Tyler Beck wrote:
Rogue Arueshalae Intrigue
Okay I'm really late coming back to this party, but thanks for the list! It helps my friend and I plan in advance which characters to use for future parties since we each only have one of each Ultimate deck.
I'm a bit confused about one thing. In your first post you put Arueshalae - Combat. Then 3 days later you posted Arueshalae again but put Intrigue. Which one would you recommend more? (I guess I can determine for myself in a couple weeks once Intrigue arrives, but I was curious why you changed your mind.)
So with the efforts to make "sword & board" more viable, will the requirements to use lay on hands be made more explicit? I know a couple GMs who say you can't use it if your hands are currently preoccupied (e.g. holding a weapon and a shield). This caused some players to come up with creative ways to drop and retrieve their weapon, or to just use a 2h weapon (which was often better anyway). But now that it costs actions to do this, it becomes even harder to use LoH in the middle of battle.
Thematically, S&B paladins have always been more appealing to me, and I'm hoping to them become more viable. The blog even mentions a case of a paladin using LoH on himself and raising a shield for even more AC. I'm hoping this is all doable without also dropping his sword.
Agent Eclipse wrote:
Super excited to be able to play the Arcanist finally!
A version of Enora's been in play for a couple years now. Unless you mean the Wizard class deck and Pathfinder Tales decks weren't good enough for her in Adventure Card Guild. In which case, super excited to be able to play Seoni finally! ^_^
I have bought all of the Character packs up to this point but most of them do nothing for me really, and there are so many now. At this point, it seems strange that no other content has been developed outside of the 'Character Pack' format.
This was my point when I said they should add more characters. I own all the character packs as well, and I will never play 70 to 80 percent of them because they don't interest me at all. Everyone has different tastes and different concepts they enjoy, so there will never be enough characters released so long as there are still more archetypes that haven't been covered.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be more banes. I would absolutely love that. But for me, I'd like to be able to play versions of the characters I play in the RPG.
I have to agree with the side that feels this is bad news. I've been playing Pathfinder for a long time and even spent an entire summer participating with strangers in local PFS groups (which is a big step for me since I'm normally too introverted to go out by myself and talk to a group of people I don't know). That's how much I loved Pathfinder.
I enjoyed playing D&D 3.5, and when it become 4E, I disliked the change. I tried it, but really disliked it. Then I found out about Pathfinder, and it was exactly what I was looking for. I introduced some of my old 3.5 friends to it, the ones who were also disappointed with 4E, and together we started playing Pathfinder. And we loved it. It's hard to believe we've invested nearly 10 years in it already.
But now it feels like a legacy is coming to an end. It's a bit disheartening, but I guess nothing good lasts forever. I already know I will dislike 2nd Edition based on some of the things I've read. That doesn't mean I won't give it a try. I gave D&D 4E and even 5E a try, but I didn't like either of them. And I'll give Pathfinder 2E a try. But I really doubt it'll give me the enjoyment Pathfinder has given me all these years, so I will most likely not invest any more money into it.
It's a shame that this is the decision Paizo has come to. I didn't think they were hurting this badly. In each of the local gaming stores I do my shopping, Pathfinder by far dominates the RPG section. There's only one tiny shelf for D&D products, while Pathfinder covers nearly a dozen others. And I feel this decision only serves to split the playerbase. If new blood is what they were looking for, it would have been a much wiser decision to simply relaunch the game with a fully compatible system. In exactly the same way the Unchained book brought new life to several classes, a new "Unchained" core book with the original classes and races would have been better - a stepping on point for new players where you could make the changes that need to be made for new players and players who want the change; but still allowing older players to continue moving forward with what they've already invested in.
This is mostly for those who haven't tried out the Magus deck yet or are on the fence over grabbing it: it's one of my favorites. I've played Talitha quite a bit, and her ability to bury blessings to later retrieve them is tremedously powerful. And even though she's classified as a "staff mage", I gave her Gallivance and never looked back. Gallivance was almost made for her! (I think Seltyiel stole it from her.) I love being able to bury a blessing to add her high Arcane skill to her melee checks, with the ability to use that blessing to reroll a die that rolled a bit too low. She rarely ever fails checks. Then later when she gets her Holy Avenger role, she can add the number of buried blessings to ALL checks (after a feat)!
Kudos to whomever designed this deck. I haven't gotten tired of using it!
It would be very easy to stay in same locations with bigger parties, if there is more time. So big party would steamroll scenarios with that variation... so the limitations should be something different... I am not sure that this is a thing that needs fixing. I enjoy the difference between 2 Person or 6 Person game. It is like different game all together, so more interesting to play again with different size croup.
I've played nothing but 6 player games, and we've never found staying at the same location to be very beneficial. If you find the villain, and nobody is covering the other locations, he could end up anywhere, and you waste time trying to locate him again. Also there are many cards that affect everyone at your location, so we try to avoid that. And of course, not everyone is going to be able to close the location very easily, so you could end up with the wrong character finding the henchmen, and suddenly your group is using extra blessings just to get the location closed, meaning even less explores available.
The only time we really group at a location is if there's nowhere else to go (we've already closed the others), or if it's a really nasty location with a mean "start of turn" effect, and we just want to close it as quickly as possible.
And if big parties aren't currently "steamrolling scenarios", and in fact have an issue with time many times, I don't see how giving everyone an extra turn is going to suddenly make the game too easy.
Ah, I see. Yes balancing the two would make things fun. The time factor is easy - there should be a variable number of cards in the blessings deck depending on the size of the party. Then to mitigate the fact that more characters gives more blessings and other forms of help which diminish the need for healing, the best solution is to probably limit the "range" of these cards. You can only play cards to help a character at your location or an adjacent location, for example. Something that doesn't hurt small parties with few locations but does affect large parties with many locations.
In regards to Brother Tyler's post, I feel the perceived notion that the game is too combat-focused is because most of the banes encountered are monsters, especially henchmen and villains. Barriers are meant to represent the non-combat obstacles. They're not necessarily just traps (though most of them fall into that category), but can also represent other sticky situations like the Shopkeeper's Daughter.
This isn't an issue solely with the Adventure Card Game. Pathfinder in general is built around this for the most part. When you play Pathfinder Society, the henchmen and final boss are nearly always combat encounters. That's just what most people expect, and probably what most people want. Even in the RPG, being a non-combat character is usually going to be pretty boring for a majority of the scenario. I remember playing alongside a player who loved being the party "face", but when it came to combat (which it inevitably does in PFS), he was almost completely ineffective. The GM did his best to allow him to roleplay his way through some things, but for the most part, combat encounters require combat. If more than one player were doing this, we likely wouldn't survive.
Similary in PFACG, in a 6p game you could likely have 1 player be non-combat, and the others could carry them through the combat portions of the game. But I wouldn't try it with a 2nd player doing that until they start making adventures that are more barrier-focused.
Please no. It's annoying enough to have to replay scenarios multiple times because we keep running out of time. If we have to have a healer run around healing people, that will mean even less time. Replaying an entire campaign because the group wants to try different characters - that's fun. But replaying a scenario when everyone wants to move on and continue the story - not fun.
Not necessarily a change, but something I would like to see added - more characters! Now that we have Ultimate decks coming out to supplement all the class/character decks, a character expansion set is completely viable. New archetypes for rangers, rogues, fighters, etc. etc. I've been hoping for a couple years now for my favorite divine hunter paladin to make an appearance (like the one in the NPC Codex that even has a miniature made already). Popular non-iconics such as Shalelu could be fun as well.
(I also considered having official OP rules for creating your own character, but creating a list of balanced power feats to choose from sounds like a bit too much work.)
I don't think zeroth_hour2 was saying it didn't work at all. I believe he was making the same point I was about Rivani. The spells are usable by them since they both have arcane. But the spells (and other cards) become better for those who have the perception skill, which unfortunately is everyone except the characters who are supposed to be the best at using those particular cards.
It was just an odd design choice that makes it seem like it was more of an oversight than actual intention. Nothing is broken here. There's just some lost flavor.
It seems that Kinetic Blast is a spell designed for Yoon, yet it has a Arcane and Perception check (which is the Psychic spell template) rather than the Arcane and Fortitude check. Is this intended? Yoon doesn't have Perception, so she's worse at using this than Erasmus.
I had this same question in another thread concerning psychic cards in the other Occult Adventures deck. Amusingly you even called this a "Psychic spell template", but even the Psychic character herself doesn't have the Perception skill. I understand that these cards need to be made usable by the other characters in their deck. I don't like the idea that the other characters are better at using these cards than the characters who they were designed for in the first place. But whatever the reason may be, they made it clear it was intended (or at least they're aware of it and have no intention of changing it).
One other thing I would like to see change is the utility of allies. I really haven't given it enough thought to offer any suggestion, but currently in my group (6 players), all the text printed on allies are a waste of ink. The only power we ever can afford to use them for is to explore again.
It might be more a problem with the fact that the countdown timer (the blessings deck) wasn't designed to scale to 6 players. 30 cards with 6 players means that we each only get 5 turns (as opposed to the 7.5 turns that 4 players have), so extra explores each turn becomes more of a necessity. So while it would be fun to hold on to that ally to use its other powers, instead it immediately gets discarded to explore again. (And even then, sometimes we still run out of time if the Villain ends up as the bottom card of a location.)
(Amusingly, I just came up with an idea while typing this.) Perhaps instead, allies can be displayed to explore again. Then you can still discard them to use their other powers. At the end of your turn, if it's displayed, discard it.
I agree with Kasoh. If a game has a "perma-death" feature built in, and it's a character that I've spent a long time developing and have grown attached to, then I will hand-wave any death as not having happened. There's nothing worse than a game basically erasing all the time you spent on something, as if you have nothing better to do with that time. It's even worse in video games since you can't just pretend it never happened. (I believe there was an MMORPG once that included permanent death as a feature. I never touched that game.)
Since I have very little free time, I'm opposed to any game elements whose design is solely to waste that time. This is what annoyed me (and the rest of my gaming group) about Wrath of the Righteous so much. Barriers such as Demonic Horde and Arboreal Blights just slowed the game down to a crawl. Demonic Hordes were especially bad because they could wind up hitting the same person repeatedly, forcing the rest of us to play all our blessings to help them get through it. And if there was one failure, it meant not only did we waste playing those cards, but we'd have to spend an entire round recovering from it, then end up facing it yet again. That was the most "unfun" we've ever experienced in this (or possibly any) game.
So yeah, we have no problem house-ruling away permanent death.
I've never made a Ranged check with her... I use spells for her combat exclusively. Since I'm playing Season of Faction's Favor, I normally trade away her weapons for other useful things. Since you're planning to take her to Plundered Tombs, you could consider doing the same.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. The artwork with her and the crossbow hovering behind her sounded like a cool concept to play out, but yeah it's probably better just to stick with attack spells.
I've been testing Rivani and haven't had any real issues with her at all. With her large hand size, if I need to recharge a card to get perception, it's usually no problem. I look at it as a way to get cards out of hand that aren't immediately useful.
I'll take your word for it and try her myself before further judgment. I'm not one who is a fan of getting cards out of hand that aren't "immediately useful" because when you run into a situation where they do become useful, they're no longer in your hand. It's happened to me more times than I can count.
It just feels to me she's making an awful lot of ranged and/or perception checks every turn, making her hand-size essentially a 3. But I plan on using her in the upcoming weekend, so hopefully I'm wrong about this.
(I guess it also depends on which adventure you're using her in. I plan on taking her into Plundered Tombs, where I'll probably be recharging cards a lot.)
Keith Richmond wrote:
her Int modifier (which basically always got the first 4 skill feats)
That's sort of the primary issue I have. I tend to put modifiers into a character's secondary skills to help round them out a bit more and make them more effective in a wider variety of situations. With Rivani, we're almost forced to put every skill point into Intelligence just so she can make use of these spells. And it's just odd to me that both other characters are better at using her own Owner item than she is, since she constantly has to recharge a card before attempting to recharge that card. And there are quite a number of other cards in the deck requiring Perception to recharge, so she is recharging cards from her hand constantly to make these checks.
I haven't tested this in practice, so I will assume that your testing has shown it not to be a problem for Rivani. It just feels to me that she's going to constantly have an empty hand since a significant portion of the cards in the Occult Adventures 1 deck require making Perception checks.
Was Rivani meant to have Perception instead of Knowledge?
I know that she can recharge a card to use her Knowledge skill for Perception checks, but with my group about to start fresh with a new set of characters, I decided to take a closer look at Rivani and the Occult Adventures 1 deck.
I noticed that some of the cards (Psychic Surgery and Thought Shield in particular) are clearly meant for the Psychic class (in the RPG, only Psychics get Thought Shield) and even picture Rivani in the artwork. (Granted the artwork can't be relied upon solely since it's depicted Alahazra on an Arcane spell and Feiya on a Divine spell before.) Both of these cards refer to either the Intelligence or Perception modifier. Rivani doesn't actually have the Perception skill, so her modifier for that would always be 0, and she's forced to rely on her Intelligence modifier for both of these spells.
It just seems as if there may have possibly been some miscommunicating between the development of Rivani's character card and these spell cards.
Add in the fact that many of the psychic-related cards (including her own Owner item) refer to Perception to recharge - it just seems very odd that she doesn't have that as an innate skill.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Ah, now I understand the dilemma. Certainly most of us knew to only use one card to assign a skill to a combat check, but it's true some people might attempt it if there's no rule preventing it.
The solution may be as simple as saying that for any combat check, you can only play one card or power allowing you to use a skill "for your combat check". Of course the problem is that this should also apply to any other kind of check as well.
At least the intent is understood now, so this should help my gaming group from constantly interrupting the game to figure out if these types of card interactions are allowed.
I always thought it was a bit odd that the heirarchy addressed higher AD Basics in such a fashion at all. It's so rare to see a Basic as anything but AD0 (I think I may have seen an occasional Blessing of the Gods with a higher adventure deck number), that most of that heirarchy seemed unnecessary. I think a simpler solution would have simply been:
1. Use cards that have the Basic trait with a set indicator less than or equal to your tier.
edit: I forgot you can't put cards in your deck higher than your tier, so this situation can't happen anyway. In fact my "with a set indicator less than or equal to your tier" restriction in step 1 is also redundant.
Ah yes, I forget that Character/Class Decks can be incorporated in the box for non-OP play. I tend to keep the two completely separate, since more times than not, adding those decks to my box just dilute it and make it harder to get the cards we are hoping to get.
But anyhow, I got the answer that I had kinda figured it would be. It's mostly for flavor. And I agree with Hawkmoon. The cards in this deck made me want to go read the novels. I've already purchased one for Kindle to get me started!
Keith Richmond wrote:
It's mostly flavor, but it could technically come up whenever you need to rebuild your deck. For instance, if you added an item card feat in AD2 you could take the Red Carriage as Varian, rather than a B card.
Perhaps I've been misunderstanding the rules, but under the hierarchy on page 7 of the PFSACG guide, aren't you required to go through B's and 1's before you can choose a 2 Basic?
I've done some pretty extensive digging, but I can't seem to find the answer.
Is there a reason for Red Carriage (from the Pathfinder Tales character deck) having "Owner: Varian" (aside from flavor purposes)? Sure Varian treats the Item card as Basic, but it's still adventure deck 2. By the time he can add AD2 cards to his deck, it won't matter if it's Basic or not.
The same question was sort of asked years ago concerning Arueshalae and her adventure deck 3 Owner cards in this thread, but that thread changed directions and became more about reacquiring banished loot cards. It was never addressed what benefit there was to adding the Basic trait to higher adventure deck cards.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Depending on what happens in the other thread, Varian may have to change (ex: When you reset your hand, you may banish a card; if you do, draw a spell from your discard pile, then shuffle any number of spells from your discard pile into your deck.)
If it helps, there's another case of similar verbage also in the Pathfinder Tales deck: Wayfinder.
Discard this card to examine the top card of your location deck, then you may shuffle the location deck, then you may explore your location.
Is shuffling the location deck a prerequisite for exploring the location?
Keith Richmond wrote:
but if you let him auto-shuffle all spells at the end of his turn that's much better than even auto-recharging spells :)
Which is what prompted me to ask this question in the first place. If he could auto-shuffle his spells, the text about him not being able to recharge his spells became moot since nobody would ever do that anyway.
Frencois' point is what caused my confusion. I knew I had read a similar case in another thread, but couldn't find it. So with Imrijka, the drawing a card isn't dependent on whether you recharge a card.
I got the answer I was looking for, and I had a feeling it was more the intent to banish a card in order to recover the spells (from a thematic perspective). But it's evident the wording is a bit ambiguous and led to an inconsistent ruling with another card.
Thank you all and happy holidays!
I've searched and couldn't find this question asked anywhere, so I apologize if the answer to this is plainly obvious. I just can't seem to decide which is the proper interpretation:
When you reset your hand, you may banish a card to draw a spell from your discard pile, then shuffle any number of spells from your discard pile into your deck.
Is banishing a card required to shuffle the spells from your discard pile into your deck? It seems (gramatically speaking) you could choose not to banish anything and still shuffle any number of spells back into your deck. It just feels a bit strong (and makes his "weakness" pointless).
Are they going to be updating the downloads page with the character sheets from the new class decks? Don't like to mark up my cards those big character sheets to print out are very nice.
We use clear sleeves (clear on both sides) and peel-off china markers. It's something I picked up from my father when he and I used to play Star Fleet Battles in the 80s, and it still works well to this day. I've been meaning to just laminate all the character cards for over a year now, but I still haven't gotten around to doing that.
(Although I'd anxious for them to catch up on the character sheets myself, simply because they make for quick reference on my computer when I don't feel like digging through all those boxes.)
I've been hoping the original class decks would be given supplements for well over a year now. Every time I want to play Seoni, I'm reminded how bland her class deck is compared to all the recent class decks.
It would be nice to have a supplemental product released with new cards to be implemented in the first wave of class decks. Even a few cards each could make a big difference. Then rangers (and an Adowyn unlock) could make use of a Basic bow. And the older classes could also make use of some of the newer blessings.
I get that some people are obsessed with goblins, but it irks me a bit that this was pushed back to make room for goblin decks. Since this was the last class deck in the wave, I don't understand why they couldn't have released this, THEN do a wave of goblins.
I'm just so impatient to get her. She's the one iconic character who NEEDS a class deck in order to be played in the other base sets, since guns are only present in Skull & Shackes.
I purchased the Bundle to get access to all the characters and just completed the tutorial with Ameiko and Orik. Now I can make a party of 6, but only Merisiel and Kyra are available to me. Should I have access to everyone at this point?
Edit: Speaking with a friend of mine who downloaded the game the same time as I did, he has access to all the characters right after the prologue, so something went wrong on mine. There's no button for restoring purchases. Any advice on who to contact to get this fixed?
Well, if Vic was looking for ideas for promo cards.... now he has some. :-)
Actually I was just thinking that would make a nice little add-on pack of sorts. Instead of a full class deck, just a pack of additional characters that would supplement the decks.
Granted it'd be a lot of work designing enough characters to sell as a pack, and several characters would probably need specific types of equipment available that aren't available in their class decks, so the promo idea is probably a lot more feasible.
Or perhaps even a future Pathfinder Battles set with the NPCs and their character and role cards.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Honestly, I'd be more disappointed that she never got added as a physical card than if I had to play as her with no role card. It'd be amazing if she and other hugely popular NPCs were added as playable. (Such as Shalelu - this game is missing an elf ranger to play as!)
Mike Selinker wrote:
As much as we'd like there to be miniatures of every character we create, we also want to make interesting characters that no one has thought of. So the decision to include a half-orc and gnome paladin was based on wanting to make those archetypes rather than the elf archer. Maybe someday, though.
I understand wanting to make unique concepts (though Red Dragon Inn already beat you to the orc paladin! :) ), but I'd say an elf archer paladin is pretty unique to Pathfinder. And as someone who loves playing elf archers in games, I'm saddened that class-deck Merisiel is the only option so far.
Please strongly consider the elf archer if paladin or ranger get a second class deck. (Hunter class deck works as well!)
I'm glad someone else understands the math behind this. I just wish the game developers did. Even if math isn't their thing, playtesting at 6 players would have revealed this. I have a feeling playtesting was done primarily with 4 players since several mechanics (such as the number of blessings in the blessing deck, barriers such as Arboreal Blight and Demonic Horde, and Armies) are markedly more difficulty at 6 players as compared to 4.
I keep having to make small rules adjustments for my 6-player group to properly scale the difficulty comparable to a 4-player game.
I'm a month late to the conversation, but this card has killed my playgroup again. After losing my first 6-person group to the B scenarios, I finally managed to find 3 other players willing to play give this expansion a shot, and we made it to Adventure Deck 1 without any casualties (finally!)
We recruited 2 more players, and started having fun through Adventure Deck 1, facing a few challenges, but still no deaths.
Here we are in Adventure Deck 2, and suddenly this henchman comes up. Unfortunately nobody in our group has stealth. So here we are burning blessings to try to get my Seoni to pass a stealth check (since I was the best candidate for it), and by the grace of the gods I manage to succeed, but our Seelah player had an unfortunate Fortitude roll and failed. Then it went downhill from there. I was never able to pass another Stealth check in subsequent encounters, and after it became hopeless, we just quit. The group is now unwilling to continue unless someone is willing to scrap their character and play someone with Stealth. Unfortunately, we're all pretty attached to our characters, so it seems we're stuck unless we come up with another solution.
Pathfinder Battles new set due in November will be including Radillo!
I'm hoping to see more of the Class Deck characters receive miniatures in the future, as that gives me more incentive to include them in my games (to match all the iconics whose miniatures we use). I'll definitely be dusting off Radillo's card for this.
Now, if only the reverse were true. As I mentioned in the blog comments, I'm extremely disappointed that there are two existing Paladin miniatures based on NPC Codex characters that could have been included in the Paladin Class deck - two character concepts that would have been extremely fun to play (a finesse Paladin and an archer Paladin) - and neither were chosen. Oh well... as they say, c'est la vie.
Cheers for Radillo, though!
I'm really happy to have a miniature for Radillo from the Adventure Card Game. I'm still a little miffed that they had TWO potential choices for the Paladin Class Deck for existing minis from the NPC Codex (Nyalil Stormstrike and Leisair Truemark), either of whom I'd have been thrilled to see added, and they included neither of them. But it is what it is. I'm sure there are others who will enjoy the Paladin Class Deck while I pass on it.
At least I now have more incentive to play Radillo! Now to start putting together a party for November...
I'm tempted to try a solo Enora or Seoni playthrough of B, possibly starting with the example deck, just to show it can be done.
I'm sure there are few who doubt it can be done. I can invent a game where you roll a d6 once every hour, and if you a roll a 6 you're allowed to advance to the next stage. That game can also be done. But the odds are stacked against it, and it's not fun for those who fail to advance.
Given it seems to be the majority opinion that this game is best balanced around a party of 4, I think I'm going to retry with that instead of 6. Also I'll encourage everyone to play non-casters. It's a shame players can't play the type of character they enjoy to have fun in this game - since it's apparent this game was designed to cater to the "power gamers" we'll do our best to try doing that and see if it's enjoyable.
2.It stands to reason that the ‘base’ level missions of ‘any’ game should facilitate a learning curve, so people can get to grips with the new character they have chosen, get used to the game mechanics, and understand how to work together to overcome goals. Whether “thematic” or not, having card wipes and even party wipes in the first few scenarios is not conducive to helping people to get ‘into’ the game. In many ways, it presents the entirely opposite situation of making people wanting to give up. You can make things challenging without making them feel 'impossible'. That's called balance.
I think this is the most important fact that the game designers seem to have forgotten with Wrath of the Righteous. This game is going to be the introduction for many new players into the world of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. The B scenarios are supposed to represent a sort of tutorial to acclimate players to the game mechanics and strategies. To have them be the HARDEST scenarios through all 6 Adventure Paths is ludicrous and not conducive to player retention.
I'm glad to see a blog addressed this issue. My group has been in love with PACG since day 1 of Rise of the Runelords, and we've always had a blast. Wrath of the Righteous marked the end of that era, and after trying the B scenarios 3 times, we all unanimously agreed the game was no longer fun and shelved it.
The first problem I noticed while reflecting upon everything is that the game seems to be designed more around 4 players, not the 6 we usually play with. With 80 potential cards to explore in 30 turns as opposed to 60 with 4 players, there's too much forced multiple exploration which really kills arcane classes who don't always have offensive spells available. There's also no significant advantage that 6 players have over 4 players, so I did some quick calculations and figured we needed a blessing deck size of 42 for the 6 of us. This eliminated the time problem forced upon us.
The bigger problems are the new barriers and monsters that are immune to arcane. Most people are aware of the problems Enora and Seoni have with Carrion Golems. But the even bigger problem that killed the game for us is the Demonic Horde. With 6 players, that one card slows the game down to a crawl as we have to go through six battles to successfully defeat that barrier. And all six battles need to be won or the barrier isn't defeated.
I was considering simply removing that card from the game after our 3rd failed attempt at having any fun, but at this point, everyone was just tired of it and didn't want to bother with PACG anymore. Maybe after a few weeks, they'll be willing to give it another shot but I want to make sure I remove any other problem cards from the game.
It's a real shame because for weeks, all we could talk about was the anticipation of this game coming out and how we couldn't wait. We were giddy with excitement every time there was a new preview blog. And now, there are some of us that absolutely hate this game and want nothing to do with PACG again. Hopefully the feeling is just temporary. Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles topped our favorite games to play every Saturday. I'd love to see WotR work its way back up there.
Riff Conner wrote:
I like that idea. Although I think for our group, I don't want to force the entire party to reset their decks. In S&S for example, there was a weapon I wanted to loot, but it never came up throughout the entire adventure path. I'd hate for a card someone really wanted to finally come up, and then for them to lose it because another player had really bad luck and died to some unfortunate die rolls. (And it sounds like in this game, there's at least one monster who can kill Seoni or Enora outright if they have less than 9 cards left in their deck.)
I think it'll be enough punishment to force a restart of the scenario and for the dead player(s) to reset their decks, but allow other players to keep anything they acquired. None of us make really poor decisions, but sometimes it can't be helped when a string of bad luck happens. My Seoni nearly died to random Manticore attacks many times in S&S.
I'd be interested in seeing a poll as to the general consensus of this game. I pick up my copy today, and I was extremely excited. Then I stumbled across this thread, and now I'm a bit concerned that this game is going to end up on my shelf.
I'm not a fan of games where "luck" is the deciding factor in a game's difficulty. It's as if RotR was simply a game of rolling a d6. If you rolled a 1-5 you win. Most people would say the game is far too easy. So then with S&S they changed the game so that only a 1-3 would be a win. Half the people would still think the game was easy, while half thought it was pretty difficult. Then with WotR, they decided you can only win if you roll a 1. Now most people think this game is far too difficult to be any fun.
Also, character perma-death is not a fun way to increase a game's difficulty. We might have to implement a house rule where characters can be resurrected after each scenario given how it sounds like character death has become increasingly common with this set.
I sure hope I still have fun with the game. My group plans to play tomorrow evening. We've had fun with the prior two games. Even the easiness of RotR didn't keep us from having a good time. At least in our group, having fun together is far more important than the difficulty level.
I'm a little confused now as to whether there's been an official statement given or whether it's still under debate.
1. Are alternate classes no longer considered archetypes?
2. Does this mean combinations like Ninja Scout are not considered legal?
3. Also does that mean that there are no Racial Favored Class Options for them?
I'm just trying to make sure my PFS character remains "legal". Though the GMs in my local games are pretty laid back in these matters, I don't want to play my character at a convention to be told that I've made an illegal character.
Isn't it 5.5 hp per hit die for eidolons?