I think you are converging, but I don't think you should be able to heal any individual character more than two points, or it threatens Kyra's heal ability (remembering Kyra's location limit and her average of 3.5/heal).
As for your assertion that you waste points if they don't have any discarded cards, that is the deal with an aura. You can't complain that randomly selecting fluctuates an aura but then selectively move points to another character just because someone in the aura can't take advantage of it (well, the logic to mean seems inconsistent -- an aura can't choose).
As for which card to recharge, I'd say either make it recharge a blessing or discard ANY card. That way, you have to make a choice when you use an aura.
I thought the boards hAd proven that only Kyra could beat her because she has the only way to add Magic to a wisdom check (away from my game on iPhone so I might have the particulars screwed up but I know the conclusion), so unless the shield has some kind of ability to add the magic trait to a wisdom check (which would be highly bizarre) when you are not taking damage you did not legitimately defeat her.
Sorry, I missed that part of your build. With that I'd agree your 3/4 is not overpowered. I followed this thread (or so I thought) but guess I got confused as you worked out your aura details.
I disagree. She has to forgo exploring too (at least her free explore), and that's a big hit. It's your game, so do what you will, but I think you are creating a guy who is over-powered. I like the concept, but it is hard to balance a new character without the concepts the designers used to balance their characters (and the army of play-testers to verify the results).
Here's how I see it if you want the cure:
This is offset by (as I understand it) having to recharge a card, but I think this is the balanced approach.
Where is h4ppy in this? He's one of the best on knowing all the rules and should be able to weigh in on a balance issue like this. We don't have a batman beacon for h4ppy.
I think this is overpowered relative to Kyra. Remember, you get to decide multiple characters not at your location, and that is huge!!! Kyra's ability is a pain because she has to be where the healing is. Fenris 235 is right, it should never match Kyra, and it should be a lot less powerful to account for not having to be at the location. Remember, on the average, Kyra only heals 3.5 cards, so you are proposing a heal that is stronger than hers on the average, and you can choose who to heal how much. Ridiculously over-powered.
h4ppy, you have a very firm grasp on the game, as evidenced by all the help you provide on the boards. Perhaps my table will eventually get there, but right now, we find the game plenty challenging. Of course, we generally try to maximize exploring and generally make the defeat in the last one or two turns. We find a lot of the fun in taking it to the wire and maximizing our exploration of the locations. Every once in a while, we miscalculate and lose, but no deaths so far in our 6 char game (doing Foul Misgivings right now).
I'm certainly not trying to say that it is any easier or harder to put them lower; I don't know, but I can see how Vic might be right, even though it is counter-intuitive.
True, but you are generalizing from a very specific encounter circumstance. If it had been Kyra who encountered the villain on a second explore, having used her only damage spell on her first explore and having no weapons in her hand, she would be highly likely to fail at the encounter if say it happened after all other 5 characters going first had used their blessings to explore and didn't draw any new blessings to replace them (especially if one was Ezren who NEVER has blessings unless he finds and acquires them).
And, while the blessings give more power, they also compound the problem for 6 players because they consume explores, so it is not that great of a thing (at best neutral if you immediately consume the blessing to explore again).
The game is meant to be different for the number of players. A single player game is not meant to have time pressure. It is meant to be a game where you have to deal with the ramifications of death if you take too much damage. That is pressure enough (in my opinion). In our 6 character games, there is almost always someone to help when you need it, and we've NEVER had a character die. If you play a single character game honestly and in strict accordance with the rules, death is a very real threat. (and isn't it odd that we simultaneously have a very vocal crowd arguing that the game is too easy but there is a recent thread talking about how to nerf death?)
... but I would kill for a few more copies of Masterwork thieves tools to spread between a few more characters....
This reminds me: I've been meaning to ask a question:Can Masterwork Thieves Tools auto-defeat say Skeleton Horde or any other card that has no check difficulty? I think yes, but this is another situation that could be clarified.
I don't think Vic is claiming that you can selectively banish at the end, although his statement wasn't that clear. He's just pointing out that the OP's math is WAY OFF and fails to account for removal (which admittedly is a random thing difficult to compute).
I'm sure Vic will chime in, but I think the other thread was clear you can't choose to banish boons at the end of a scenario (that they go back in the box if you choose a more advanced card).
You really should try Fantasy Grounds 2(3 will be released shortly). For us, at least, it does almost everything we'd want, and its scripting lets you add features that may be missing.
There is a strong (but not universal) correlation between those who nerf the game rules through misunderstanding (usually by not studying the FAQ or the newly issued improved rule book) and those who believe the game is too easy, and you can see that by noticing how many times someone who claims the game is too easy either asks a question or makes an assertion that shows they have an interpretation that nerfs the game.
H4ppy's (whom I must point out believes the game is too easy because he is simply an expert at it) method of putting villains into the bottom has, imo, been shot full of holes by several luminaries on the boards, including the great Vic himself. Not to say that it might not be a good house rule, but it comes with baggage, as one recent thread explored in detail.
As someone who can't afford to play more than once per week due to RL (or my version of it), I think Paizo's struck a fine balance of challenge and fun. In fact, I rue the decision to go to a monthly issue (6 weeks would have been about perfect) because I don't think I'll ever be able to keep up (standing by for the blast of 18 posters telling me that the answer is simply not to buy it all, but I am one of those completists and collectors [as you can tell from my by-line]). However, the masses have spoken, and I will grudginly go along with their voice that Paizo has heard and acted upon. It will be a hard decision to decide which box to put on the shelf unplayed.....
+1 for H4ppy's idea!
There really is something inherently wrong with the fact that the most populous cards in the box are ones that, in many cases, you will only ever see once in the entire use of the box.
The other thing that could be done is to have multi-purpose cards (anyone ever notice that the Zombie Minion is danged near identical to the Zombie monster except for the art?) so that a monster becomes a henchman or vice versa. In fact, you could set up some henchmen so that after you defeat the scenario in which they are used, they get shifted to the monster deck in future scenarios. This could toughen things up a bit (for those that believe the game should be harder -- for the record I'm not one of them).
You and Polyphemus should get together. He's done some impressive scenarios and adventures. There are probably others on BGG (well, I know there are), but I don't prowl those boards. Over here, there are few besides Polyphemus doing it.
The only reasonable way to interpret "put them back" is that they go back where they came from, which is the top of the deck. Of course, their order may be reversed from the way they came off the deck, which is the second benefit of this card (other than knowing the two cards, that is). The designers tend to be clear that they expect the logical interpretation to a card. If they had wanted them to go anywhere, they'd have said it, something like "return the cards to the same location deck at any place in the deck."
That's the point. On Cure, they specified it, but on all recharges, they take place after whatever it is the spell effects. Sorry to have been so confusing, I guess, but I think we are agreeing. I was pointing out that Cure done the way people were saying would change what happened to the Cure card.
There is another case where it makes a difference: Cure.
I disagree respectfully, John. The system is designed to have up to 6 players built at all times. There is no requirement to put characters' cards back into the box if a character isn't being played, so I think Trundell is okay doing his 6-build. But you obviously don't have to build unused characters if you don't want to.
Keep the card box slots please! I like the portability of taking the whole thing with me (especially when flying) without having loose decks (and you have to be able to restore to earlier points when you have several different groups of players at different points.
It would be hard to determine, but I suspect the sleevers are in the minority, and the current box is good for those who don't). I partially sleeve - putting my character decks and the location cards that get frequently handled in sleeves.
Well, there are cards (like the +1 longbow):
I'd say you un-nuke the cards you nuked to get the number you need.
I'm with h4ppy that I thought it was banish on cards you didn't need after making deck. I'll bet they mean you to banish/nuke the extras, but I suppose we'll need an official rendering.
Flat, you read my mind. We always play with 6 characters, and it's hard to get boons if you don't take it to the wire. And one way to view it is that we are being greedy, but there is no wealth in this game as in a real RPG -- we're trying to get the cards we need to be successful in the future, not hoard wealth.
Is there a post somewhere with optional rules? If there is, it should be stickied. I missed that there was an optional rule to banish cards if you run out of blessings.
Mike, I'll certainly echo what they said (although the OP left Avalon Hill's Wizards off the list of all-time game greats), but I think it extends to Paizo at large. While I don't get to play the full game very often at all (which is one of the reasons I love PACG), I eagerly await all my shipments (which you can tell from my by-line is substantial). The amazing thing is that while Vic posts here on the boards pretty regularly, he also clones himself on the other product boards.
This level of support (which is amazing) is actually typical for Paizo. It's what I love about all that they do.
Eagerly awaiting the very-early-in-the-week info on the next iteration of these marvelous game.
I think this can make game logic sense. Just because you tried to use something other than a physical weapon to take out a monster doesn't have to mean that the monster didn't do something very physical to you in return, so this most recent h4ppy interpretation (which I certainly agree is now different with the rule clarification) actually makes sense. (Now, you could certainly argue that the AMOUNT of that return damage is calculated in a non-sensical way, but this IS a game with magic in it after all)
h4ppy, no disrespect, but it isn't gaining any popularity with me. Losing a scenario is punishment enough. You don't get the reward, and you have to find the time to play again (the latter is my problem).
Plus, doing that would fundamentally change the playing of the game (at least as we play it). Right now, on some of the losses, they were because we were trying to do all the exploration we could -- to get that last possible boon that was hidden somewhere in an open location. In other words, we already knew where the villain was (for a variety of reasons), and we were trying to maximize our take. To me, taking it to the last turn (last blessing card in the draw pile) is part of the challenge of the game, and sometimes we miscalculate (e.g. something causes you to have to banish the top blessing draw card or someone trips a Skeleton Horde and we lose a BoG we needed to defeat the villain).
Do what you will, of course, but I think the designers have struck just a marvelous balance with this game. It really captures the cooperative aspect of actual roleplaying very well (if not the role-playing itself).
What you apparently cannot do is have two different effects that give you an additional explore (Ezren is good at this at certain locations). If this happens, much to my chagrin, as I used to consider it a great thing about Ezren until I was corrected on these boards by no less than Mike and Vic (and others like h4ppy and more experienced/knowledgeable folks) that you only get one additional explore (logic: the game has no memory). I do agree with Stormon, that the wording is still somewhat awkward, but I believe it is hard to misunderstand (though not easy to understand - like this post).
Could we perhaps trouble you for the stock number or close-up photo of the holders and where you obtained them?
Well, I haven't appreciated most of his tirade, but I do believe he has a point in his last post. A little flavor text would normally fit on the cards, and it would help to make an outstanding game even better, IMO.
The Lini question has been discussed many times, and what is there is in fact what the designers intended. The fact this can be used on skill checks with just a reveal compensates somewhat for the fact that the character doesn't have high-powered arcane damage spells or great weapons skills.
I think you are okay to do what you want, although you have to read the rules in a particular way to get that interpretation.
Rules (new pdf just released), p.7:
I think that weapons and armor are separate powers, so it is okay to 'x' off weapons before armor.
Well, I've been playing that wrong. I wondered what that phrase in the rulebook meant too, but since there was no example, I've been playing Ezren wrong (and others, but it seems to happen more with Ezren).
Mike, thanks for that explanation. I really recommend you put in an example (like the one above), because I didn't understand what that meant either until your example.
That's the way the rules read. Again, I think Flat has a good idea about using the box, but it isn't in the rules:
This is "Between Games" on p.19.
I think the designers might be concerned that if you can freely exchange cards with the box (even if you meet the basic/-2 restriction), you can build the deck to handle the next scenario rather than having to live with your card choices.
Well, Nathaniel was polite about it. Sure makes you think twice about the normal tactic (at least the way we play) of sending one character per site. An interesting curve....
Roger. Understand. Both go back in the deck and get shuffled in.
Okay, new scenario. It wasn't a barrier, it was a monster instead in the Woods location, and someone uses a card to evade the monster. (Woods at this location, "Undefeated monsters other than villains or henchmen are banished."
Same thing, the evaded monster gets shuffled back in, right?
Scenario: Lini is exploring the Prison, where there are two cards. She turns over Pit Trap ("If defeated, you may immediately explore again. If undefeated, each character at this location is dealt 1d4 Combat damage.")
She plays her Potion of Ghostly Form ("Banish this card and choose a character at your location. That character may evade a barrier, and then may immediately explore again.")
The player says "great, now I get to encounter the henchman or villain and close."
I say "not so fast. You must put the barrier back in the deck and shuffle the two cards, and you may re-counted the barrier."
The player says in another game, they banished the barrier. I think he may be thinking of another barrier like Secret Stash ("If defeated, examine the top 3 cards of the location deck and shuffle 1 item, weapon, or blessing (if any) of your choice into your character deck. Return the remaining cards to the location deck in any order. If undefeated, you may banish this barrier.")
I THINK if you use Ghostly Form on Secret Stash, it gets banished, but Pit Trap goes back in the deck.
Not that it will make you feel any better, Nathaniel, but this is somewhat consistent with the non-card Pathfinder RPG (don't know if you come from a Pathfinder background or not). Divine casters generally have much less damaging spells than their arcane counterparts.
I haven't started Skinsaw yet, so I haven't looked at the cards (I generally don't until I play, as it seems like meta-gaming too much [you shouldn't know what is there before you go, but in a card game where you can replay scenarios, maybe it's not so bad]).
What I meant is she'll be banishing the spell after using it, so next scenario, you get to pick a new one. That's allowed, right?
Technically, you are only supposed to pick from the spells available from what you collected during the scenario. You are only allowed to go to the box if there weren't enough spells to load all the character decks with the required number of spells.
What Flat is suggesting does make sense (going to shop in town), and I believe based on forum comments many people play that way, but it is not in strict accordance with the rules.
Well, every time you replay a scenario you will encounter and gain boons. Some of these will be better than the basic ones you began the game with, and if you do this often enough, you will power-up to the point where you are over-powered relative to the scenario you are playing. I think that's what Mike is trying to say.