Gwyns Firstborn's page

Is it weird to anyone else that Talitha's 3rd power is a positive effect with a POSITIVE (i.e. Not Negative) cost? Normally you don't get positives for both sides of that equation.
Or am I missing something?

In many cases you won't have the option. A bunch of blessings, including the Basic one, force an examine before you explore.

Obviously Thoth doesn't allow straight-up exploring, but I figured the basic BotG and other non-basic blessings did. Alright. I guess they thought of that then.

I continue to worry about how much Triggers will actually be seen. My group always saw examining only as a need if you're up against the clock, but with a 3-4 person group in RotR and S&S we rarely had that issue (did not play WotR), so we rarely examined as it just seemed unnecessary and so didn't waste deck slots on cards that examine. Then again, it's a Catch-22 because we didn't value examine cards...so we didn't have them...and thus never examined...causing us to not value them....and so on. So maybe simply having cards in our decks that examine (as it seems there's going to be more multi-ability cards) may inspire us to examine more.

Of course, if the difficulty is much higher, examining may be a need to minimize combat and/or surprises, as i've heard about Wrath needing, but my gut reaction is it feels like one of those "oh, then i'll just not do it" things.

For Alkenstar blessing....why would i add a d4 when i could add a d12? most of the time guaranteeing a success is far more important than aiming for that "under 6" sweet spot for the recharge.

The only other reason I could think of is the few abilities that say things like "if you roll a 4 on a d4, count it as 6" or something.

I was skeptical of this intensity meter at first, but i applied it to my own custom characters, which I have spent far longer balancing them than creating them, and your scale holds up. (i used additive btw)

Char 1: 11, 12 = 23
Char 2: 11, 6, 11 = 28 (this char has 40 skill points as opposed to standard 42)
Char 3: 12, 11 = 23
Char 4: 13, 10 = 23
Char 5: 11*, 10 = 21* (*this power scales based on what cards are in hand)
Additionally, most of these characters I designed as more complex to make the game more interactive, so the fact that they are slightly above the magic 22 number is a good thing.

I have no posted them yet, publicly, because I want them to be 100% done first and I have no gotten around to full campaign yet with them, but I'm glad this secondary source confirms my belief that they are pretty balanced.

...is there discrimination in the Pathfinder world against having many belts? If that was the case, most of the PACG heroes would be oppressed, I think.

I hope there's a new weapon card called "Pillow with the stuffing pushed into the edge". Maybe it does Force damage?

I'm more interested in seeing the changes after this character has been thoroughly playtested. It's truly a unique design but that generally means mechanical problems when actually playing the game. It definitely gets my award for most outside the box.

I'm not a fan of power #5 for the Wanderer -- it's just a fancy and long-winded evade. There doesn't seem to be much else to it beside that. Duane is on to something in that the power should have a bonus effect in addition to the evade. Remember, barbarians don't like running from conflict!

I also agree with jones that the pre-explore moving is a little redundant. Obviously you can use this before subsequent explores, such that you can move before your 2nd or 3rd explore during a turn, but even then it feels a bit clumsy. You may want to change it to something like:
"When you use an ally or blessing to explore your location, you may first move and explore that location instead."

whatever happened to the good ol' days when we would use "their" when referring to a random person? Varril says "random card from her discard pile". I know nobody wants to use "his" anymore, but what's wrong with "their"?

My bet on why PACG blew up is because it filled an otherwise empty niche. It's this niche that I, and my group of friends, found this game to fill. That niche is a middle-ground between board (or card) game and full-blown pen & paper RPG. As experienced gamers (of all types) we've played Dominion, Catan, etc, and wanted something a little more complex, but no one wanted to invest (time or money) into a D&D or Paranoia that required serious dedication as well as a DM/GM.

Although there are other attempts at making "shorter, card-based D&D" with games like Thunderstone, they all lacked the impetus of serialization (i.e. continuous stories / campaigns) that kept peoples interest.

Considering how long it took us to finish the Runelords campaign (note: very long), this level of required dedication is perfect for us while maintaining our interest because of developing individual characters.

The two major sites i am using for my cards are

Pinterest and deviantArt

I know the internet is very...liberal... with image usage, and I see deviantArt stuff all over the place, but I always assumed DA had some basic protection rights against people taking DA images and using them however they please (even if nobody follows them).

I'd also like to emphasize just how overloaded you get when there is one type of card your character doesn't get. for example, when i played seoni in Runelords, i never got weapons for her and just put deck points into blessings and allies. by the end of the campaign, i was way overstocked with allies in my hand. sure they're great for explores, but beyond that they were dead weight since most of them were for specific uses that don't come up that often.

i mention this because your dragons, without armors and weapons, is going to have A LOT of each other type of card so it might be prudent to have abilities that do something with them. i know you mentioned your summoner is going to use allies, which is fine, but i worry about your dragons.

cartmanbeck is partially right about the Weapons - they shouldn't be able to use weapons ever. I don't know much about the regular PF rpg but I'm pretty sure dragons don't wield axes.
cartmanbeck is also right about the Breathe attack - you don't have to come up with totally novel mechanics. There's nothing wrong with taking what is essentially Seoni's ability and tweaking the flavor (Con instead of Cha). Take that into consideration when coming up with abilities. A good start is making a character by compiling abilities from various established characters and tweaking from there.

these blogs about customization are really helpful, not only for directing brainstorming on custom cards but for understanding the overall design philosophy of the game itself. knowing this stuff can definitely help me appreciate the themes of the scenarios and extrapolate the "story" they are trying to convey in the scenario-specific rules for the regular game (not just customs).

the final point being made here is that the game is optimized for 3-4 players. so people shouldn't be going into this game expecting outlier setups to be perfectly balanced. this is to be expected. 2-player games find wombo combos and 6-player games can be(apparently) quite the drag. it's like how video games are designed for Normal, so Easy and Hard sometimes produce weird results/experiences.

(chrome doesn't know the word "outlier" for some reason O_o)

Congrats on doing Paizo's job for them! =p
This is pretty great, though I've only skimmed it so far. As Ron said, this is just in time as a nice answer for the fast PACG players who are going to be shafted a bit by the Mummy's Mask pushback. Feels almost....planned. I call conspiracy!

Is the 4d4 + weapon enough to sacrifice that spell card? His Arcane is not the best, but it's not awful either, it's d8 + 2 and if you focus skill feats it can be formidable in itself without the need for a weapon. The combo requires two cards in hand, remember. I have not played the Wrath campaign so I do not know power levels, but I have been trying to figure out a way to make the Fiery Weapon (what amrael's base power is) spell (in Runelords) useful and, generally speaking, I'd rather just have a regular attack spell.
On paper, the powers all seem to work well, but from my experience you just need to test it for real. From testing custom characters I can tell you that powers requiring two cards is risky and falls flat often enough that it is quite noticeable. For example, a dagger-oriented power is only useful when you have a dagger plus a main weapon in your hand, which you use once and then the dagger goes away (you usually use daggers for their discard effect). So there is a noticeable lack of using the character's power.
The same thing applies to the advanced role focusing on the Cohort. Pretty much all of the advanced powers are based on the cohort card and if you don't have it in hand, you are, in effect, back to the base role because none of the advanced powers are available or usable.
I don't think there's any theorycrafting left, it just has to be tested.

i love the simplicity of the first power but it may be too strong at d12 +2. the only character in Runelords close is Seoni who has to discard a card for it and the barbarian who doesnt have much else besides combat. even the weapons hoar-i mean, master, valeros, is d10+3. maybe make it like valeros at d10+3, especially since rivani has potentially 6 combat cards? she can basically hoard all the best with a constant d12+2. otherwise the base powers are great.
@augur, i love the scrying power. maybe change the bonus to an occupied location or unoccupied location instead of just any location. that may be too awesome. the second power may not be that useful, it depends on which Campaign you play. Runelords isn't all that flush with Mental.
@amnesiac, i dont like the last ability. it's good and fits thematically, but consider how much shuffling that will be. physical tedium needs to be considered for custom powers. and i see myself tiring of all that shuffling pretty quickly.

Open hand definitely makes the game go faster. Closed is like playing Go Fish and its tedious.
HOWEVER, it has affected the mechanics of the game. Most of my group has upgraded to 6 card hands. I want to go to 7, but with open hands, we simply don't have room on the table for it. Technically it has affected us, but it doesn't seem like that huge a deal.

your base power uses weapons (and items) as fodder for her power. however, you only have 1 weapon. so most of the time you'll be trashing items, meaning most of those items won't ever do the things they are meant to do. as someone who has used RotR Seoni, its depressing when i have to sacrifice a Sage even though i know a wisdom check is coming up. and this base character (especially the duelist role), is discarding and sacrificing too many cards that you won't get to use them for their actual ability most of the time, creating a rather boring and flat character. as a side note, the only reason to get a weapon on seoni is for the stability and consistency of not having to lose a card every combat. it also seems redundant to sacrifice a weapon for a combat ability. if you're doing that consistently, you should just swap it for an attack spell slot. i know that's a bit of min/max'ing rather than keeping in-theme, but realistically people tend to min/max anyway, even if they are doing it subconsciously.

the duelist really does discard a lot of cards. this should be looked at and tested before you try her for real and it turns out she kills herself by turn 3. a hand size of 9 is pretty huge. 8 is, on average, the max.

there are a couple of other custom char's on here that try and merge weapons and spells, like kilazar the strength wizard a few threads down and a duskblade character in an older thread. you may want to check them out for ideas.

I didn't know people hated the stack so much. =(
It's also quite possible we are doing things wrong then in our PACG adventures then...

ah, you're right. i've always found it weird saying "before you encounter X" because, well...everything you do is before you encounter X, including a dozen turns. but i guess it's better than saying "before any 'before combat' effects, do this..."

Hey guys, I made some changes to the Gambler (most are in bold). Additionally, I'm considering switching weapons/spell list to 3/2 over 4/1 to assist in his 2nd base power (for more scrying spells). so if you have thoughts on that, by all means.

the x's inside [] are just to denote points from the base class, for easier readability of differences in advanced classes.

TEX - GAMBLER (name WIP)
Str d8 []+1 []+2 []+3 []+4
Melee: +1
Dex d10 []+1 []+2 []+3
Disable: +2
Acrobatics: +2
Con d6 []+1 []+2 []+3
Int d4 []+1
Wis d4 []+1
Cha d10 []+1 []+2 []+3
Arcane: +1
~~~~~
Wpn 4 [] 5 [] 6
Spl 1 [] 2 [] 3 [] 4
Arm -
Item 5 [] 6 [] 7
Ally 2 [] 3
Bls 3 [] 4 [] 5

Hand Size 5 [] 6
Proficiencies [] Weapon
Favorite card = Item

1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6(4 maybe?) ([]+1) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 to all non-combat checks for the turn. Other- No effect.
2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck and roll 1d4 ([]+1). If it's a bane, increase the combat difficulty by the result; if it's a boon, decrease it instead.

ROLE
Sleight of Hand Hand Size 5 [x] 6 [] 7
1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6 ([x]+1) ([]+2) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 to all (non-combat) checks for the turn. Other- No effect.
2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck and roll 1d4 ([x]+1). If it's a bane, increase the combat difficulty by the result; if it's a boon, decrease it instead.
[] Choose a char at your location, you may use one of their weapons for your combat ([] and add 1d4); that player must put it on top ([] or bottom) of their deck.
[] During a bane encounter, if it has a "before combat" effect, roll 1d10. On a...
1-5, bury a card from your hand.
6-9, ignore the check.
10, ignore the check and reduce the bane's difficulty by 4([] 5)([] 6).

ROLE
Roulette Hand Size 5 [x] 6 [] 7
1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6 ([x]+1) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 to all (non-combat) checks for the turn. Other- No effect.
2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck and roll 1d4 ([x]+1) ([]+2) ([]+3). If it's a bane, increase the combat difficulty by the result; if it's a boon, decrease it instead.
[] For your (non-villain/henchmen) combat, you may roll your Constitution skill ([]+1) instead. If the results compared to the Check to Defeat are...
Greater than half- you automatically succeed at the check.
Half or less- bury a card from your hand and continue with the combat;
[] When you play a spell with the Attack trait, you may immediately attempt to recharge it. If you succeed, double the results of the non-Arcane dice. If you fail, use your Constitution skill instead of any other skill for the rest of the turn.
[] When you acquire a spell ([] or item), roll 1d10. If the total is…
1-5, discard a card from your hand;
6-8, you may immediately explore again;
9-10, you may move to another location. Movement restrictions still apply.

for the first Roulette power, i changed the wording because "auto-succeed at killing" does seem to be a bit taboo around these parts, and it does bring up many openings for questions about sequential combat, so i get it. now it just succeeds at that particular combat check, so you dont auto-kill multi-check guys.

Nice changes. The advanced roles feel a lot more focused and thematically cohesive. I really like that the roles have basically the same power but reversed skills.

swordslinger, the last power is great. it gives a reason to keep at the very least 1 spell (if not more). i know this role is more weapon focused but its good that it doesnt completely remove the magical aspect of the char. however, i'm confused about the grammar and wording on the 4th power. whose weapon is getting removed from hand? kilazar or the char doing combat?

punchmancer, good improvements. but being able to use arcane: strength for non-combat melee checks may be a bit too much. his strength is d12 (probably with +'s) so i dont think non-combat melee checks would be a problem that he needs help anyway, especially since the 5th power covers that already. but if you think it gels with the char, go for it.

overall the advanced classes are huge improvements. this seems to be at the cost of the base class a bit though. burying your only weapon (in AD1) after use, he'll probably struggle a lot, but hey, we dont want to make these characters too powerful, right? struggling will add some fun and intensity, and it pays off with great advanced roles.

Theryon Stormrune wrote:

Valeros can move to any location when another character encounters a villain, whether ... to attempt to temporarily close locations ...

Except, according to the quoted FAQ, temp close happens BEFORE encountering the villain... :(

EDIT: Of course, Val's power doesn't really need a FAQ to remain functional; however, given that the temp-close's timing was changed more recently, I suspect it was the intent that Tactician can move to temp close, and his power should therefore be FAQed into "BEFORE another character encounters a villain, you may immediately move.

Coming from a Magic: The Gathering background, my group usually plays things with Magic's "The Stack". When you play things in response, they get put on the stack, then you resolve from top down. If you're playing Val's power in response to encountering the villain, we'd let him complete his move first, then the encounter can continue.

The question, then, is what do you mean about temp-close timing being changed? You referring to the rulebook in Wrath? I don't have Wrath yet so I'm not sure of a lot of the tweaks to the rules that have come with it.

Is this character meant for Runelords, S&S, or Wrath? Just looking at his stats and powers, he will overkill everything in Runelords (and probably S&S).
I haven't played Wrath but I know it requires bigger numbers, so this might be kosher for it, I dunno.

SWORDSLINGER: I think it's cool that you can share spell slots with weapons, and it's an interesting way to get around the Deck List limitations, but it feels like a core ability (and theme) of the character, but he doesn't get it until halfway through the campaign?
Also, there doesn't seem to be any balance with spells in this class. None of the new abilities support spell usage, so I don't see a reason to not just completely replace all your spells with weapons.
For the last power, why the Move step and not just "start of your turn"? Sounds arbitrary at first glance.

PUNCHMANCER (this name...lol): Doubling up on the same subskill feels like it would break something. In my gut. Not sure what though. Especially since it's not temporary like the Melee Dex fighters in S&S.
The last one, I do like the Veteran ability. I've been trying to find a way to make it useful for characters as well. The problem is that while +4 in AD4 (and +6 in AD6) is nice, I'd probably prefer a 1d4+2 over that or something to be honest. And, again, you could probably get away with this in Runelords, but I'm not sure it's all that helpful in Wrath.

PS: You're also missing a bunch of skill checks in the advanced classes. Should have 4 base and roughly 8 advanced for 12 total.

Overall, I like the idea of a magical fisticuffs fighter, like a Strength version of most RPG Monks. It seems like a bit crude though and still in its early stages. Polish it up a bit, tweak the scaling, balance the advanced role a bit, and it could be pretty cool.

I'm working on updating the powers. As I said, it's been a struggle finding the right mix of harsh-ness and bonuses. And considering that there is very little established material similar enough to base the wording off of for the powers, I was struggling with finding the correct syntax.

ecloderdude, what i meant by "double non-skill die" was when i use a spell for "arcane + 1d6+1" i meant double the explicitly stated dice rolls on the card, which is a d6. a spell that gives you 2d4 would give you 4d4. arcane is not explicitly stated, its a pointer reference word to whatever your arcane sub-skill is. but as we both agree, i need to find better wording here.

vandrair, you're right about the roulette's last power. my goal was, first, to find an ability use for his acrobatics but also to somehow give a static bonus to his roll. (i realized post-fact about the impossible to get 1 or 2, which i did account for on the high end).

TLDR summary; a few power consequences are not harsh enough, and the scaling probably needs to be better, as well as articulation. I will get to work on it and report back.

Thanks guys!

I was challenged by a friend to create the most ridiculous character that was still somewhat balanced, within the confines of the PACG ruleset. [Character is made for Runelords]

The only real choice, then, was a luck-based character.
Thus, I introduce you to Tex the Gambler (name placeholder).

His abilities are very wordy. I have not playtested him yet, expecting him to have some fundamental flaw that breaks him on Turn 2. So I was hoping some more experienced eyeballs could find something before we test it. I don't know if I would ever run him through a full Campaign, because I don't have the steely resolve for such intense dice rolling.

TEX - GAMBLER

Str d8 []+1-4
Melee: +1
Dex d10 []+1-3
Disable: +2
Acrobatics: +2
Con d6 []+1-3
Int d4 []+1
Wis d4 []+1
Cha d10 []+1-3
Arcane: +1
~~~~~
Wpn 4 []5 []6
Spl 1 []2 []3 []4
Arm -
Item 5 []6 []7
Ally 2 []3
Bls 3 []4 []5

Hand Size 5 [] 6
Proficiencies [] Weapon

1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6 ([]+1) ([]+2) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 to all checks for the turn.

2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck. If it's a bane, increase the difficulty of the current combat by 2; if it's a boon, examine the top 2 cards of your character deck, you may put them on top/bottom in any order.

ROLE - This first role is more combat-focused where the Gambler is a nimble jack of all trades fighter, thus his ability to use anyone else’s weapon.

Sleight of Hand | Hand Size 5 [] 6 [] 7
1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6 ([]+1) ([]+2) ([]+3) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 ([] 3) to all checks for the turn.
2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck. If it's a bane, increase the difficulty of the combat by 2; if it's a boon, examine the top 2 cards of your deck, you may put them on top/bottom in any order.
[] Choose a char at your location, you may use one of their weapons for your combat ([] and add 1d4); that player must put it on top ([] or bottom) of their deck.
[] During a bane encounter, if it has a pre-combat effect, roll 1d10. On a...
1-4, recharge a card from your hand.
5-9, ignore the ability.
10, ignore the ability and reduce the bane's difficulty by 4([] 5)([] 6).

ROLE - Second role is more the high risk-high reward design. Thus so much Con usage, testing your mettle against the enemies in a deadly game of chance. The first Role power is meant to be used on weaker monsters since his Con, at best, is 1d6+4, without help.

Roulette | Hand Size 5 [] 6 [] 7
1) At the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck. If the type is... Weapon- Add 1d6 ([]+1) ([]+2) to your combat checks this turn; Blessing- heal 2 random cards; Item- Add 2 to all checks for the turn.
2) Before your combat check, you may examine the top card of your location deck. If it's a bane, increase the difficulty of the combat by 2; if it's a boon, examine the top 2 cards of your deck, you may put them on top/bottom in any order.
[] For your (non-villain/henchmen) combat, you may roll your Constitution die ([]+1). If the results compared to the Check to Defeat are:
half or less- bury the top card of your deck;
greater than half- the bane is defeated.
[] When you play a spell, you may roll that spells recharge check. If successful: double any non-skill die ([] or bonus numbers) listed; If failed: you must use Constitution for all checks this turn.
[] When you acquire a spell ([] or item), roll your unmodified Acrobatics skill. If the total is…
1-5, bury 2 cards from your hand;
6-9, you may explore your location;
10-12, you may move to another location. Movement restrictions still apply.

It was daunting trying to balance some of these numbers and keep skills and checks within theme. Some of them may seem like the penalty is too weak, but considering how many 1's my group rolls, I'm sure our Tex will be dead before we leave Sandpoint.

oh wow. i just had this situation two week ago when my group bought AD4. literally the same two issues. my friend said he found the pack for cheaper than normal online so when we opened it to find the cards darker and taller i assumed it was a misprint or erroneous print line. good to see we're not alone. we've decided to just deal with it for now even though its very obvious when the next card is an ad4 card. we were hoping maybe to get ad5 and 6 in darker too so that we eventually dissolve the issue within itself.

As someone who enjoys writing prose, i've been thinking about how to add novelty to PACG scenarios. I'm a bit confused by the wording of OP. Are you saying that the scenario is Quest for Crimson Tower but the tower only shows up if you happen to draw that one barrier? Seems a bit redundant, as well as it being an inevitability, since you probably can't finish the quest without the tower showing up, thus not making it a side quest. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the scenario was about climbing some Wizard's Spire and you may, by chance, find a magic map (the barrier) that opens up a whole new wing of the building (summons new location deck) if you have someone in the party who can decipher it (knowledge 13 check). This way, if you kill the Henchman and close the location before the barrier is encountered, the new wing is missed completely.

I can understand the appeal of making a "dead end" quest because as we all know, the heroes sometimes don't find what they're looking for. (jk! they always do).

This is what I hope for when it comes to custom / homebrew scenarios and adventures. While I will always appreciate more content, the point of homebrew, for me, is adding novelty.

Seems like only last week that people were complaining about how hard Wrath is...wait, it was. The good ol' days, eh?

I will back up Slappy's claim that 3-4, which is clearly the number of players the game is designed for, is the easiest player count.
3-4 also seems like that is where the environment of the scenario is fully fleshed out. As in, 1-2 players is limited to the scenario-specific locations, 5-6 players has locations that seem superfluous to the scenario's narrative, but 3-4 is where the main "journey" of the scenario is fully formed with all the important locations (aka plot points).

We have a group of 4: Imrijka, Adowyn, Seoni and Shardra. We make sure that Shardra gets all the Cures and Buffs she can get and keep her close to Seoni. This way, if Seoni ever comes across a threat, she makes sure it's dead. Shardra in her town makes sure Seoni stays alive. It's a pretty well balanced system which greatly works out for us.

By having 3-5 spells in Shardra's hand, she can make sure that if the first two attempts fail for a Check to Defeat a Bane for Seoni, that the third time WILL work.

I haven't played in a 6 person group, but from what I can tell, everybody needs to pull their own weight and probably needs to explore at least twice per turn. So a full support character who doesn't explore a lot seems a hindrance for OP, whose in a 6 man group. So your strategy might not work for him/6-char groups.

I don't have WotR yet, but my group usually plays PACG as "it is only optional if it says 'MAY'. if it does not, it is a requirement and must be done." the only exceptions are power feats. where the ([] and fire trait) or something is a choice.
Based off the wording you presented, if there are two characters at the location, and you play that card, both must go.

I didn't personally tweak the difficulty in anyway. But you could try that. Other common suggestions include adding 1 more location (so playing with the 6 player list even when there are only 5 of your or with the 5 player list when there are 4 of you). You might find some information in these other threads.

Thanks for the links, Hawkmoon.

Disclaimer: I noticed after writing this wall I was using our group-specific lingo. We all played Diablo, so we just started calling the Adventure Decks as "Acts", it was easier. "Act 1" refers to Adventure Deck 1 : Burnt Offerings, and so on. (tl;dr at bottom)

Hello all,

Been a lurker for a bit, but my recent play session has me seeking advice. Fairly new to PACG but [my group are all] experienced board/card gamers. We got through four scenarios in our recent game session: Act 1 scenarios 4-5, Act 2 scenarios 1-2. We struggled with the turn count on a few of them, but all three of the latter scenarios none of us had any real challenges from a combat perspective. With our upgrades, single-digit combat has become consistently manageable without much effort, with only mid-teens power levels providing serious contemplation on how to approach (not counting special effects).

We know this is because we’re fighting the same Base Set monsters even though we now have better stats. Since we don’t start removing “Basic” type banes/boons until Act 3, then there is a statistical drop in difficulty for the remainder of the time we are still fighting all the Basic banes. Do note, the rule is to start removing the basics as you encounter them; so the first couple scenarios of Act 3 will keep this statistical easiness as Act 2 until we’ve removed a sufficient amount of banes through play. Do the later scenarios in Act 2 offset this challenge slump with significantly stronger villains? (We try not to examine henchman/villain cards until we use them).

Did anyone start doing the Basics removal before Act 3? I’m considering starting sooner (A2, S4 maybe?) and I was wondering if anyone else did this and can tell the tale of their experiences with this decision.

Some Misc Info for your thoughts:
Group of 4 – Seoni, Harsk, Merisial, Kyra/Lem [5 players, but usually one of these two can’t make it, so our healer is either of them].
Harsk and Seoni have +5 and +4 on their combat rolls usually, reducing a 9 power monster to 4-5 power (usually on a roll using at least 2 die).
Everyone has good weapons / attack spells (relative to the Act).

TL;DR : Basic banes not sustaining challenge. Anyone try starting AD 3's "basic bane removal" earlier than AD 3?