55 card add on pack would be the right number of cards to really bring each class to a proper power level. Even adding a fifth character, 51 cards (minus 3 for the character, 1 for the explanation card of how to use the pack in OP) should be enough.

I actually kind of like this idea. Mostly because if this adds a fifth character you could call it the "Class Deck Character Add-on Deck".

Not sure how viable it would be as a packaged product; I wonder if the economics are any different as a prepackaged deck you'd get from DriveThruCards...

I for one would be more than willing to purchase a class deck supplementary.

If all future class decks will contain only 3 new characters, I think the key thing would be to add boons pertinent to the original 7 class deck characters so that the total number of "applicable" boons per character was more equal across all class decks, future and past (if that makes sense). Though I don't think anyone is disagreeing on that point ...

Through characters that I've played with and seen others in my group play with, I would like to see Flenta get more apt spells, Tontelizi get more polearms, Vika (or is it Agna?) more 2-handed, and Darago with more suitable (no pun intended) armor. Cuz really, why on earth does he have two armor slots and zero proficiency!?

The one issue is that class decks shouldn't have BoTG included since we all have plenty of those. It's gonna be as boring as lands in MTG. I would IMHO suggest that class decks be produced without BoTG and offer separately a 55 cards deck of "standards cards" with bunch of blessings (BotG and ohers) and stuff like daggers, chain mails, cure spells or potions. Could even include a bunch of common monsters (gobs, orcs...).

This way someone could buy one or two "basic" decks, and class decks could be filled with uncommon boons.

Better replayability, better use of money, and so on...

But I'm not Paizo's Product Manager...

If the Class Decks were just meant to be Adventure Path Add-Ons, then yes, getting rid of Blessings of the Gods and other Basic cards that would be assumed to be in every single set would be a no-brainer. However, with the goals set forth for the Class Decks as an entry-point for Organized Play, taking out such cards would never work.

A player needs to be able to buy just one Class Deck and be able to participate in Organized Play. All of the characters need to function on their own in this manner. Yes, a number of the characters in the first seven class decks didn't function optimally, but they all still had the ability to function mechanically. If there are other cards that can be added to a deck, like the Owner promo cards or the 55 card "patch" decks that I proposed, they need to be something that's optional to add to a Class Deck for OP, not something that would be required. Also, some people actually like Blessings of the Gods in their OP decks.

This isn't MTG. The structure of deck building games and in relation the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game and other games like it is very different from trading card games.

Yeah, if we continue with the MtG Land metaphor, it would be like taking basic lands out of starter decks. Not really an option.

Hi Orbis, hi Pluvia, thanks for the feedback.

However if you allow me, I would argue just a little.

Yeah, if we continue with the MtG Land metaphor, it would be like taking basic lands out of starter decks. Not really an option.

I don't think the MTG starter deck comparison is relevant. If you buy a starter deck, then you can actually play any color, and if you want to upgrade, you just have to buy boosters (you never really need a second starter deck - except to get those "rare cards", which doesn't apply in PACG). Here if you want to play the different classes, you need to buy all "starters-equivalent".

A player needs to be able to buy just one Class Deck and be able to participate in Organized Play.

Well you could say "A player needs to be able to buy just one Basic generic 55-cards Deck + one Class-specific 55-cards deck to be able to participate in Organized Play." You would start OP with the same selection of 110 cards, with the added benefits to a) having only to buy 55 more cards to play another class and b) not wasting storage room for dozens (hundreds?) of BotG if you but 11+ class decks.

Or you could say "A player needs to be able to buy just one Basic generic 55-cards Deck + one Class-specific 110-cards deck to be able to participate in Organized Play." You would have the added benefits to a) having much more class-specific cards and b) not wasting storage room for dozens (hundreds?) of BotG if you but 11+ class decks.

But I see your point too. That was just an idea...

What happens if the 55 card "starter deck" is sold out? People do expect something to be playable out of the box.

That's the reason that even Magic has mostly moved away from starter decks (you can get an intro pack which is a preassembled deck, and a "fat pack" which contains a lot of boosters. Sealed isn't done with starters anymore either, it's done with a set of boosters). You can't expect people who have never seen the game to be able to assemble the things they need to play the game reasonably, and those are the people who buy the most product as a whole.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a set of 55 cards that works well for every class. Take the issues from the first 7 class decks where there weren't enough cards to support 4 characters well, now you want to support them with only 70 cards instead of 97-100 (assuming half the starter pack is of interest to that class, which imo is on the high side)? The class decks would need to be pared to just two characters for such a scheme to even be remotely reasonable. Increasing the investment to 55 base + 110 class brings you to a $30+ entry fee into OP, and that is very steep for people unsure of if they would even enjoy playing; $20 is already on the high side from people I've talked to who were somewhat interested in playing.

Another (albeit) small issue with the 55 card starter deck: when giving a card to another player, you need to keep track of whose cards are whose; at present you only need to do this if multiple players have characters of the same class.

However, between 2 base sets with character add on decks, 5 class decks, and the complete Rise of the Runelords errata decks, I do own tons of BotGs. Maybe i'll find a creative use for the ones I replaced from my RotR set.

I solo several Class-Deck-Chars through the OP scenarios. If I would have to buy additionally six basic-decks to be able to run six class-deck-chars I would stop buying CD's immediately

As I said, was just an idea...

We don't accept non perfect ideas Frencois. To the dungeons with thee!!!

Well you could say "A player needs to be able to buy just one Basic generic 55-cards Deck + one Class-specific 55-cards deck to be able to participate in Organized Play."

Rather than a 55-card character deck or "generic" deck, I'll suggest another angle ...

ROLE DECKS.

That's right, the 55-card pack would offer 9 to 12 new roles for characters of a particular class (3 new roles per character featured in a previous class deck), and in addition, the remaining 43-46 cards would be supplementary, and expand on the available pool for a class deck.

This would add value to existing class decks, as those characters would expand to 5 roles each, and would solve the issue of the limited card pools found in earlier class decks with 4 characters.

Naturally, there could also be role deck packs made for a collection of characters found in core sets.

We don't accept non perfect ideas Frencois. To the dungeons with thee!!!

Totally disagree. If all cards in PACG were perfect, we would miss all those nice debates and FAQptimisation. ;-)

Looking forward to the new class decks. I'm just a little sad that we are not going to have any new class decks before the new Organized Play series starts, and are not likely to have "fixes" to the original 7 before then either. :(

Ah, it's nice to see people finally coming around to my 55-card class expansion idea. I pitched that MONTHS ago and nobody seemed to care then.

I cared ThreeEyed, I cared. :)

While I am sad that there will be less character choice from this point forward with the change to 3 per class deck, I hope that it does show a considerable change in the way the characters are played. I don't play OP, just home games, but I never found an issue with any of the class deck characters really. Yes, some powers seemed to be less useful that hoped for, but far from making them weak. My biggest concern really is the diversity of character options and play styles(and I really want to know who that red-headed paladin from the paladin class deck mock up box is and if there is any chance I will get to use them).

I get that those cards being split between 3 instead of 4 characters can help in OP, but what other advantage does it have, say, to the home game?

My biggest concern really is the diversity of character options and play styles(and I really want to know who that red-headed paladin from the paladin class deck mock up box is and if there is any chance I will get to use them).

She's Neln Belgurorn, the Giant Hunter. (Gnome Paladin 15; NPC Codex page 122.)

I get that those cards being split between 3 instead of 4 characters can help in OP, but what other advantage does it have, say, to the home game?

While much more diluted outside of Guild play, the larger focus of cards should still help folks playing one of the characters from the Class Deck find things they might need. It depends on the specific character and main set.

ObTopic: I liked the idea of Booster Packs: 15*7 (Class Decks) or 18*6 (Boon types) fit on one sheet with a few slots left over. The question is whether that'd be enough to fill in the characters with concerns. 55-card decks with a character probably work better and can be used independently. (A big benefit when those initial Class Decks go out of print.)

I get that those cards being split between 3 instead of 4 characters can help in OP, but what other advantage does it have, say, to the home game?

A wider of variety of cards if you're mixing the cards in. If you aren't and you only buy the decks for character options, then yes you're going to see a negative effect of one less character. However, the decks primarily were designed for OP since it's the key product for that, so that will likely always be the main focus in deck design. Plus, when you already have 64 character options prior to the 3 character decks, losing one shouldn't be much of an issue.

33 from Base Sets (11 each, Runelords, Shackles, Wrath)
28 from initial Class Decks (4 each, 7 classes)
2 Promo Goblin characters from Free RPG Day
Arushalae (sp?) from Wrath of the Righteous Adventure 3

Yeah, you're right, it likely won't make much of a difference. Onto my other question, I don't know a ton of background on Pathfinder lore, but does anyone know who the redheaded woman at the top of the original pathfinder mockup image is?

Umm...scroll up two posts?

Gambit001 wrote:

My biggest concern really is the diversity of character options and play styles(and I really want to know who that red-headed paladin from the paladin class deck mock up box is and if there is any chance I will get to use them).

She's Neln Belgurorn, the Giant Hunter. (Gnome Paladin 15; NPC Codex page 122.)

However, the decks primarily were designed for OP since it's the key product for that, so that will likely always be the main focus in deck design.

I keep hearing people say that, but it's incorrect. We design Class Decks just as much as an accessory as we design them for OP. More people are buying any given Class Deck than are reporting playing characters from that Class Deck in OP—by an order of magnitude—so I'm quite confident that they are used as an accessory far more commonly than they are used in OP.

I don't know how many people are like me so take this with a grain of salt, but:

I buy the class decks for home "OP-Style" play, playing the OP scenarios, by OP rules, but not reporting since I only play at home and don't see any real advantage to reporting. I doubt I'm the only one playing like this.

Same here. My wife and I played through Season of the Shackles by OP upgrade rules but didn't report it.

That's really great to know, actually :)

Don't worry—we do assume there are lots of people playing OP but not reporting it (though it sure would help us understand our business better if you all report it!)... but we're pretty darn sure that it's not greater than 10X the number of people who *are* reporting it. I'm very confident that the primary use is as an accessory.

I definitely use them as an accessory, I own every deck up to Paladin and I've never played OP(official or home). I like them because they up the replayability of the base sets. I'm playing Wrath solo now (Haven't found a group yet : ( ),but I also have a Rotrl and S&S game going at the same time(my second time through for each). Having lots of character choices and trying to put parties together that would work well together and in each set helps me get a lot more bang for my buck, I might even hold off on MM so I can get some more games through with the sets I have. I don't know that I want all the future class decks but I am looking forward to Monk and Alchemist. Anyway, that's my (very long) two cents ;).

I can confirm that in our case:
A)

...the primary use is as an accessory.

and B)

we are playing OP but not reporting it.

... but it's just because we are lazy. But I do report anything I beleive (wrongly many times - don't kill me Hawk) could lead to a FAQ or a change in product "strategy".

When we started season of the shackles, i wasn't sure how to report it. It was also slightly more complex, as we were two players, playing 4 characters (this is what we do a lot of the time, but i understand that in OP you can only report 1 character per player).

By the time I'd figured out how to report sessions, I'd forgotten the dates we'd played the first few scenarios (this wasn't information we'd ever imagined needing) so didn't report it.

But I do report anything I beleive (wrongly many times - don't kill me Hawk) could lead to a FAQ or a change in product "strategy".

A single report is not likely to do anything, but every report adds to the aggregate. For example, if many, many groups are failing a scenario, that tells them there might be an issue. If no group ever fails a scenario, that also tell them there might be an issue. Perhaps a scenario is very easy/difficult for groups of a certain size, or groups that have characters that are dependent on certain types of cards, or whatever. It's all about data.

As for the Class Decks: I only use them for Guild play. One of the three I own has never had a character reported, as I don't get to play that often. I don't use them as accessories because I don't get to play that often at home either. :/

By the time I'd figured out how to report sessions, I'd forgotten the dates we'd played the first few scenarios (this wasn't information we'd ever imagined needing) so didn't report it.

I would have just made a reasonable guess, but that's why you use the reporting sheets. :)

Of course, it's also possible that people buy multiple class decks so that they have options available to them in what character(s) they play in OP (or their own home OP).

The character cards do add a lot of replayability to a box set. The rest of the cards in a class deck...not so much, really.