|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
In standard American English, "Or" is the "exclusive Or" by default.
In programming languages, "Or" is the "inclusive Or" by default.
I thought the goblins had rules against writing down words. It would steal them from their heads if I remember "We Be Goblins" right. Why did the authoring goblin write "Bark Bark" and "Pudl"?
Oh! Is the artist Vorka? Is that what got her kicked out?
BTW! I would also like to vote for a We Be Goblin class deck!!!!
Thanks mIvanbie, I'm surpised I havn't seen the post that you linked to, but I think it still helps to spell out some of the issues and link them to the given solutions and impacts.
Sometimes people can connect dots, but I find it's better not to play to "sometimes" in explainations. There have been times where people have connected dots for me in explainations (in and out of the forums) and I smack my forehead and think, "why didn't I think of that?" And if it happens to me, then I'm sure that it happens to others.
@Hawkmoon - I do know about the rule about what scenarios you can play, but my point was that it can be abused. A player can sit in deck 2 for 20 sessions (in theory). They wouldn't get the scenario reward for playing the scenarios the second time, third time, etc., but they still get the deck upgrade. They could then upgrade until their deck was perfect before moving to deck 3. I was trying to point the issue out and make a suggestion to close that loophole.
This post is a conglomeration of various issues that I've seen on the boards that I want to reiterate and issues that I see with the OP as it is currently.
The biggest problem that has been itching at me is the lack of foresight at scalability and longevity of the guild. I do understand that this is season beta, but I feel like nothing has been done to look at the future of the OP.
Warning - Walls of text
Description of the Problem:
When I look back at PFSRPG there are many elements that exist that I think have not been been considered but should have been. The one that jumps out at me the most is that there is a feeling that has been portrayed (intentionally or not) that the scenarios need to be played in order (i.e. 1-A before 1-B, 1-F before 2-A, etc.).
When I look at organized play, I think the main goal is/should be - how do we get this random group of people (usually at a con or local gaming store, who may or may not know each other, and may or may not have experience with the game, with possibly various numbers of episodes/scenarios completed in the OP) together so that they can play a game together. This cannot be achieved if there are strict forced prerequisites such as "Player A is up to scenario #12, but Player B is up to scenario #14" scenario naming conventions aside. This is why PFSRPG has a tier system so that all players between levels 1 and 2 can play in one table and levels 3 and 4 can play in another.
In PFSRPG, once your character becomes too strong, he is forced into a higher tier. Instead in PFSACG, there is a "replay" system that can be infinitely gamed to continuously replay a character until the character achieves near perfection before moving on to the next tier.
I have also seen in some posts people talking about players who only want to play "key scenarios" or want to make sure they hold back until the "key scenarios" are under their belt. Obviously, these are the ones that reward feats. Even PFSRPG has some "favored scenarios" that reward higher amounts of gold for lower difficulty/risk, but you don't want that level of cherry-picking either. This can also make some scenarios deemed inefficient or unworthy to play.
Another issue to consider is - what happens with future seasons? Will players with a S&S character be able to play in the WoTR season? If yes, the issue is that once season 1 arrives, there will be, in theory, twice as many 1-x (and 2-x etc.) scenarios. Does this mean that players will try to play through both sets of 1-x scenarios before moving on to the 2-x? This also provides opportunity for twice as many feats to be earned. Also a strain will be put on the GM/orgainizers to have available every set. If characters cannot cross seasons, then there is less of an issue, however this could limit Paizo's ability to sell S&S (and other sets) in the future after that AP is no longer the current one. I think I would prefer to see the cross seasons be allowed.
Synopsis of the Problem:
- Feeling that scenarios must be played in order.
- Ability to overplay your tier.
- Ability to cherry pick scenarios.
- Multiple seasons could impact the flow of a character's life.
There needs to be a mechanic to force characters out of a tier after they become too experienced. A system similar to PFSRPG's Fame/Prestige system could be used:
- A character gets two Fame/Prestige per successful scenario completed.
- When a character reaches 10 Fame they earn a level. A character's level is equal to the tier they should be in. The character may play in a scenario one higher or one lower than his/her actual level.
- Scenarios have no special rewards other than the standard upgrade.
- Rewards that may be bought with Prestige (Numbers may need to be balanced):
-- 2 PP - May switch a card of your choice (up to your character's level) from your character's deck. Limit once per scenario.
-- 5 PP - Card Feat
-- 5 PP - Power Feat
-- 5 PP - Skill Feat
-- 10 PP - Raise Dead - Dead character does not die, but loses a feat of the character's choice permanently
-- 15 PP - Character gains their role card
-- 20 PP - Resurrection - See Raise Dead without the penalty
This solution bridges the future seasons, prevents overplaying a tier, and prevents cherry picking for rewards. It also allows for a little more personalization of the character instead of being told what type of feats you earn. Which might be a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure yet.
I hope this didn't come off as me being upset. I think the game is great and just want to help see that the OP goes in a good direction.
Tim Statler wrote:
Hmm...I think the power should be more like this -
For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Str or Melee skill plus 1d10. You may reveal an ally with the
But GM credit is also something to encourage people to be GMs in RPG. It is not easy to find GMs, especially if there is no reward at all for doing it, but there is areward for the players who ALSO get to play a game. It's an incentive for people to be GMs.
With PFACG, GMs get the credit of being able to play the game and get the game's rewards.
I'm glad this idea isn't with the base though. I actually try to avoid reading the flavor text of most of the cards, because one day in the future I want to actually play the RotR and S&S APs and I want as few story spoilers as possible.
In my home game we just write down how many of each category were pulled out (i.e. Basic Weapons, Elite Weapons, Basic Spells, Elite Spells, etc.)
Mike Selinker wrote:
I hate to ask this and I'm sure you're dreading it, but can a review please be done of all cards for the "your check vs any check" issue? Mike, I know you said you should follow the rule of 'Nobody else can take your turn for you', but precidence has been set in the official FAQ of the dev team correcting some of those wordings.
Obviously, it doesn't matter much in home games. We can just rule that we'll do it right in the future once we realize that rule should apply, but now that we have an OP for PFACG. I'm kinda dreading that person that says 'it's not on the card or in the FAQ'. Also, it does make us feel better that we don't have to try to interpret what was intended versus the wording that was printed on the card.
Again, I feel very sorry about this request. I didn't want to be that guy, but...
I've interpreted this ability as "When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill for the purposes of casting of that spell."
I started to write "until the spell is recharged", but then remembered that some spells are displayed.
I think the problem lies in the whole mechanic of displaying a spell as it takes the spell out of the nice tight turn order.
Or a boot to the head?
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow.
I think a Simulacrum is part illusion and part golem-ish. So the real question is, can Magic Jar affect non-living things like golems or corpses? I think not since when the possessed host is slain (and becomes a corpse) you are expulsed from the possessed body.
So I think you can't Magic Jar a Simulacrum.
But also if you play RPG PFS you also have to start a new character. If you've gamed for years, you probably have a couple characters that you've played for a heck of a lot more than 40 hours. Then you join PFS and you have to create a level 1 character. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have to start from scratch when you starting fresh in a special campaign.
Also, if I've followed everything right (and I might be wrong) the RotR characters will be legal for PFSACG in case you REALLY like one of those characters. You just have to start it from level 1.
Swords and Sorcery did an exceptional job bringing the video game to PnP.
Xenh - A lot of what you point out was indicitive of the original EQ video game (back when there was only 0-2 expansions). The genre went down hill with WoW dumbing the genre and status quo down. EQ eventually followed with its expansions.
Other genius things found in EQ was the mixture of mobs so that you couldn't say that a zone was STRICTLY for lvls 1-3. There were some lvl 5-7s roming the area that would take you out if you wern't careful. Also there was the intermingling of the factions. If you ducked into the wrong house in a town you were suddenly in the necromancer's guild and they all just decimated you for being a paladin.
Drejk - the spell lists mimiced the EQ video game almost exactly. The video game was based on mostly fighting and very little non-combat activities.
The biggest issues we had with it when we played was at higher levels. DR was through the roof to compensate for the high damage output which crippled most mid-low damage classes. Also the bestary gave great templates to make high level monsters, but gave no pregenerated ones - the DM had to create almost every monster in his campaign from scratch with the templates.
I don't agree with this. Would the same apply to a Wall of Fire? Can I walk through it without being hurt because it doesn't do damage until the caster's turn? I don't think so.
I do agree with the rest of Hogarth's comments.