Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Bidmaron's page

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 247 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yea, Hawkmoon!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
redfaern wrote:


Just so you know, I will not be getting Pathfinder ACG: Skulls & Shackles.

That would be a huge mistake. They will all be 'second printing,' and you won't have the size problem and will enjoy the better quality.

S&S is very awesome. I didn't think you could top RotR, but they did with S&S (and I'm not really a pirate fanatic).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Thanks, Vic for getting this resolved. Sounds like a workable solution. If we had a hypothetical card "Pickpocket" that said: This card may not be evaded. If you fail to acquire this card, discard one card." then it would be a card that you couldn't evade (obviously) and one you couldn't choose not to acquire. Great.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Three of the only four games my current group has lost was the third base scenario, and that was my second group of characters!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Thanks, Mike. No big deal.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Ky, understand your point. This is one of the reasons why I'd like to see the rule changed so that in AP1 you could take either basic or elite from the box if you get to draw from box. Then in AP2, you could take ANY base or character expansion card (regardless of basic/elite or otherwise).

This graduates your draws from the box in a more continuous fashion than the very harsh current ruling.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Wow, this is taking a long time to resolve. Is there a greater issue here than is apparent? Or is it just that it hasn't made the priority list yet?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

And don't forget the disastrous 4th edition and the peel off of Dragon magazine that now gives us Pathfinder Adventure not-the-card game, which is simply the best RPG (well, I believe).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Except BotG, which is auto-acquire. You must acquire it (which makes it harder to eliminate in deck 4 and beyond).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Nathaniel, the people you are talking about on BGG do not constitute "most." "Most" are those that rarely are on the boards, usually only to gripe about it being too easy. In many cases, when we've probed that on these boards, we've found them making egregious errors -- most of them would have been prevented by simply reading the original rulebook.

The reason this 'game is too easy' push concerns me is because those of us who can only play one game a week (and I think it is a sizable portion of the players, but that's without any data) are about to have to reevaluate our subscriptions. This push will undoubtedly affect S&S (as some on this board have noted), and the issue rate will be monthly. With five scenarios/set, us once a week crowd will not be able to keep up if we lose even one game.

I think people are missing the point. It's a cooperative game. The game should be challenging but rarely result in a loss. As I've noted before, challenge doesn't mean you have to lose a certain percentage of the time, it means (in my opinion), how close did you feel to losing? That's challenge for a multi-player game.

And I think that's the other point 'the game is too easy' crowd misses. There aren't that many cooperative games out there. People are used to losing a game x% of the time where x=(n-1)/n, where n is the number of players. But in a conventional game (well, most of them anyway), there is a winner 100% of the time! No one complains that those games are too easy because there is always a winner.

For those such as yourself who think it's too easy -- house rule it. That's where PACG I think misses the boat. There should be official, sanctioned 'advanced' rules options for folks like yourself. The game shouldn't be targeted for advanced players, but it should support them.

When S&S comes out, the tone of the game's difficulty will change, even if Paizo doesn't do anything to make it 'harder.' Once people can't finish a deck before the next one arrives, the boards will get interesting in the other direction.

I also disagree with your point about encounters scaling. In a six player game, you cannot wantonly use blessings, or you will lose on time. That point has been made on the boards time and again. Plus, I find that I rarely have those blessing mid-game -- most are in my discard pile from having explored with them.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

That, Vrog, I think we can count on, just like fans have added to the end of some of the adventure paths.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Since Paizo has never produced a follow-on to their adventure paths, I doubt whether they'd do it for this game either.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Doesn't this impact the thread where the poster kept ranting about the OP nature of Restoration. Seems like somewhere in there we argued that the power resolving at the end of the encounter rather than the check limited the OP nature of Restoration with the Wand of Minor Healing and the other very particular cards he required.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Thanks, Vic.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Did I miss the answer on this?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

If he re-rotates the card before shuffling I don't see an issue. It is information that he should know. If he had perfect memory, he'd know it was the xth card down in the deck and be able to keep track of it. It's no different than writing a note to help you remember. The rules don't tell you that you can't write a note to remember something you have knowledge of either, so why should this bother you? Now, if it stays rotated during a shuffle -- that's a problem. Then again, if it's a house rule.... It's all about having fun.

This does not, IMO, violate the rules. It is information that you can have (and, as I said, if he had taken a note rather than rotated the card, no one would have a problem with it [or at least they shouldn't]).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

If you have 6 players, you will spend half the game discarding cards to get your hand size down to where this works. If you want to live on the edge, go for it, but I hardly think this breaks the game, and I doubt most will attempt this 'exploit.' Takes balls and luck.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
QuantumNinja wrote:

For me, this raises the question of when the recharge happens in relation to the resolution of the power. Does the "draw 2 cards" power on Restoration resolve before you would recharge it, or does it resolve after you recharge it?

This question applies more generally to a lot of cards, not just Restoration. I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before, but I can't seem to find anything about it in the rulebook or in the forums. Anyone know offhand what the answer is? Thanks.

You recharge after applying the effect of the card. It's the last thing you do. However, you make the check AS you're playing the card, which would matter if you were, say, playing as Lini in combat and you're about to have to discard your hand due to damage.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but you cannot play restoration during an encounter, so the damage comes first (and you lose restoration).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'm not saying this is you, Delslow, but we've also seen that many who say it is too easy have house rules that nerf the game. Also, I don't see how you can close a location on your first turn reliably. Statistics would indicate that you'd have to explore 3-4 times more than your free explore (assuming that there are extra explore options in there pushing it down from 5 total explores). If your hand size is 6 cards, that must mean 3-4 of them are allies or blessings and that you are using them only to explore. This means you can't use blessings to make your checks easier. Your math just doesn't add up.

I'd love to have a video of the 'game is too easy' crowd to find out how they are consistently defeating the odds. Just last night my son and I (6 char game) lost the second scenario of deck #3 when we ran out of blessings.

The other thing I wonder is if the 'game is too easy' crowd is just not used to cooperative games. Thus, if they play with 4 people, they expect to lose 75% of the time.

I don't know, but the math just doesn't work on a 6 player game. There are perhaps a few (h4ppy?) that know all the tricks of the game so well, but I personally think some of his house rules (putting henchman/villain in lower half of the deck) actually make the game easier (if I don't have to worry about saving a blessing to be able to handle the villain because I know he's in the lower half of the deck, then I'm not going to hesitate to play the blessing to explore again.)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Or someone could build a custom scenario with the lost loot card as the scenario reward, and the party could play that scenario just to get the loot card.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I don't think any of us believe it can't (or shouldn't) be able to be evaded, so it's nice to know that we aren't terribly confused and are just wondering the same thing as the designers.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I would not like them spreading them out. I bundle all my subscriptions to save on shipping, forcing a separation of dates guarantees that I don't get anything until the last thing is ready to ship. I don't know what Paizo does, to be honest. They may already separate things. I still don't have my new deck, but it'll get here. Paizo has never failed.(amazingly)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Sorry, misunderstood. Violent agreement then.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Quantum, I don't see how C could fit at all with the way the card is worded. To me (and HM), the golden rule makes case B the only reasonable choice, but obviously csouth disagrees.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Thank you, Mike. Just knowing a decision is coming is enough. This is embroiled in the whole before the encounter, after the encounter mess, and we respect Paizo's push to get this right and resolved once and for all. Your game is marvelous, and I don't think any of us pontificating on this would disagree on that fundamental point.

Thanks for the care you put to this.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

If it were that clear, Mike's 9 Feb post wouldn't have said they were going to discuss it Monday. As we said a while ago, if the card was a bane and said summon and defeat, we'd all know what the right answer is (cannot be evaded), and HM and I believe that summon and acquire is to boons what summon and defeat is to banes, so that is why we think the most correct answer is that the burglar cannot be evaded. As we've both said, we are ready to be told we're wrong. From a logic perspective, the two situations (bane and boon are analogous, and the logic behind the one should apply to the other, pending a rule to the contrary (which there isn't now).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I disagree, south. It could be just as thematic that the burglar is so clever that he cannot be avoided by a normal mortal.

Paizo owes us an answer on this. They promised one a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure they'll get to it....


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Man, how did I miss that one? Thanks.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

This has probably been asked, but the search function seems kind of screwed up since the reorganization of the forum.

Swipe spell wrote:
Discard this card to succeed at a check to acquire a weapon, an armor, or an item.

This does not say 'your check,' but this awesome spell is even more powerful if it can be used for anyone's check.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Wow, how has this one gone undiscovered for so long? Nice job, mivanbie


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

They should be issuing an update on all of this soon. Past attempts to clarify this have just resulted in yet more complications, so I think they are working hard to get it right once and for all. The burglar thread, this one, and the linked thread above are all dependent upon Paizo's decision.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

So I was right all along? Somehow I thought i had it wrong (hence my reset my thinking post).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

All Valeros's power cares about is what the ultimate disposition of the card would be. Finish one thing before you start something else—in this case, finish doing everything that the weapon card says. At the end of all that, if the card is being discarded, then you can use his power to recharge it instead; if it's not being discarded, you can't.

There's no conflict, so no need to consult the golden rule.

Except that if it's being discarded because he rolled a one, he can't recharge it?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

True, but when I do now, I cannot wonder if I did a crappy shuffle or not.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Ok, resetting my new understanding.(listening hard to Vic)

Just to make sure I have this right, if Valeros plays a longspear and discards it to reroll, he cannot recharge it, right?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Recharging a spell is a power. Look at my spell example. Your logic would preclude recharging any spell you played by displaying or revealing instead of discarding. It shouldn't matter the source of the power (whether a character card power or a card recharge power) - the process should be the same. The fact that you play a spell by revealing and ultimately discarding it wouldn't trigger the recharge power since it was played not by discarding initially and its later discarding is not a separate power but just the consequence of the display (just as the dog slicer discard is a consequence of the card being revealed and then rolling a particular number).

Ready to be wrong, of course, but I just don't see that the recharge depends on whether Valeros knows the discard is going to occur. So what about my example of the longspear? Your logic would mean Valeros couldn't recharge it either if he discarded it during the check. The card has already been played (by NOT discarding) it, and subsequently discarding wouldn't change it by your logic (but would by mine).

As for deciding to discard after the fact, you are prohibited from doing that because that decision must be made BEFORE the check. The Dogslicer is a direct consequence. The fact that the discard might or might not happen is immaterial.

All this is admittedly a very fine point, but the implications go way beyond the Dogslicer (not being able to recharge spells that don't discard initially is big -- especially in S&S.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

That's my point. If you believe this can't be recharged, then, by the same logic, the weapon (longspears and magic variants and the spiked chain), that permits you to reroll if you discard could also not be recharged by his power.

Valeros' power wrote:
When you play a weapon, you may recharge it ([]or shuffle it into your deck) instead of discarding it.

This power affects the check, in that Valeros can prevent weapon damage that would normally have occurred during the check. Stated alternatively, on most weapons' discard power, you consciously choose to damage the weapon (i.e. discard it) before the roll; in this case, you don't know you are going to damage the weapon for a normal player, and Valeros can stop even that (or so I'm believing).

Also, by extending the logic that you must use powers that affect the disposition of the card only on the determine the die and play cards and use powers that affect the check steps, that would mean that any card discarded at the end of encounter (Incendiary Cloud, the gas spells) or later could never be recharged but only discarded. In this light, Valeros' power is like an auto-recharge, and I don't think anyone would argue that you can't attempt to recharge a spell simply because it is not INITIALLY discarded but only displayed (or revealed, in some upcoming cases) to get its power going.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

And you can't take your characters that finished RotR and use them in S&S (not without starting over, anyway).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:


If he only revealed it, and rolls a 1, then the 1 becomes a 3 and he discards it. He can not recharge it now because that discard isn't playing a weapon.

Not sure you are right on this, HM. He discarded because of a power on the weapon card. The card was played before discarding, and a power on the card forced the discard, so, to me, Valeros could recharge it. The fact that the power was negative (wrt discard) shouldn't affect the recharge. Prepared to be wrong, of course, but the discard was a direct consequence of playing the card and should be rechargeable, IMO.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Hang in there, simba! We are a bunch of old farts. Geeky old farts for many of us.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I went really ridiculous and wrote a spreadsheet to randomize the order to completely remove any inadvertent manual bias. At least when I draw the villain as the first card now (it still happens every once in a great while) in a location, I can know it wasn't crappy shuffling.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Here's another possibility:
Suppose there was a spell with the Mental trait, call it "Mind Game", that had this power:
"Discard to evade an encounter."

Now, suppose the encounter was a monster that was immune to the mental trait.

You could not, in this case, use the spell (or if you did, you'd waste it) to evade. Again, this reinforces that you must read the card before you decide how to handle (or even do) the evade. I 100% agree with HM's assertion that acquire is to boons as defeat is to banes, and that is the reason I believe Burglar does the damage even if you evade. I am not going to insist that I must 100% be right, however. It is my understanding of the game, and I've made plenty of misunderstandings before and am prepared to be told this is yet another of those.

There are not any grounds to insist that we MUST be wrong in our interpretation. If there were, we'd have been told to shut up and paint three days ago. If they tell us we are right, it will not "fly in the face of everything..." it will just refine our understanding of this great game.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Forgive me, geek gold?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Well, I certainly wouldn't bet any significant fraction of my paycheck on it, csouth. But one of the things they do so well is care. They're going to war-game this Monday, and we'll soon get an answer. All this over one card. It's why, IMO Paizo makes the best stuff.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Thanks, Mike.
As to why I think that:
It is a burglar. He is supposed to be faced, not evaded, or at least that is how I see it thematically. Now, you could certainly argue that Merisiel should have a chance to evade thematically, but not anyone else (if that's the way the card is intended to be). Anyway, that is why I believe what I do. I'm often wrong though, and I don't think csouth's interpretation breaks anything at all, just a difference of how you'd want the card to work.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Brainwave wrote:

#3 Are you taking damage from losing combats? If so you're probably not using enough blessings or other abilities to help with combat rolls. It's not normal to lose more than 1-2 combats at the MOST per adventure and many times you don't lose any.

^This.

Now, apparently not everyone plays this way, but we always play 6 characters (either three players if it's my brother and his son or two players if it's just my son), and we usually get through a game with NO damage, and it isn't because we use armor. Nor do we EVER evade (Merisiel isn't in any of our parties).

That is how we play. Roger most do not. Evade=wasted explore. Damage=wasted explore. By using boons to not evade and not take damage, we are doing less exploring, but we need less exploring. It's not the only way to play, for sure, but it is how we play. Now, I suspect that has something to do with why none of us believe RotR is too easy. (We have no house rules, although we have discussed some we might add once we get through deck 6 on our next go-round, if we have one). Most of our games, we defeat on the VERY LAST turn, and we usually believe up to that point that we cannot win. (It's like the saying, "Why is it that every time I'm looking for something I always find it in the last place I look?" where the answer is because you rarely go on looking after you've found it). I don't think we've ever won any earlier than the last round of turns for our 6 players even if it didn't go all the way to turn 30.

As for thieves' tools and the items you complain about: they are there if you don't have Merisiel. Merisiel is largely a one-trick pony (which can be said about several of the starting power characters), and her trick is not one that fits our play style.

I do think it is unfair to house rule to nerf the game and then complain that it is too easy.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I do believe it is their intent. For a bane, you could get around the issue without using the "cannot be evaded" by saying "If this card is not defeated, take x [type] damage." This would be invoked even if you evaded. That language cannot be used for a boon. I'd argue that the "If you do not acquire" language on this card is the analogue to "If this card is not defeated" language on a bane.

'twould not be the first time I've been wrong either (closer to the first time I've been right, if it turns out that way).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

HM, I would disagree with your last. We need to avoid the encounter word, as it has us all bolloxed. The burglar needs to say "This card may not be evaded" if the intent is to take the damage if you don't acquire it (because if Merisiel or someone else can't evade it, then they either accept the damage or attempt the acquisition. Your first wording doesn't fix the problem, because people are going to think if they evade, they don't encounter.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Well, here is at least one proof of the idea that those who think the game is too easy are probably nerfing it by not playing correctly.

That said, snicker, I do share your frustration on consulting the rulebook. But Paizo is working hard to make the rules and the card text less interdependent. A word search in the rule book is the way to go. Sorry about the lousy computer issue.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Eventually, Vic or Mike will weigh in. To make it clear, this card needs to say "This card may not be evaded."

1 to 50 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.