|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What do you think about Rusted chainmail?
I'm not sure Rusted chainmail is meant to be a good card, or at least a card you don't want to upgrade. It is what it is, beginner armor.
In Runelords, armor is a non-desirable card, so this more so. This is an OK card in Wrath.
Glad the game is coming out soon, will buy an Android tablet just to play it. I'm a little leery of the demo being free, hopefully each AP isn't crazy expensive or I'll just stick to the actual card game.
I prefer to go through Paizo to get singles, but if I have to wait an extra week or two for subscribers to get their product, then deal with a rush of people all trying to get limited quantities of the rare minis that people will tend to need to fill out their sets, I'd just save myself the hassle and purchase elsewhere, and end up cutting Paizo out of my minis purchases altogether.
The thing is, the bar dressing minis are all in high demand and are rare, and the worst problem is that customers want *multiple* copies of each bar dressing. There will be no single to purchase the rare bar dressings you are missing anywhere, or to get multiple copies yourself (unless you want to pay $40-50 in the aftermarket).
The real problem is that the bar dressings should have been uncommon, not rare. Stuff like Frost Giant Mage, Bugbear Tyrant, Flesh Golem, and some of the ghouls should have been rare.
The price of the single rares are also too low, at $6-8, especially if you are breaking open cases to get them.
Might need to do another set where some of these minis are revisited, they seem popular.
My response was to maneuvers in general, not to special classes. My monk's CMD gets pretty high, into the 35-40 range when using a Ki point, so I still feel it would be challenging. Maybe a Tetori or Lore Warden could do it, if so I question why it's fun to play a character that has no chance to fail.
Having said that, GMs can't make every opponent a Lore Warden or Tetori monk, so this is not really a helpful discussion.
Maneuvers do ignore armor and armor spells (mage armor and shield).
Having said that, high dex characters often have a very high CMD as well, since dex bonuses and dodge bonuses affect CMD. So yeah, unless you are a Tetsori monk, you're not grappling with me.
I have a character like this. A monk using Crane Style. Please realize that I've spent most of my feats in defense, so my offense is not very strong.
Most fights, I think after attacking me for 1-2 rounds, most intelligent creatures would move onto my squishier friends.
Actually, that's my greatest fear, being ignored and killing everyone else around me, with me unable to do much about it.
My real vulnerability is being flatfooted. Eventually I will roll a low roll on initiative and when I do and if I'm in front, I will be plowed.
Invisibility also works, but hitting me one time usually isn't enough.
Spells and special abilities work, eventually I will fail.
A "20" always hits and creatures that do significant damage can eventually take me down. With my low damage, I'm unable to solo some monsters that a 2H fighter would beat. Truth is, my hit points aren't that high.
Not sure I like the advice on the website, I want my GM focused on story based sessions, not throwing a monster menagerie at us just to hurt me.
Bottom line GMs, this is a tanking character and if you're not allowing this character to tank, it's not terribly effective.
It seems over the holidays that half of the sessions for U-Con were reported. I usually wait until the 1 month mark before pinging anyone. I pinged the summer organizer, which is why I'm 99% sure it will never be reported.
I'm going to help with reporting at a local convention we're having in Feb. "Many hands make light work".
Expectations: game day (1 week), conventions (1 month).
Having said that, I think the *goal* of reporting should be 1 week in all cases, because when it drags on I find that things never get reported at all.
When things don't get reported, as a player it's annoying but livable. As a GM, I'm irritated, and if I was GMing a special it would demotivate me to not do it again.
This year, I've had all of my sessions at a major convention 6 months ago not reported (and I don't believe they ever will be) and another major convention in November (U-Con) was also not reported. I'm still holding out hope for U-Con. Luckily I was only a player.
The Sword wrote:
Why do you need to know all the spells and rules before hand? Why can't you just choose some spells and learn the rules relevant to those?
Obviously, you only need to know what you use. You're not being argumentative are you?
The Sword wrote:
Casters have been part of this game since it was a game.
And? These days, it seems like several people are casual and can barely keep their chronicles and gear selection up-to-date. They just want to "show up and play", like it was a video game, or a board game. There's nothing wrong with that, but for the sake of the table, it would be better if they had an easier character to play, since even learning the basic rules of the game will be an ongoing process.
I have two players like that in my home game.
The Sword wrote:
Why didn't you tell the guy he could roll 2d4+2 for a magic missing?
You're very judgmental, how do you know that I didn't say something?
I have in several instances.
The last guy was using a wand, he was very knowledgeable, so I have no idea what he was doing. I just figured he was holding stuff back.
And like I pointed out in this thread already, defensive people don't like being told what to do, so sometimes it's better to just let it slide, especially at a convention. Maybe he is just "playing his character".
The Sword wrote:
Were you getting your kicks watching him not succeed? Wizards using armour is missing a mechanic of the game like not realising what armour check modifiers can do. It can happen to any class - it's a shame someone didn't point that out to the guy at the start and suggest taking spell focus instead. Yeah - the problem the OP mentions becomes ever more apparent.
Very judgmental again, how do you know I didn't say something?
We actually *did* nudge the player (and did suggest Spell Focus), but he didn't understand and thought feats in armor and weapons were the best thing ever. If we said any more plainly it would have been offensive.
I'd rather be diplomatic than pushy.
The Sword wrote:
I'm a DM and player of 25 years who still looks things up during a session. As do my players - people who don't usually make assumptions and get things wrong
We all look up things, I never play without my core rulebook. I think you've misinterpreted me.
For someone to feel this way, I think there are things that people on both sides could do better, and chances are the veteran players don't even know that it's making someone new feel unwelcome.
So I've done a lot of conventions in a lot of different places, and while local games aren't any indication, by far the community has been very nice.
Played my second organized pathfinder core game and walked out because of demeaning and ridicule from veteran players.
How exactly did they ridicule you?
1) Help new players.
In #2,3,4,5,6,7 it sounds like they were trying to help you, but you have to be receptive to it as well.
2) Have the new player experience FUN, not frustration because they dont know alllll the rules.
Learning new rules and taking directions from others is sometimes frustrating, especially if you don't like being told what to do.
How did the GM and other players make it frustrating as opposed to fun?
3) Dont be cynical and tell new players what they can and cannot do, let the GM do that.
Veteran players are actually trying to help the GM. This is what the community does in general. Other players occasionally correct me and I have 38 years of experience. It happens and you don't let your ego get in the way.
4) Please dont say..."I would recommend new players to NEVER start with spellcasters", in front of everyone, and at the end of the game. Real barn burner that one.
It's just a recommendation and I think you're being too defensive.
I also wouldn't recommend spellcasters for new players or casual players.
If you are going to take a spellcaster, you need to be prepared and know all the spells and spell rules beforehand, and not look much up during the session. As you level up, you gain more options which makes it even tougher. It's not for the casual player.
Story time. I've seen:
In terms of not contributing, wizards are probably worse than rogues in terms of being underpowered in the hands of a new player.
So yeah, bottom line, it's a recommendation, but if you're not going to follow the recommendation you'd better do some homework, play a pregen, or get someone to help you.
5)New people may think outside the box, so give them at least some consideration of style play, and not box them in preconceived notions of rule and opinions. This is a game of imagination if i remember correctly.
Well, this isn't a home game and everything must fit within the bounds of "reality" and the game system.
In other words (real example from a player), you cannot draw your bow (from your backpack), tie an arrow to that bow, tie the other end to your waist, shoot at a tree 200' away, swing on that rope, all the while firing more arrows using Rapid Shot, all in 6 seconds. Fun imagery, but if you're going to play like that you might as well be playing "The Window".
Do you have specific examples of how they stifled your imagination?
6) Dont let a new player be the only person in the group not being healed, because the veterans dont like you. Rude.
They probably all had their own Cure Light Wounds wands and assumed one of the spellcasters would use it on them. They probably didn't explain that to you.
You know there's a flipside here too. They don't know you. Did you say you were new? It's possible they didn't even know (that you weren't getting healed).
If that wasn't the case what exactly happened?
7) The game should be FUN! Its us against the monsters, not veterans against new people.
How were the veteran players against you other than what you've already raised?
Sorry you had a bad time, I'd give it another try after talking to organizer. Organizers don't want to turn away new players and they should know about this. Maybe even veteran players in the area need to be a little more diplomatic, aware, or sensitive.
Chris Mortika wrote:
As opposed to destroying an entire lodge? Game rules need to be enforced, if people don't want to make skill checks or whatever, there needs to be consequences. That was the point of this entire thread actually.
When you don't let these players cheat and ignore rules, they leave on their own eventually.
I don't agree with other players not healing this individual (if he brings his own wand of CLW), I think that is malicious and he does have a grievance (it ignores the PF rule to cooperate and is jerk behavior). However, with regards to hiding, I'm pretty sure that this individual did the same thing a number of other times and the group DID help him out. Finally they said 'no'. This is what happens.
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition?
There's this company called Wizards of the Coast you might be interested in. They create new editions of D&D every 5 years, so this might be your thing.
As someone who actually pays for every book and resource, this is not my thing.
If Paizo makes another edition of Pathfinder before the 10 year mark, I'm just going to find another hobby.
I'm more than happy with all new rulebooks being optional (like APG, Unchained). It's like beta-testing the next edition. But it's soft, because it's optional. It gives me time to read it without pushing it down my throat. That's what I like.
Chess Pwn wrote:
This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people.
As a GM and a player, I don't find this to be true. You realize that the 4-player adjustment means that there is usually only 1 less mook in the combat? Having 1 less mook doesn't compensate for losing 2 players. The 4-player adjustment is often inadequate.
Also, if you have 2 players not contributing, would you rather having two characters doing a scenario meant for 4 players (@50% strength) or 4 players doing a 6 player scenario (@67% strength). I know what I'd prefer.
There is also less diversity (for skills), less hit points for the table, less flankers.
4-player tables are tougher than 6-player tables.
I just wanted to apologize for my earlier post which seems too harsh now. I was only trying to point out that sometimes it's better to focus on the things you can change (yourself) than the things you cannot (players).
Instead of blaming the players for not being skillful enough, maybe the scenarios are too tough? In season 7 I'm finding them very challenging, too challenging in many cases. And I've been bringing optimized characters to the table. And there has been soft balling.
Recently I was astonished by the number of zen archers, tetori, and gunslingers at my convention tables. Wizards that use 5+ source books. And bards to handle the social.
At home as a GM, I'm finding that the 4-player adjustment just isn't adequate (or at least as good as having 6 players) in most cases. Are they playing in a lot of 4-player groups?
You have to talk straight with them and tell them that their characters (and play styles) are not strong enough in combat. If you've already done that, what do they recommend as a solution? You have to include them in the decision making. Do they understand that other players don't like their characters dying? What would they suggest?
Anyway good luck, I'm curious how this works out.
What are you waiting for?
1) Enforce the rules. If they don't want to make the Climb check, they sit in the pit for the scenario. Letting them cheat and having one set of rules for some players and another set of rules is a GM problem, not a player problem. Please consider that some players might have left not because of the couple, but because of the GMs catering to cheating and favoritism.
2) Stop soft balling. They get upset if you attack their character? Your GMs need to make things fair and if they avoid attacking the couple in favor of other players, they are part of the problem.
Ultimately, it a GM/leadership problem. GMs shouldn't allow players to cheat, ignore rules, and there shouldn't be favoritism. Favoritism kills tables in home campaigns, it kills tables in PFS venues also.
If your GMs were tougher with them, the couple would have left on their own already.
If they're disruptive and continue to ignore the rules and the GM, kick them from the table. If it happens again, feel free to tell them they're not welcome at the venue and report this to a VO. Problem solved.
Redneck GM wrote:
The husband always plays a rogue style character (ranged) and the wife a "healer" that is usually a Druid more concerned ooc with the survival of her animal companion than anything. Near zero contribution in combat, and NO contribution in social...
So if I'm reading this right, by "skill" you mean they play very non-optimal characters?
Someone probably should have explained things to them months ago. Everyone's character needs to do *something* somewhat effective. Offer to help them in item purchases, character building, and playstyle. Often people just don't know or don't have the time to learn.
If they dismiss all help then that's a different problem. Is it better to be all inclusive and kill your lodge or be "rude" and disallow 2 players?
I GM a home game and I'm in this process myself. The characters are almost level 7 now and things are getting a lot more difficult. As it is, I'm cherry picking weaker scenarios so they don't get crushed in combat. But I'm also teaching them better playstyles, better gear purchases (or rather to even use gold), character auditing (missing 10 hp on one character!), and feat suggestions. So far so good, but it's a process.
Also encountered this problem at a convention. Subtier 6-7, my brother and I basically needed to complete the entire scenario. Had one guy shooting magic missiles from a wand (1d4+1), another guy was a face character with no combat ability (even against a humanoids?), a healing cleric, and a druid with a defensive animal companion. 0 prestige, lucky to come out alive, would be dead with most other characters. Not sure what to do with groups like this except to let them die and hopefully they won't take you down with them. If they were local to me, I'd avoid them too. But really, someone should really be offering them help. You carry 1 guy that can't contribute in combat but not 3. Funny thing is, they probably thought of us as minmax munchkins and that we were the problem. And that's how it is!
Casual GMs have a tendency to skim over details like this and this is why this encounter has such a high TPK rate. Now imagine what happens with casual GMs and complex adventures. The more complex you make an adventure, the more table variation you are going to get from GMs and the more deadly they become when the GM misses something.
The problem isn't casual GMs. I find that 3+ star GMs run so many scenarios, they are often LESS prepared than more casual GMs because the casual GMs actually take (or have?) the time to prepare properly.
One thing I've learned is that you can't count on GMs to take a killer encounter and then nerf it by giving it the listed tactics or other advantages the PCs should get. These advantages aren't even explained a lot of the time.
And then the experienced GMs who softball and take AE spells (Fear, Confusion) and apply them to only 1 target. Maybe a better play experience but the true difficulty of the scenario won't be indicated in reviews.
Or the experienced GMs (3+ star) who cheat to make encounters more challenging (robbing you of gold/PA) or do coupe de grace when it's inappropriate.
"Run as written" is a foreign concept for those of us who play in a variety of conventions and also GM. It's rare that anything is run as written in my experience.
My GM printed out the maps and they looked great, even in black and white (these maps deserved color). Loved the maps in this scenario.
I'm sure you could hand draw everything but you'll be missing so many details, it's kind of missing the point. Combat is the main feature of this scenario and it's a big feature to have a nice battleboard. imho.
1) Just asking around, what's your favorite GMing style?
2) Do you prefer GMs who make death serious business, or ones who will go out of their way to make sure you don't die?
Somewhere in between. I hate GMs that go out of their way to try to kill PCs. You want your GM to be fair.
3) GMs who play things by the book, or ones who extensively houserule or play things loose and fast?
By the book. If houserules are known ahead of time and documented, that's OK too.
4) GMs who prepare extensively or ones who mostly improvise the story?
Prepare. Even when you prepare, you need to improvise anyway.
5) GMs who make you laugh often, or ones who immerse you in a story?
6) As a GM, is it better to be feared or disrespected?
Neither? It's just a game, and the game isn't about who is in power or control. At least not for me.
I think you are overstating the jadedness of your players.
I actually asked them after the session and they all said exactly what I quoted you. And they were glad it was cut. These are friends and not strangers, so they were up front with me. So yeah I know my players and I don't think it's jaded to want your games to make sense.
Regarding the ship being under attack during the storm, I think it would be nearly impossible to throw a grappling hook onto a ship that is thrashing around like a bucking bronco, so the chance of more elves *finding* the ship and actually getting onto it during a storm seems... unlikely.
And I think the crew would be a lot better in taking down the rigging *properly* (and not doing damage) compared to someone with zero training. From my limited sailing experience, it's not that easy, especially a ship of that size.
And really the last encounter could really happen anywhere with a little imagination. There's probably better places to do it instead of in front of the entire crew.
It's your game so do what you think is best. I would have left it in if my session hadn't already run 7 hours, it was only afterwards that I realized it would have taken away from the game.
7-06 is kind of painful I would agree. Just out of curiosity what do you think the hard part of 7-08 because that one is fairly well manageable?
That just tells me that whoever ran it didn't do it right. The first encounter it should be obvious why it's painful (especially if you didn't play part 1, which people are doing).
The last two encounters Karma is partially customizable, the NPC knows they're coming, and if the GM knows how to play that kind of PC... she can basically make the party look like a party of Benny Hill. The difficulty depends almost entirely on the GM.
Preping this for Thursday. In the (unlikely) event we get to the storm, I think I will have the captain tell them that they are needed on deck while the crew batton down the hatches below in case the merfolk take advantage of the storm to sneak on board and cripple the ship, drowning them all.
It would make more sense to have it the other way around, after all the PCs know how to fight and the crew actually knows how to run a ship (and how not to die in a storm).
Actually the entire event doesn't make much sense (the crew should be fine in a storm by themselves). In reality, someone who doesn't know anything about sailing will do more damage trying to "help" than they will actually help.
The encounter is also cliché (experienced players will have seen it a million times before), it's a time waster in a scenario that's too long, and its not even a fun encounter.
Maybe you can tell I'm not a fan and that when we started to go overtime (7 hours), I cut it.
Looking forward to this game. Having said that, I'd rather they bring the product to market than to make changes like Rusty Chainmail or Blacksmith's Son.
A multi-player option over the internet with a good queuing system (where you could do other stuff while waiting for other players to join a game/scenario) is what would put this game over the top.
But I do wonder: how is time for RP calculated in when writing a scenario supposed to fit into 4 hours?
GM sets out approximately how long everything will take, so the RP has to fit into the constraints. If the RP is taking too long you have to cut to rolls or cut interactions to save on time.
RP can be quite fast and awesome, the key is to have meaningful and focused RP. And having the GM 100% prepared so the RP flows. Needs to include everyone, even PCs without RP skills. GMs shouldn't be reading much at all during the RP section, if they are everything feels disjointed and even good RP scenarios can feel... boring and run long (for all the wrong reasons). At times even I want the RP portion of some scenarios to end, and I love RP.
Just played several scenarios in season 7 this weekend and they were all deadly. Noobs will certainly die in them unless their GM softballs like mad (or doesn't understand the NPCs powers at all).
Season 7 so far is complex and I'm finding there is intense table variation because GMs are not running scenarios as intended.
At the very least though, I’d love to see us move away from this mindset of “something traumatic happened, roll to see how crazy you go.”
In 40 years, I've personally never seen this, I somehow doubt she plays the game.
The realities of mental health just plain aren’t reflected by rolls on random tables.
No s**^. Real life also doesn't have Cthulu gods or monsters or magic that can make you go insane and want to kill your friends. It's a game.
I worry a little bit about people who try to make the game exactly like real life. This is just someone with too much time on her hands ranting, I'm not sure why you're giving her the air time.
I just . . . I just wish people would come to PFS to play fun scenarios and hang out with friends and have a fun time. I never got the appeal of playing a jerk character that won't help others. And it is worse in PFS because those characters SHOULDN'T be in the society.
I've been to a lot of cons and everyone (for the most part) has been great. Friendly people.
If there's a character/player that doesn't want to cooperate at all in the scenario or mission, it's up to the GM to give him a warning, write the warning on his chronicle, and tell him this character concept isn't suitable for PFS. Possibly kick him from the table if the player himself is being disruptive. If it's any way PVP related you have even more leniency in how you handle it.
Personally if I find a player being disruptive and not playing nice, I have no problem giving them a warning and then booting them if it's ignored. They're just trying to ruin the game for everyone, and it's your job as GM not to let that happen.
In my home (PFS) game some of the players said their characters would never want to be part of the PF society. I told them I could mark their characters dead and we could start over with characters that actually did want to be part of PF society. They changed their tune pretty fast.
Many Fortunes is kind of a crap shot at the end and definitely relies on too much luck and party composition for my taste. Saying you can solo it doesn't mean anything when you know what is coming at the end.
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about TPKs here, not failing the scenario. The last encounter (at subtier 1-2) features a poorly made level 2 rogue (dagger +2 (1d4+1)) and single level 2 warrior with quarterstaff +2 for a whopping 1d6 damage. These turds can't even hit you. Even if they did render you unconscious, they wouldn't kill you. That's not what happens in cities.
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
No. It was just a freak accident that anyone died in these scenarios, perhaps super crappy characters, and a refusal for the other characters to run. Especially Many Fortunes, if you can TPK on that you can TPK on anything. You can solo Many Fortunes!
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Yes. Even when talking about a scenario, it's often a certain tier that's deadly. For example, Storval Stairs is OK at 7-8.
It would be interesting if we could come to a consensus and make a list like this, including subtier. Would be helpful for those looking for a challenge.
A real mix of people play OP. On one hand, people who play the RPG are more likely to know about PFACG, so they are more likely to play.
But then there are plenty of people who like the card game on it's own. There would be more but they just don't know about it until someone comes in and starts running OP and offering to teach the game.
4B Result: Barely successful again
The game lasted a long time, I think it was my longest 2-player game so far. I believe it took 2 hours. Again we were down to 7 or less blessings.
The movement mechanic was annoying but we got lucky near the end and weren't moved. We didn't have anyway of ignoring it (except for burying my Badger). Healing was tougher because of this.
If we didn't temp closed our last location, I don't believe we would have won.
We also got hit with a number of very challenging monsters (AD3 and AD4) that really drained our hands. But that was my fault. Should be easy next time with AD1 and AD0 mobs in there.
4A Result: Barely successful
I already said in another thread, but I found the setup of 4A incredibly confusing.
Shamira was extremely tough and we took the charisma check which was sometimes fueled by Kyra's stat gem.
I encountered Shamira only one time and it cost us 6 blessings. Ouch. Not sure if I didn't make my check or if I was unable to evade.
Almost ran out of blessings, which hasn't happened before.
I also find blessing upgrades are few and far between. Almost everyone needs them and they're just rare. Next time the blessing temptation comes up, YES I am definitely tempted!
Am I doing it the right way?
Adventure Guild Guide - Preparing the Game Box (page 9) wrote:
If I'm playing AD4 that would mean removing AD1 and lower.
So it looks like I've been doing it wrong, I've been removing all cards. No wonder it's been so hard. Now the game will become more about the hunt for loot than challenge. Hmmmm...
OMFG this scenario was so long.
And maybe the toughest scenario so far, we ended with 5 blessings in our 2 player group, which is the lowest so far. Low on health too at points, risky.
We got lucky and didn't get moved often.
Apparently we didn't even play it right since we temp closed a shared location to win. I think this scenario would be too hard without doing that, it's already bad enough that encountering the villain early basically distributes blessings everywhere (potentially from the blessings deck).
I disagree that it's a good scenario for blessings. First of all, there are no new blessings in AD4 (unless our deck pack was wrong). Second, since there are only AD2-4 blessings available (plus Ascension), we're drawing Ascensions 95% of the time. So blessings upgrades are super rare.
And thank god for redeemed Black Robes.
This scenario was tough. Although Kasiya was tough because we basically discarded our entire hand to defeat her, the real killer is Yavaliska.
We encountered Kasiya early and then chased Yaval around, burying blessings and allies. Huge penalty for not defeating her, which I actually had to absorb once. Not sure how this would work with a 5-6 player game... I think it would be brutal and a character killer.
Ulkreths were easy, thankfully.
Not sure why this passage was included since (if I remember correctly) that's the default behavior for Ulkreths.
About locations: You start this scenario with two locations, the Abyssal Rift and one other. You have Shamira and the henchman Harvester shuffled into the two decks.
Thanks for this thread. We found this scenario super confusing and not very clear at all. This thread was very helpful.
Having said that, how do you assume that you start with Abyssal Rift and one other location? That's how we played it, but I see nothing to indicate that's how you start.
Also, when you build locations on the fly, in the past they've contained henchmen. We followed what you wrote here (and had no henchmen in the new location), but it wasn't clear at all.
This scenario took a long time and even in a 2-player group, we almost ran out of blessings (after losing to Shamira only once).
I'd love to hear your tips for keeping things going speedy (seriously), because I'm taking 3x longer than you are =\
Ah, well we're not comparing apples to apples. I was saying 20 minutes if everything is setup. It takes us 10 minutes to setup and 5 minutes to upgrade as well. So 35 minutes.
But... that's with a relatively simple scenarios (AD1 AD2). I just played through the AD3 and AD4 of Wrath and our scenarios were taking 1-2 hours, between trying to understand what the scenario wanted and encountering new cards. So yes, later scenarios with complex cards definitely take a LOT of time.
So if you're playing something in AD5 in 50 minutes, that makes you faster than us.
Playing solo is probably also slower, because everything is your responsibility. In a duo, my partner can start her turn and I can reset at the same time, saving some time.
One thing that can save time is to have your typical combat dice ready and separated, instead of picking everything out. Last night it seemed every combat was custom, so I was always picking out dice, and it was much much slower than normal.
Fair enough, and yes, I think 6p Wrath is needlessly brutal. If I was playing OP, I'd make one of my first card feats an armor (and would consider grabbing a second one too if I started with 0 and a 2nd was available).
That was the first card feat I grabbed for Agna, more armor. Was... unexpected. :)
Doesn't help much with Hordes though. The advantage of OP is while you don't have Andowyn's scouting, the scouting you do have is arguably better. Augury and Scrying let you actually manipulate the card order, and many characters have powers that let them automatically examine the top card at the start or end of their turn without needing to expend any resources.
Well, Harsk is one character of 24+ and his scouting is only comparable until AD3 when Adowyn destroys him in that department.
There is so much combat in Wrath that ironically spellcasters have limited amounts because they need their attack spells and defensive spells much more. It doesn't take much to kill Ezren.
As for AD2, I wouldn't play it with 6p even without OP.
Yep it's tough, for a lot of reasons.
How should we play this in OP? If I attain it, can I permanently raise a mental stat?
Also, if my friends were exclusively playing with the same box, we could remove it from the game box, but we play at a store so that's not an option.
Maybe it doesn't matter since we're almost already maxed out on all of our stats?
I didn't know how to handle it, so I just drew another item from the box. Since we're playing the variation where we removed all boons/banes lower than (tier - 2), would be nice to know since we'll definitely encounter this boon again.
I've found the best way to get good at it is being engaged as a player, reading the forums, and discussing things with your group.
There are lots of people who play this game in big groups that don't have system mastery of the game.
Part of system mastery is the ability to play quickly. Many people cannot resolve their turns quickly.
I found that playing solo allowed me to resolve my turn quickly.
The forums only help with edge cases.
I've had the opposite experience in my 6p games.
You're talking about 6 players with some experience.
When people are still learning the game in a 6 player game, there is at least 30 minutes between turns, which is a killer. It's boring. I've had new players hate the game in 6-player mode and (after I had to convince them to try again) actually love it in 3-player mode.
I stand by my statement, 6 player games are a terrible way to introduce the game to new players. I've done it 3 times, don't need to do it again.
I've managed to fail in every group size, it mostly depends on the scenario difficulty.
Mostly it depends on group size in Wrath.
I finished AD3 of Wrath with 2 characters/players and it was easy. Not even close to failing, had 15-20 blessings left each scenario. In my 5-player games, it's been nothing short of Hellish (pun intended).
Part of the difference is player skill, but it's mainly about group size.
If a solo 2 character game takes you 60 minutes, it would probably frustrate me if I were playing with you in a 6 player game. How long are 6 player games???
I can finish a scenario in 20 minutes with a good partner in Wrath.
Communication is key with larger groups. Have a strategy going into the scenario.
I wasn't really looking for tips, I know how to play.
First of all, I'm playing OP which you probably aren't. So I don't get the scouting power of Adowyn or some of the nicer boons.
Demonic Hordes are a problem because most characters can't evade without burying a card (which casters should be save for carrion golem) and if they fail (not everyone has armor) it wipes their hand. That means that 1 character's next turn will be extremely limited. Or even worse, that character can't possible make a skill check to beat any army, which again either significantly depletes the group's blessings or it makes us bury cards. Because of stats, it seems like someone always fails. There's only so much armor you can bury. And of course that means Demonic Hordes will go back into the location.
Question: Did you play AD2 of Wrath with 6 characters in OP?
Communication is not the problem. Statistics are the problem. The more characters you add, the more likely it is that at least one character will fail their check. With armies in AD2, this typically means the entire group is penalized, typically with burying cards.
It might have been better if armies made a maximum of 4 characters make the check. 4 players seems to be the game's sweet spot.
Is it really "lost" playing time if you're still having fun?
Also, when you can only get together to play every 2-4 weeks and you can only play 2 games per session, getting destroyed isn't fun. I'm sorry, but it does feel like a waste of time sometimes because it means replaying the scenario and not progressing.
And sometimes losing means a character dies. How fun is that? We had that happen twice now to a tier 1 and tier 2 character. I play OP only, so it's not like we can just ignore the death or start a new character with any number of house rules that allow her to catchup quickly.
Character death has meant replaying AD1 and I've done it 7 times now. I'm ready to move on from AD1.
You can explore all you want in 3p, but you'll have less blessings or other abilities to throw around when it comes to those checks you can't or don't want to fail.
I find I have lots of blessing support in a 3 player group. And because there are less explorations before my turn, my hand resets so that I have more blessings to provide.
In Wrath 6 player games, I feel depleted and often have nothing to provide.
Individual resources must be managed more carefully with a smaller size because there are overall far less of them.
When a bane affects all characters, it's actually the opposite. In large groups we have less blessings and support because we have to wait longer (there are more explorations, more banes encountered, and more checks) for our hands to reset.
I think both small groups and large groups are equally fun, and put different spins on the game.
My post wasn't about whether 6 player games are fun.
My point is that 5-6 player games didn't need a substantial increase in difficulty. In Wrath, the increase in combat check difficulty alone had a significant impact on 5-6 player groups.