Should Uori's wand be added to the chronicle sheet if the characters manage to acquire it (while crossing off the cloak)? I saw some talk of that upthread but I did not see anything official.
Congratulations Bill. It was nice to meet you at U-CON and a blast to have you as a GM. I think you will do a fine job.
@Mason - Thanks for all of your past efforts. You did a great job.
Thinking ahead on how to combine the sets ...
Will the cards from the new base set and AP have the same backing as the RotRL set? I hope the answer is yes so that the cards could be combined to make custom adventures without "marking" cards in decks.
I fear that because not all of the characters one the current back will be in the new set that a new card back might be produced. If this is the case, I guess the problem can be mitigated by using card sleeves.
Another couple of questions. Will the cards use the same B,C,P,1,2,3,4,5 & 6 designators. If so, will the cards also have a set designator?
I am not sure that I have a preference for which AP would be 3rd. My requirement would be to try to do the one that best expands the pool of cards that can be used to create custom content.
What I mean by this is thhat RotRL already covers a lot of goblins, undead and giants.What set would bring more classics like orcs, kobolds, drow, oozes, slimes, etc.
As far as clases are concerned, I think it is ok to duplicate them as long as they have a new flavor. Maybe the base card is different with different stats and powers? I would expect that the expanded character card would also be different opening two additional options to expand the character at "higher level".
I think folks might be disappointed if their favorite character does not get included in a new set. My wife was disappointed to hear that Seoni was not included in the newest AP. I told her that the character should be compatable with the new set but we would have to see.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cool. Given the switch to monthly release, will an AP still have six adventures? Or will there be twelve expansion decks?
I was wondering the same thing? Will that be 12 Adventure decks with 6 for the AP and 6 others or are we talking 2 APs with base sets per year?
I am hoping we are not looking at 6 months without content.
It never really hurts to pick up a blessing if you can (of course there are a few exceptons.) BoG is useful even if only to explore again.
If you are short a blessing when you reconstruct your deck, BoG will be the one that you have to take to fill things out. I see no drawback in acquiring it when encountered.
I suppose it all comes down to game design and what you want these cards to do.
If you want these allies to be special cards introduced in specific scenarios, they should become Loot and be awarded as part of the scenarion reward. If the ally has a role in a later scenario, they would need to be introduced early enough to make sure that they have a chance to come into play.
If they are simply meant to be unique and different I do not see a problem with treating them as they are now. It is refreshing and cool to get a unique ally into your deck.
Aldern Foxglove presents a unique issue as his role in the Rise of the Runelords story is more complex than the rest of the allies. I can see where this can be seen as awkward but is it really that big of a deal?
You may still use "additional" explores even if you substitute your free explore to use the cure ability. You cannot use an "additional" explore to explore prior to your free explore for the turn.
During the original play test I was able to play Ezren solo through chapters 5 and 6 once I had the proper cards in his deck. Higher damage output arcane spells were a must. Much of the later game loot also works well for an arcane caster.
It was difficult at times but I think it is very possible to defeat the game solo with a single character.
Difficulty is a subjective thing. Playstyle even for the same character may change drastically depending on how many characters are in play. i.e. in a 6-player game (5 turns) you will likely be more "reckless" with your resources than you might be in a 2-player game (15 turns).
If there is a list of skill and a single target number, you may pick the skill to roll for the check from that list.
If there are multiple lists of skills with different target numbers, you pick the skill that you would like to roll and need to achieve the corresponding target number.
If you do not have a skill, you may always roll a d4 to try to complete the check.
Almost all of the Villains from the Burnt Offerings deck are examples of cards which have two checks to defeat.
Mike Vacco wrote:
Permanently for that AP with the characters you are playing. If you are playing with different groups you may need to add them back in. (That would mean you might want to track which cards have been removed.)
For example, you would continue to remove the appropriate cards after they have been encountered all the way until the last scenario in Adventure Deck 6. You would not add them back in until you start over or play with another group of players.
Because there is often another check involved, cards are recharged after the original check has been resolved. I believe that reveal, display, discard and bury actions all happen immediately during the appropriate check.
No, only characters at the location. At this location effects only apply to that location.
Yes, in that case the Spectre is undefeated. I believe that the RPG mechanic which is being replicated is clerical turning. You scare the monster away but you did not kill it.
The original answer is correct but possibly incomplete. If you Strength is 1d6+2 and your Melee is Strength +2, you melee value would be 1d6+4 plus and additions from the shortsword.
If it helps, think of each character as having the USe Magic Device skill. In the RPG, if you make the roll you can cast the scroll regardless if you have Arcane or Divine ability. Doing so also consumes the scroll.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, it has already been clarified that if a character acquires any boon, they are able to use it during the game it is found. After the game, if the card type is on their deck list, the card can be added to the deck regardless if it is an ideal fit. In either case, you could still share the boon with a companion either in game or post game when the decks are being rebuilt.
Lastly, the banish portion of the card is only invoked when you use the power to activate the card. Acquiring a card does not activate the card's power section.
Vic Wertz wrote:
There are situations in future adventures where you may wish to avoid acquiring certain cards, as doing so can trigger something you may wish to avoid.
I believe that there is already a location or scenario in the first adventure deck which does damage for each failed check. A check to acquire is still a check. Not attemping the check is not a check.
To answer the original poster's question, there are two answers:
1)If you evade the boon, it would be shuffled back into the location deck.
2) If encountered the boon and did not acquire it (with or without a check), the boon would be banished.
Charles Scholz wrote:
The locations are tailored to the scenario both in level of difficulty and in story flavor. Using random locations might work but would likely have unintended consequences on the experience for the scenario.
Chad Brown wrote:
This question is only tangentially related, but I think it's interesting: If you play Pathfinder, do you typically play past 20th level?
Not typically but none of the adventure paths currently take a character up to 20th level. I think the issue that was raised is why you would add "experience" and loot to a character that has no means to be played again? What is the point of a reward for completing an adventure path and by extention the 6th adventure if there is no content beyond?
Chad Brown wrote:
I would think that you would want to avoid specific cards unless those cards were always available to the character. i.e. reduce you hand size by one and add Charger the Horse to your hand. You could choose to "dismiss" this card to send it to your discard pile or bury it to bring your hand size back up to normal. These cards would have to be special and be outside of the normal deck for its type.
You could also simulate the animal companion/ mount with traits on the animal ally cards themselves. i.e. power x is only usable when revealing an ally with the companion and animal traits or power y is only usable when revealing an ally with the mount trait.
There are certainly cards which are immune to fire, acid, posion, electricity and mental. I do not believe that anything is immune to magic but some can be immune to spells.
Further, I do not believe that defense cards apply against the monster but rather against the damage. Monsters deal a type of damage which should have nothing to do with its immunities.
Am I the only one here that isn't confused by the villain's card and finds the instructions very straightforward? I really think you guys are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.
Do you care to share your clarity?
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
I see your point about “start the check over” but the card does go on to further say “Cards played on the previous check do not affect the new check.”
The words previous and new seem to indicate two separate checks; the original and a new check.
This is a tricky and dangerous card.
I belive that what it is saying is:
1) Encounter a Zombie Minion.
2) Make a check to Defeat either Combat 14 or Arcane 10.
3) After making the check, roll a d6.
3a) if the result is 3-6, keep the results of the original roll.
3b) if the result is 1-2, start the check again (return to step 2). All cards previously invested to modify the check which were discarded, revealed or buried have been lost. New cards must be invested to modify the new check.
4) Resolve the encounter as appropriate.
What is not clear is if the 1 card of each type per player limit per check is reset for the new check. I would guess that the answer is yes but if not it will make defeating this villain considerably harder.
The other thing that is not crear is if you resolve any recharge checks before you start the check again or once the combat is finally resolved.
Ouch, poison damage on top of everything else.
I do not think that is is impossible to complete additional adventures after an AP but I think the current expectation is that these adventures would have to be fan created. Maybe we will eventually see "higher level" content decks published.
Completing another AP without it being a cakewalk would require the use of "higer level" challenges which may not be available in an AP. Things (banes and boons) would not scale well. The current versions of the characters would eventually run out of feats.
I would think that a "bury from the discard pile" effect should be slightly less powerful than a "bury from your hand" power. The bury effect has the same result. The card becomes unavailable for the rest of the game. You can argue that the discarded card has less value than one in your hand as it has already been used but the generated effects should be comparable. Since Amiri gets a d10 when burying a card (5.5 added to a check on average) then a similar effect from the discard pile should grant a d8 (4.5 average) or a d6 (3.5 average). If it is only combat checks I might go with a d8 and if it is multiple types of checks a d6 per card.
You would combine the new deck with the existing cards.
The special rules on the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path card covers how and when to remove older cards from the box.
The new decks will contain an adventure card, 5 new scenarios, several locations, new villains, new henchmen, new monsters, new barriers, new spells, new allies, magic weapons, magic armor, new items and loot. In all but one deck it looks like there will also be a new type of blessing.
The breastplate never could stop/reduce acid damage.
This just brings cards like Ghost, Siren, Satyr, etc. more in line with the rest of the monster cards and the combat mechanics of the game.
The part you are missing is that the spells in question do not require checks so there is no target check for the BoP to add dice toward. It does not make sense that you would add 2 dice to Valeros's combat chect becasue Ezren cast Strength on the fighter. The check being modified in that example is likely a Strength/Melee Combat Check not a spell. The card does not say "Discard this card to add 2 dice to a check which has had a spell played upon it."
All the basic blessing seem to have a focus on one type of check. Blessing of Lamashtu works on any check to defeat a monster. This could be added to a Strength/Melee, Dexerity/Ranged, Arcane, Divine or other unusual combat check against a monster.
The second power of BoP says:
"Discard this card to add 2 dice to a check when playing a spell."
It seems to me that this is saying that the blessing only adds bonus dice to a check that is initiated by playing a spell. i.e. The Combat check when Ezren casts a Scorching Ray. BoP would also apply to Seoni's blast power as it counts as playing a spell.
We did not have that card in our deck 5 & 6 playtest. That would be a potentially useful power.
Based on the card from the playtest, Raise Dead brings a character back from the dead with a portion of their deck buried.
In this game, hit points are simulated by a combination of hand size and deck size. The banish and bury mechanics (whether from your hand, deck or discard pile) impact you total potential hit points. These are card that you cannot get back during the course of a single game.
There are several cards and powers that return cards from the discard pile to your hand or deck. To my knowledge, there are no cards that allow you to return a buried card. I would be very cautious of a power that depleted the discard pile without a significant advantage. A +1 bonus to a check per card seems really underpowered.
For my 2 cp I would think that the Blessing could only be used on spells which allow you to make a check.
Adding a bonus to a skill which indirectly impacts a check and then adding dice to the check seems against the spirit of the blessing cards. Any blessing can be used to add a single die to a check. Every instance of a blessing seems to indicate a specific type of check for the use of the second bonus power.
To put it another way, if there is no check required to cast a spell then no dice can be added. It is similar to cards that let you auto succeed or defeat. No check is rolled and no blessing can be used.
Does "Resolve the Encounter" need a cross reference to "Henchmen" and "Encounter a Villain" sections of the rules?
Maybe something like this?
"Resolve the Encounter: If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don’t succeed, it is undefeated— shuffle the card back into its location deck. (For Henchmen also see page 15 and Villains page 16 for additional rules.)
If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it."
Should the "Take Damage, If Necessary" be added to the "Apply any effects that happen before the encounter" and the "•Apply any effects that happen after the encounter" bullets?
Should "Take Damage" and "Taking Damage" be "Resolve Damage" and "Resolving Damage" instead? This topic concerns both damage prevention and assigning damage.
Should the statement "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source" be "Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source unless a card states otherwise" instead? I know that Magic Shield works this way and I think that Ring of Protection will too.
I believe that there are cards and situations later in the game that allow you to evade an encounter even after you have failed a check. The Summon Monster loot (spell) card and the Sign of Wrath spell both come to mind.
I know that this is an exception but whatever clarification that is published should keep this in mind.
Might I suggest adding an "Evade the card (situational):" as a new 4th bullet under the Encountering a card section.
With the next expansion deck you will likely get access to the Haste spell. If it works like the playtest version, it allows for an extra exploration. This is a great card for Ezren.
All of the following are in the Basic Set (B) but not all of them have the basic trait.
Holy Water - Liquid, Magic, Divine, Basic
Potion of Gracefulness - Liquid, Alchemical, Elite
Potion of Energy Resistance - Liquid, Alchemical
There are also versons of some of these in the Character Add-on Deck (C).
Do not forget, once the adventure has progressed far enough, banishing the basic boons is optional.
Having played the game during the play test (parts 5 & 6), I can attest that the game does ramp up in difficulty. The game is harder with more players as you get fewer turns per character. It is also difficult in solo play at least with certain characters. We lost several scenarios and had to replay. I do not recall any deaths in the 6 player games but there were some during solo, single character play.
Playing the current version, in a two player game, we failed a scenario which would have resulted in a character death had we played to the bitter end. Blackfang can be nasty if you roll poorly and do not have a means to deal with his breath weapon.
Having read through the whole conversation and applying my own personal situation, it seems clear to me that we do have a problem. It is a current issue and does not seem likely to get fixed without taking swift action. We do not have enough beginning level scenarios. We need more Tier 1-5 content.
One evergreen Tier 1 scenario, 2 Free RPG Day modules and 3 32-page modules are not enough. Even with the ability to replay, most players do not relish playing the same thing over and over.
To supplement this, I expect that a few true tier 1-5 evergreen scenarios would work nicely. The scenarios would need to be standalone and storyline neutral and have some variety/flexibility built in so that it is at least slightly different each time played. The chronicles should still be limited to one per character. I am not sure how this would be implemented but it would be a more powerful tool in the toolbox than a scenario targeted for a single level.
When you examine it closely, we really have 6 functional bands of play within PFS. I would argue that most of the play happens within the first three bands. After playing and GMing for the last 4 years, I am finally able to play in some scenarios with 8th level and higher characters at conventions. My home group has not quite, as a group, crossed that 7th level threshold. This is due to player attendance and additions and subtractions to the player base.
The play bands as I see them are:
Levels 1-2 – 6 XP – Combination of 6 tier 1-5 or tier 1-7 scenarios
By my best count of currently available scenarios (not counting modules and APs), it breaks down like this:
Tier 1 - 1
It looks like Season 4 did a fair job of balancing across the level bands but missed the mark with not enough tier 1-5. Another 6 or so tier 1-5 would have been perfect. The assumption that tier 3-7 covers the beginning levels need may be flawed. If every new player played all of the new tier 1-5 they would be able to continue playing in the tier 3-7 scenarios but if they missed even one scenario they might not be able to get their character to 3rd level without having other players with higher level characters start new ones and play an older scenario.
To echo what many of the folks have said before, we have a serious lack of low level scenarios.
Our local group has about 10 players (3 or which are also GMs). Like any group we expand and contract as time goes by. We have some players with multiple characters ranging from 1st to 11th and others with fewer characters between 1st and 7th. I would say that we play PFS on average twice a month but sometimes more and sometimes less. Our newest player just got a character to 5th level and has started a new one at 1st. We replay scenarios when appropriate but not usually when more than 2 of the players have run or played the scenario.
Of the available scenarios (through the last release), our group only has the following number of scenarios available in each of the following bands:
tier 1-5: 3
For modules we have (We have plans to know off a tier 1-2 [Crypt of the Everflame], a tier 3-5 [Fangwood Keep] and a tier 5-7 [Thornekeep:The Dark Menagerie] in the near future):
tier 1-2: 2
I did not include the new style modules (The Dragon's Demand) or any of the APs as these tend to be played in campaign mode.
If a GM runs The Dragon's Demand in campaign mode, how is this reported? I see entries in the reporting tool for the first three chronicles but I do not see anything for the bonus chronicle.
I would assume that the first 3 chronicles earn a PC 3 XP and 4 PP. I would expect that the GM should earn 2 table credits per chronicle. I believe that all three chronicles would be reported at the end of the adventure.
If the Players and GM assigned all three chronicles to one PC they earn the bonus chronicle. I understand that this also earns the PC 3 XP and 4 PP. As there is XP and PP earned, should this not also be reported? If so, how is this done and does the GM receive additional table credit?
Speaking as one of the play testers, the game did not change much from the end of the playtest. In fact may of our suggestions and many card changes discovered during the playtest were incorporated into the game. The concept of making some monster banes harder as you add adventure decks, removal of earlier cards as you add adventure decks, online character sheets so that you do not have to mark up your cards, and variant character powers as they increase in “level” were all direct results of the play testing. The few "mistakes" that I have seen have been typo, layout or omission type problems.
As this is a different kind of game, the rules seem to be the most difficult for new players to grasp. Unlike most card/board games, the play is not competitive and it is not always linear. You have a variety of options and challenges that could be faced turn to turn and scenario to scenario.
Fundamentally the game is solid and very flexible. As time moves forward and additional material becomes available, I think this will become even more apparent.