My general feeling on this is that the hardest character to play is the one that least suits your play style.
I would award this comment triple XP if I could; personal preference of play style is tremendously important, for fun and for success. Both the personal and the group's preferences can have a big impact, and I really recommend people who feel the fun quotient dropping try another character, even if you like the character you're currently playing in other circumstances (or just to try something else).
Thanks for playing!
To add some story to Vic's answers: The idea is that the Weaponmaster Valeros is really good with weapons, including ranged weapons.
When he uses a Longbow, he's not whacking people over the head with it. The basis of the check is still Strength, because that's how Valeros uses weapons, but he doesn't change the weapon itself, so the traits don't change.
Does that make sense?
You can usually just say "Power", since most of the things you care about are in "Powers" blocks on cards.
I should note that my suggestion that Chad responded to when asking about specific cards didn't actually have anything to do with specific cards.
Absolutely true. It wasn't meant to be a direct response, but more of a question on the concept. I picked yours from several similar posts because yours was well-written, you've been involved and helpful on the forums, and your post was in front of me when I had time to write my question.
Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on you directly; I was just interested in feedback on the idea of `key cards' from people who've played the game a bunch.
Spell resistance in PACG could be interesting. If you attempt to use a spell against this monster, roll arcane/divine to see if the spell even works before rolling for the spell's result.
If you peek ahead at future chapters of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, or if you've played any high-level Pathfinder, you'll probably notice pretty quickly that Spell Resistance is really hard to avoid. In PACG, we did not avoid it. :-)
This question is only tangentially related, but I think it's interesting: If you play Pathfinder, do you typically play past 20th level?
I won't comment much in general on your creations, but this did bring up an issue that I think is interesting and general enough to talk about in public: characters that depend on specific cards. We tried very hard to avoid this in RotR, for a bunch of reasons (including but not limited to: dead cards for other characters, upgradability, variety, etc).
ASIDE: That's why there's no Droogami card for Lini. It would feel wrong to have the card anywhere but with Lini, finding it would be weird, replacing it with another card would be weird, etc. We could have made a series of Droogami cards, but that exacerbates several problems to solve one.
In general, we tried to keep those essential features on the character and role cards, rather than putting them on another card that we expect them to want. Thus, we expect Ezren to want Lightning Bolt, Amiri to want the Greataxe, and Sajan to want the Amulet of Mighty Fists - but we don't bind them directly to the character.
QUESTION: How do you all feel about having characters depend on very specific cards? Good, bad, complicated, or other?
... it would be a pretty sweet twist to throw in a monster that is resistant vs. magic (like some are with Piercing / Slashing) but normal from physical late in an adventure path...just for those characters that thought it would be a good idea to stack their deck with all magic weapons.
Do you know of any Pathfinder monsters that behave like that, offhand? We considered the benefits and costs of implementing Anti-magic Field, but I'm wondering if there are any monsters that are specifically immune to magically enhanced equipment but not mundane equipment.
The idea is only a problem if it does something that we didn't expect and didn't want. If we decided that we did want it, it actually causes very little trouble for the game, and it makes certain cards (allies and blessings, for example) more valuable. That said, we're not likely to do it without a solid reason, and we haven't seen that reason in Burnt Offerings or The Skinsaw Murders.
(If we were to implement banes like this in PACG, we'd probably spell it out on the card.)
I think the arcane casters want to know why you hate them. :-)
Seriously, though: these look solid. I'd be careful about adding Ezren at the end, though - presuming that the 6th player will be missing sessions most of the time, he can be a tricky character to wrap your head around. In particular, he's less likely to help other people unless he's has some time to adjust his deck (by acquiring new cards).
Thanks for playing!
That makes sense. I'm still playing with the Perils Of The Coast (3rd play-through?), so I haven't even looked at the the Runeloards stuff or cracked the seal on Burnt Offerings. I know AD2 is shipping though, so it got me thinking.
This is why the tray inside the box has the size and shape it does - it's designed to hold the entirely of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path. In fact, there are some conclusions you can draw from just looking at the tray.
Thanks for playing!
Without opening the tricky question of whether or not the English common "or" is exclusive, I will say that the one feat increases checks with any combination of Force, Acid, and Cold traits (or instead Force, Electricity, and Fire traits), as long as at least one of the traits is present.
Hope that helps!
The game isn't designed to be a solo game.
This is not correct; the game is designed and tested all the way through all of the adventure path for solo play (1 and 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 characters). After playtesting, we included a note about playing solo but controlling two characters. We added this because there are a few specific points where it becomes really hard to succeed with only one character, but it's been done, multiple times. We also learned that some people find it un-fun to have to throw away a lot of cards that their one specialized character doesn't want.
Each character was designed to have a distinct play-style, and some of those are much more fun and effective when there are other characters present. For example, Lem, Harsk, and Valeros all have powers that let them help other characters, so these characters are weaker without companions. These characters are still capable of making it all the way through the Rise of the Runelords, and have done so.
I hope that helps!
ETA: Vic noted that you might be in the wrong forum, which is a good catch. I'll not delete this reply in case it helps someone else. Thanks, Vic!
Flat the Impaler wrote:
A storage solution that I've started using more is the 8.1 liter sized "Really Useful Box", available at Staples and Amazon and probably many other places.
I'd love to see what storage solutions people create for the game, if you don't mind sharing. (As my wife might say, "Pics or it didn't happen.")
If you're building now for the future, keep in mind that the full Rise of the Runelords will be ~1200 cards. If you fill a slot in the current (awesome, IMO) box with cards, then sleeve those cards, you can get an estimate of how big each well needs to be.
is shuffling with sleeves weird? i have never played a deck builder (or magic/card games) where I had sleeved cards so I don't know what the "feel" of it is like
This is something of a personal-taste question, but I'm pretty comfortable saying that almost everyone finds shuffling with sleeves to be *different*. I've seen dozens of people move from no-sleeves to sleeves, and every one (myself included) has had to put effort into the transition.
On the other hand, it's not at all impossible, or even hard to shuffle sleeved cards; it's just different.
The specific sleeves vary a lot - some are very slick; some are textured while others are smooth; the edges and corners can be done differently in ways that affect the shuffle. One thing that you probably won't expect if you haven't played with sleeved cards before is just how much bulkier everything gets. Yes, sleeves are thin (some very, very thin), but multiply that thin layer by 2000+ and it makes a difference.
A standard bridge shuffle can be problematic, as the `open end' of the sleeve can be caught by the other half of the bridge - but the specific ways this happens vary from sleeve to sleeve, and some types basically don't have this problem at all. The change in slickness often makes for a `flying bridge' the first few times. Many people I know people either switch to a riffle shuffle or turn the bridge sideways - but again, it all varies.
Another issue is the deck size - most of the decks in the PACG are either 10 or 15-ish cards (location and character decks). That is (IMHO) too small for a bridge shuffle anyway. If you're frequently shuffling the large stocks in the box, you probably want to break it into parts and shuffle the parts. As a plus, you can usually just take two piles of (squared) sleeved cards an interleave them with just a little effort.
Good luck, and thanks for playing!
So I just ordered this game in order to play with a group of friends who are inexperienced in both board/card games and RPG games. ...
While I think house rules are great, I personally suggest that new groups play through a few scenarios without any additional death penalties. this will give everyone a chance to learn the rules, learn their characters (and change if they want), and figure out the balance of risk/reward that each player individually and the group collectively wants without feeling punished too quickly.
There's a noticeable learning curve to the game. That curve flattens out if you're familiar with Pathfinder, table-top RPGs, board games, and deck-building card games. People who start out without all that experience frequently report that they fail often their first few scenarios, until at some point, it all clicks. I don't recommend making people climb that hill in handcuffs and roller skates. :-)
Good luck, and thanks for playing!
In addition to the excellent answers given above, I will say this: there are currently no boons that increase the number of cards recharged by Cure, or, in general, that affect any rolls that are not checks. While I do ascribe to the `never say never' philosophy, it's very unlikely we'll ever break this principle; it has the potential to create very weird corner cases.
If you're finding that you need more healing during the scenarios than you have available, I can heartily recommend Lem, Lini, Seelah, and especially Kyra for your party.
P.S. Clerics are awesome. That is all.
One of the things I really liked about playtesting feedback was the very large number of characters for whom we got the following feedback:
Person A: Character X is way too good!
Why did I like that? Because it suggests that there's good variety in what people want AND what people get out of the various characters.
I bring this up not to say that anyone is `wrong' about any of the characters, but rather the opposite: figure out what you like, and don't like, and play the stuff that you like! We don't expect that everyone will like all of the characters equally, but we do hope that you like some of the characters a bunch, and we like to hear about it when you do.
Telling us what you don't like about a character is a bit more fraught, not because it's not useful, but because we might want to keep those things you don't like for the other people who do like them. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't give us your feedback! It does mean, though, that we often won't share your view that these things are all problems that need to be fixed.
I hope that helps. Thanks for playing!
We intentionally designed each character to have distinct play styles, and some play-styles won't match some players. It's possible that a high-Armor character like Seelah just isn't as much fun for you as (say) Kyra, Valeros, or Lem would be. We think that's ok.
I encourage people in general to try other characters if they're not having fun with a specific choice. In Seelah's specific case, she encourages a few play-styles that aren't very close to Kyra (a divine healer who can fight) or Valeros (a weapon-user that will rarely be hurt), even though she's a divine healer weapon-user who can fight and will rarely be hurt).
If you're concerned about over-all power level, I assure you that Seelah isn't underpowered for the game, but I'm also pretty certain that she's not for everyone.
Thanks for playing!
Matthew Boehland wrote:
I think you'll find that it doesn't change the game that much, since people rarely lose fights by large numbers. When things go badly, though, they'll go bad quickly. It'll also make healer characters more powerful. If you're the sort of group that plays `grim and gritty' RPGs, this sounds like a good way to do that.
If you're just looking for a hard mode, I'd suggest looking at the Blessings deck. For example: if you take damage, advance the Blessings deck by one. If you take damage beyond your current hand size, apply the extra to the Blessings deck.
Just finished our adventure path and got the loot card,, my question is, how does loot cards effect ur deck and hand size? Do you have to get rid of a card for your deck to have the loot card in it to stay at 15? And how many loot cards are you allowed . ?
Loot cards are described on page 16 of the rulebook. I think this is the part that you're after:
Also, loot cards list a type, such as “weapon”; apart from the way loot cards are acquired, they behave just like other boons of that type and count as cards of that type.
I think damage reduction allies and spells could be seen as healers post the damage and so it would be far easier to add a post damage step where they can be played following normal one per type rules. Less errata and in the spirit of your intention.
This is an interesting idea, but there are big functional differences between healing and preventing damage that make it troubling. If we were adding steps, I suspect that we'd be more likely to add a damage step directly, but that has its own impact.
I'd love to hear about particular combinations of card-plays that people think might be disallowed by this rule, and how valuable those combinations feel to people.
Ignore Arcane Armor and Mirror Image for now, as we're already looking at those two.
I've seen Guard & Archer/Soldier/Acolyte/Snake/etc, and Amulet of Mighty Fists & Bracers of Protection/Sihedron Medallion. Any others?
This is exactly right. If we've done our job correctly, cards that change your checks will say something like "for your combat check". Most weapons and Attack spells work like this, so examples should be easy to find.
Cards that can be used additively should say something like "PLAY this card to add X to a/your combat check". Fiery Weapon (from Burnt Offerings) is a good example of this.
A few cards give you the option to do choose one or the other, such as Swipe (in Hook Mountain Massacre) or the GenCon promo Fire Sneeze.
Okay I see it now. Lini's ability states that she can Recharge when she PLAYS an ally that as the Animal trait. I guess if you are just discarding the ally, you aren't really playing it.
Hopefully, a close look at the wording will make this clear, but the idea in super-detail is:When you're playing Lini, AND
when you play an Ally card, AND
that Ally card has the Animal trait, AND
your play uses the Discard play type, THEN
you can Recharge that Animal Ally instead of Discarding it.
If the Ally isn't an Animal, there's no change. If Lini is Revealing the Animal as part of her character card power, there's no change (although there might be in the future). If Lini is discarding the Animal Ally for some other reason, such as taking damage, completing a When Closing clause, or powering another ability, there's no change.
This helps Lini when using the Bear to boost her Combat check, but not when using the Giant Badger to move.
The game (playtest version anyway) had a decent learning curve, but once you got the hang of it, the gameplay is very solid. My biggest complaint about it was (and likely still would be) the amount of time it takes to set it up, though I will likely pick up a set at Gencon, regardless.
Adding to what Mike and Vic said above, we think that the final, published game will be much faster and easier to set up. The playtesters (thanks again, to all you valiant playtesters!) were working from a giant pile of rough-edged, undifferentiated card-stock with black ink on one side. Getting cards in adventure decks, using the custom tray, having cards that one can actually shuffle, and being able to sort cards by color are all big improvements - plus there are some adjustments to the game itself to help in this area.
Chocolate Thief wrote:
Scenarios vary, but the vast majority take 60-90 minutes to complete (for good or ill). I generally suggest people give themselves an extra 30-45 minutes of learning during their first scenario or two.
ETA: forgot to scroll to the bottom before replying. :-)
I'm still not quite clear on how the progression works. All other deck-based games I know fall into one of two categories:
While I don't want to steal Mike's thunder, I will say that the game doesn't use either of those two models.
Your character deck changes during a session, as you gain and lose cards. At the end of a session, everyone rebuilds a new character deck using the cards that they have now, plus any cards that your other players are willing to trade you. Does that make sense?