Trinia Sabor

Longshot11's page

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber. 1,005 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,005 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
A Paladin In Citadel wrote:
I'm talking about encouraging public OP by having boons you can only get by playing public OP. And i'm talking about actual printed cards

Тhis means cards that people like me (who can't attend events) will NEVER get.

And this is exactly the sort of $%it that turned me off buying computer games. If I'm being penalized for my location, or for the store I choose to purchase from - then my business is not good enough for you. Which means *your* business is not good enough for *me*.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:
I have a few class decks (ranger, inquisitor, alchemist, Occult 1+2, Magus). Any suggestions?

Oddly enough, Goblin Decks may indeed be your best call for Finesse weapons, as Dogslicers don't require proficiency. (IIRC!)

However, to be honest and from the cards I'm familiar - you're pretty much screwed with Finesse weapons is you don't have WP. Ultimate Intrigue seems to be the only deck where any of those are actually present in any significant number.

So my recommendation would be to accept that Aric doesn't synergize with Red Raven's deck, that his combat's *always* going to suck, and to focus on the one thing the designers seem to have been betting on compensating this glaring discrepancy - Examines. And for that purpose, I can't recommend enough the Pathfinder Tales deck! Yes, it'll be an additional expense for you, but it is NOT a joke deck,and it's choke-full with great Examine allies and items! It also has a good splash of Evade to get your Aric out of tight spots, AND it doesn't hurt that it has a bunch of awesome Finesse weapons for RR!


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

This was one of the scenarios a group of semi-fantastic goblins with an ultra-fantastic leader did in pbp last month. I'm not sure there is any trick to it, but you can read the session starting (previously broken link).

I personally to a advantage of the promo armors that reduced fire damage as part of my strategy.

Thanks! I'll check out the thread and I'm link-ifying it here, in case someone else is interested.

I'm not sure however how the promo armors can help with strategy - given that annoying Cooking Eagle's appearance is entirely random...

...Aaand OK, going through that thread, I do see one cool trick they're using: as long as any 1 member of the party holds a Goblin card - they can just toss it around (adventure power) the players, and with some luck at least half the party will be spared the 1 Fire from the Eagle.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

This is the 2-1 scenario from the We Be Goblins campaign.

This scenario doesn't have any Henchmen/Villain. Looking at it, it seems that we (a 6-player party) are expected to grind through 63 cards (assuming no failures!) in 7 very punishing (monster/barrier heavy) locations, all the while being bombarded with nasty Summoned Barrier+Henchmen combos when we encounter a location barrier.

I just wanted to ask - are we missing some crucial "catch" here? Can anyone who has played through this scenario give us any clever tip, or is this exactly the obnoxious chore it appears to be?!?

PS: Also, is it just me or the PACG Society forum isn't working? I would post this question there, but the link only opens Paizo's main page...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Jacob W. Michaels wrote:
Anyone who has been employed full-time as a designer for a game company is ineligible.

I have to ask - does this limitation refer only to RPG Game companies, or does it extend to tabletop, computer games, toys, whatever-else...?


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
During the encounter, what card is the top of the blessing deck and what card is the top of the discard?

The top card of the Blessings DECK is unknown, just like it always is. (Even if you have examined it - it's still, for all intents and purposes, "unknown". I can't think of powers that care what the top of the B-DECK is that don't *also* make you examine/discard that same top card).

The top card of the Blessings DISCARD should be the card you just discarded and are now encountering (so there is no "top Blessing in the discard" - just as if you played Holy Candle on Turn 1 in response to a Lycantrope).

There ARE some powers that let you rearrange the Blessing Discard - if they DON'T use the "examine" language (which they probably wouldn't - the B-Discard is a face-up pile, after all) they *should* be able to change the order of the encountered card in the B-Discard. Most of times, this would be 'irrelevant" to the encounter and thus - unplayable, but it *can* come into play for purposes of playing blessings with "If the top card of the blessings discard pile..." instructions. IMHO.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
cartmanbeck wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:

Great discussion, guys!

...

Cartmanbeck, can you recommend some strategy for pre-role Aric - when he can't ostensibly examine before every explore, but must be ready to deal with a henchman in the location deck?

I'm not Cartmanbeck, and I've not played Aric/Red Raven in any form before, but my guess is that you are going to want to be Red Raven unless you know a boon is coming up that you can acquire. I'd start as RR, then at the end of his turn I'd use his power to examine my location deck. If it is a boon I feel good at acquiring, I'd switch to Aric on my next turn. Acquire it, examine my location deck. If the next card is a boon and I'm going to explore again, I'd stay Aric. If it was a monster or I wasn't going to explore again, I'd switch to Red Raven.

I'm also kind of expecting there to be cards in the deck that let him examine, such as that Blessing of the Spy we see up there. His Mask of the Red Raven will help too.

But that is all just theory since I haven't played him yet.

Yep, Hawkmoon has it right as always. Until you get the power feat allowing you to change when you examine, you'll be relying more on boons that let you examine to set yourself up for the next turn.

Thanks, guys. So, basically, it's "stay in RR persona by default" for the early game. I figured as much, but it seemed thematically wrong for the character, so I was wondering if perhaps I'm missing some twist.

Otherwise, a couple of power feats in, I figured pretty much the same sequence as Sarcastic JAzz Hands above, and after 1 power feat into Roles - it looks like relatively smooth sailing from there. Guess Aric is just a late bloomer :)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Sithobi1 wrote:
Looking at this mostly because of Zibini's ability to look at the top card of a location deck when damage is taken. Examined cards are explicitly not part of their decks, but the same does not appear to be true of explored cards, which seem to remain on top of their decks. Unfortunately, this means that Zibini's ability is often pointless, and leads to some other weirdness like shrieking plant triggering itself. Can someone point me to a rules citation regarding this?

MM Rulebook, p.14:

"If there are any faceup cards on the deck, ignore them
when determining which cards you are examining."

This means "encountered cards".


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
cartmanbeck wrote:

Great discussion, guys!

...

Cartmanbeck, can you recommend some strategy for pre-role Aric - when he can't ostensibly examine before every explore, but must be ready to deal with a henchman in the location deck?


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
...In truth, he does seem EXCEPTIONALLY strong, even playing Devil's Advocate as I am.

Post-role, with the mandatory "when a henchman/villain is encountered"/"when you defeat a monster" switch upgrades? Maybe.

But pre-role ARIC seems near useless. A PACG mantra is that you send your characters to location you can *close* - and while Aric has some pretty useful non-combat skills, guess what - he usually has to COMBAT a henchman for the opportunity to close! And he doesn't know (and is not able to learn!) his way around a weapon or even an armor to literally save his life. That Backsword and Diviner's Blight armor up there are good examples of cards that both Aric *and* Red Raven can use, but generally - either you'll cripple Red Raven's card potential so you can have cards that Aric can use, or half the time Aric will be caught with sub-optimal cards in hand (weapons with -4, armors that banish...) - I don't expect this character will be very playable with any other class decks out there.

Also, you're pretty much funneled into building your deck around examines, though that is not necessarily a 'bug' - IF you have access to the needed cards.

Finally, RR's "examine at end of turn" (and switch to Aric) seems mandatory, if you don't want to spend your whole time in that persona - having to discard 2 cards (hand-size difference) is a pretty big penalty.

I'm really interested in some tips from people who get their deck early on early-game (pre-role) Aric play - as what I see seems ...troublesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

1. For the remainder of the Adventure Path
2. Yes, you can. This should be obvious by the "If defeated, you MAY immediately attempt to close..." text on the Henchman. If, for some reason, that "MAY" is missing - then you will *have* to attempt the Close (but I can't recall such Henchmen in existence)
Also, make note that some Armies in WotR say "You MAY CLOSE" - in that case, you directly close the location, without need to meet the "When Closing" requirements (such as taking Fire damage from the Molten Pool, etc.)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
why should characters be able to split sequential checks against banes/boons

Wow. I read that and my mind was blown - "Why didn't it occur to me that I can split checks against boons!?!"

Then I read Yewstance' quote from the Reference Sheet :(

Now, FWIW, I do believe that the Reference Sheet text is legacy all the way back from RotR - when there were NO boons to require sequential CtA - so essentially the Rulebook and Reference Sheet were telling you the exact same thing.

Nowadays, though, these two sources are directly contradicting each other, telling you either "This rule works against ANY (encountered?) card" <Rulebook> OR "This rule *only* works against Banes" <Reference Sheet>. Now, for some reason you may chose to apply one over the other (to "apply the more restrictive rule"), but short of a FAQ - there IS no way to know what is *intended*.

On the OP itself, I do believe the *intent* is only a single character can attempt the To Close checks, but I can also see Brother Tyler's argument being correct (because, that 'sequential checks' part was *also* written way back when only Banes -i.e., cards that could only be encountered- had sequential checks - and that paradigm has certainly changed since). Personally, I'd prefer if 2 people could tackle the Precinct, as it encourages teamplay and presents alternative strategies to "solving the problem".


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
you must take the decision to act a certain way before knowing what the random outcome will be.

While I agree on the Fasciculus , the above seems to not always be true (and does not follow from any explicit rule, I think?)

Aa example would be (iirc) Corruption Demon (with Curse-like display power), where you roll 1d4 *first* and *then* decide if you want to bury that many cards (though I believe it was FAQd to be more explicit in that regard, but I be damned if I can find the FAQs with the new site layout...)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

"This is especially true for Attack spells, which are represented in every single adventure deck number. "

This was just beneath the Pyrotechnic Blast. So... is PB *really* intended NOT to have the Attack trait?


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I'm not sure exactly what your issue is, re: fitting text on cards. Your new approach however suggest that I , for example, choose Arcane - and then I go through all Spells, Items and Allies with that trait to choose a boon, right?
(EDIT: Disregard the above, I misread. The stuff below stands though.)

So, what' wrong with keeping the old method, but simply omitting the "spell with the(Arcane)trait" part? Would that work?

Otherwise, Irgy's categories seem fine IF you manage somehow (not sure how) to add cards with the Swashbuckling trait to the most problematic category (Acro/Disable/Stealth).


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Single location scenario, all random AD5 & 6 Henchmen. Theoretically, it's possible -and even likely- that *both* HH and IM are shuffled in, AND that HH is above IM. Then, HH says:

"BYA, summon and defeat Inger- Maggor, or Herald's Heart is undefeated."

In the above setup - does that mean I CANNOT defeat HH until the deck is shuffled an Inger is on top, defeat and sent to the box - so he can finally be summoned when HH comes around again?

It would seem so by the rules, but we hope someone can come up with a reason otherwise...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Pillar of Light allows characters to heal "instead of your first exploration for the turn". OTOH, Minotaurs have nasty "If it is your first exploration of the turn" powers. So, if a player heals with PoL, and THEN runs into a Minotaur - would that be his "first" exploration?

I seem to remember a similar case with Kyra and face-up barriers, where it was ruled that even after she heals - she still has to encounter the barrier. Still, I'm not sure if there were any differences in language (maybe "encounter this barrier AS your first exploration.."?) that *could* make a difference.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Hah. Thanks! That was my reasoning as well, but then this weapon becomes ridiculously good against Armies. I'm not sure it completely makes thematic sense (the idea is that you bleed out a singular monster, weakening it for a follow-up, I suppose - and how can you bleed out an *army*?!) , but I can't help but think it says "bane", and not "monster" for a purpose...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

The Sawtooth Sabre says:

"If you succeed at your first check to defeat a bane that requires sequential checks to defeat, the difficulty of checks to defeat during this encounter is decreased by 5"

Now, checks against armies are by their very nature "sequential" and they're most definitely NOT "alternative".

Still would you say beating a Combat 40 with Allain's Sawtooth Sabre will drop Adowyin's Acrobatic 23 check down to 18? Rules support pro and con?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Ranzak's parrot is officially named "Magic Bird."

Nice try, Mike, bur you are fooling nobody. Not a single person on my party who has known the awesomeness that is Cap'n Bloodfeathers is reverting to a mere "Magic Bird"!

I mean, the fact that *Ranzak* doesn't know his (her?) true name doesn't prove anything.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Cap'n Bloodfeathers

...is as official as anything Goblin-related is.

(I just made my DriveThru card of him yesterday :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Nohwear wrote:
Since the Craft skill seems to be used a lot in Skulls and Shackles, but not really elsewhere

You *would* think so, but let me tell you - our party made a lot more Craft checks in Mummy's MAsk, than ever in S&S.

I would honestly say I think you don't need Craft for S&S (now, *Survival* - that's another matter entirely.)

AFAIK, there are no 'substitute skill' rules like the ones you ask for, but if you really want to do it - I'd substitute Knowledge for Craft on any character.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
Master_Grabnar wrote:
I usually stay at a location until I've gone through its entire deck.
This, I think, is a key tactical error. It may be THE key tactical error you're making.

^ This, 100%.

Brother Tyler gave you some sound advice. In addition to always closing your location when you beat the hencman (which also means - never send a character in a location they CAN'T close, except if you already have figured out the scenario - you've scouted the villain and you're now boon hunting since you have lots of timer...) , I'd also recommend you outfit Seoni with Father Zantus and or the promo card Poog of Zarongel - both are excellent back up heals.

EDIT: Also, since you're playing the app - there're are bunch of useful play-trhough videos on YouTube. You can watch a few of them to see how those guys (often also first-timers) manage it, and to identify any other possible mistakes you could be making.

At any rate, fear not - once you get the hang of it, you won't be able to get away from the game :D


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Master_Grabnar wrote:
I feel that I cannot play until my party feels "right."

Well, what "feels" right is entirely subjective.

However, you already had a suggested 4-char party that *objectively* should do great in RotR. (elcoderdude gave some play suggestions above). Still, you say you "cannot win" - so to us that suggest you're probably doing something "wrong" during the scenarios themselves.

I'm sure plenty of people will gladly chime in to help you, but we'll need to figure out where exactly are you failing. In addition to Brother Tylor's questions above:

- do you fail from time-out, or from characters dying?
- if time - how often are you exploring each turn? Do you regularly use Blessings and Allies for extra explores?
- if death - how much resources do you throw into supporting a character's combat? do you have any "odds" number (say, 75%) that you're content with before rolling?
- do you have difficulties with a particular bane, location, villain...?
etc,,,

In brief, if you give us an example of how a game went bad for you -maybe we'll be able to figure out what the problem is. Your characters however are NOT it.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

We're playing it "mixed": we don't add any CD's to the *box* itself, but let's say the party has acquired an AD3 weapon that nobody else wants - now, our Gunslinger can either take *that* weapon, or "exchange" it for an AD3 Weapon from her own Gunslinger CD. (In some parties, if "exchanged", we will also remove the Set weapon from the game - so the number of total boons between characters and the box remains unchanged)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
spinningdice wrote:
Ranzak fell and fights no more

Zarongel bless his nasty little soul. He is survived by his Pirate parrot, Cap'n Bloodfeathers.

...Too bad, since Ranzak could at least be built for a decent flat Survival bonus. I hope your team is rocking both of those Worn Leather Caps or there can be even nastier troubles ahead....


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I wish this was on a platform where I could heap like a ton of likes upon it! And subscribe it, or whatever :D I'll definitely keep checking it though!

Now, go and play faster through those scenarios!!!


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
True story: people at my table would mostly prefer BotG for its versatility over BoTorag, BoSarenrae or even BoIrori - as these only add to non-combat checks that are mostly used to acquire boons
In honor of the currently-absent Calthaer, I repudiate your group's disdain for things primarily useful for acquiring boons. Although yeah, that's totally my playstyle too.

Oh, don't get me wrong - when the d4 STR Gunslinger encounters Flaming Ranseurs +3 - you better believe we'll be throwing blessings at it like it's going out of fashion. And we're all fans of MM's "double-headed snake" blessing (+2d8 to acquire boon). But we're 6-p - so we can often afford to bury a boon CTA in blessings; we just don't find the "this blessing *only* adds 2 dice to acquire Melee weapons" very appealing :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Since the Collection ships with the Add-on Deck include - it could really benefit from being described "for 1-6 players".

Also, the Base Set + AD1 should probably be included in the description, instead of it saying "Skull & Shackles Collection" - the Collection is the *whole* package, so it can seem unclear what the bulletpoint item actually represents.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Since the Collection ships with the Add-on Deck include - it could really benefit from being described "for 1-6 players".

Also, the Base Set + AD1 should probably be included in the description.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Since the Collection ships with the Add-on Deck include - it could really benefit from being described "for 1-6 players".

Also, the Base Set + AD1 should probably be included in the description.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Tatak wrote:

Is it intended that this Blessing adds a die to Strengh combat checks during exploration?

Please consider adding the answer to FAQ. Thanks for answer

Well, if the answer is YES, there's no really need for a FAQ, no?

To me, it looks in line with the power-level of similar "stained-glass" blessings. Yes, 'thematically' maybe it'd be more 'correct' to only add to non-combat STR; however, when you consider the applicability of it (90%+ of its target being Weapon cards' CTA) - it becomes so situational that its near useless. So, 'theme' for 'usability' seem like decent trade-off, considering the 'staind glass' blessings are supposed to be awesome.

(True story: people at my table would mostly prefer BotG for its versatility over BoTorag, BoSarenrae or even BoIrori - as these only add to non-combat checks that are mostly used to acquire boons)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
spinningdice wrote:
are we insane?

In only the best ways possible...

...though, of course, you're just a faker. A real goblin player is supposed to post in the form of (an off-rhyme) song, where at least half the lyrics would either irk PETA or violate the Geneva Conventions!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
eddiephlash wrote:
"Henchman" should be Henchperson

I find this quite restrictive and under-representing. How about "Henchentity" - given how we have mindless undead, demons, outright deities, not to mention statues (!) whose whole "person" status is somewhat ambiguous?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
Am I the only one whose OCD is aggravated by the crossed European swords on the Blessing of the Samurai?

No. You're most decidedly not >:


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Of course, it can't really say "any number of cards" without some rewording.

Well, it would works in exactly the same way*, but infinitely more word-y, if it said:

Wordy power wrote:
At the start of any turn, you may choose a card type and recharge any number of cards of that type; if you do, additionally recharge all other cards of that type and add ( [ ] 1 plus) the total number of cards recharged to your checks until the end of the turn.

Of course, this is convoluted to an absurd degree, but nevertheless *feels* like the "spirit" of what that power is intended to do.

(* OK, so technically my wording *could* potentially have a difference in mechanical impact - if there's a power that interacts with "When you (would) recharge cards for a character power..." - then only the first bunch of "any number of card" would apply, and not the rest of the recharged cards. But still.)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I once did similar homebrew stuff for S&S, though I called it Treasure Hunts (the idea being - you collect/follow map to find treasure - an activity that was awfully underrepresented in S&S. I mean - may that *was* a reflection of the RPG path or something, but for Besmara's sake - we're playing pirates here! Come on!)

It was a resounding success amongst my players, an while I'm unlikely to dedicate the time to do something like that again - I would *really* love in one day we see something like those Sagas in the official Game!


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

No.

It's buried somewhere in the Rulebook, but when you're instructed to do something with "any" number of cards - that number must always be at least 1.

It's not 1:1 with Erasmus' wording, but to me it's the obvious rule to govern this situation. (though I expect other people will also provide other examples why the answer is "no")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I agree that you need to choose first.

Initially, I was leaning the other way and I didn't see Seltyel's power as particularly overpowered. However, by that token, every Sorcerer would be able able to continuously display WoV at no cost whatsoever, and THAT stroke me as a bit too overpowered to be the intent, so it made me revisit the wording.

On second reading, I think I would parse WoV's instruction as follows:
"you may succeed at an Arcane or Divine 18 check to recharge this card
OR
you may succeed at an Arcane or Divine 18 check to continue displaying this card"

While not feasible for space reasons, the above would probably be the optimal wording, and it leaves no place for different interpretations: you may auto-recharge WoV with Seltyel/Sorcerer OR you may attempt the check to continue displaying WoV.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
AbarabkA wrote:
I was really hoping the examination would count as playing a card

Hah, you would think that NOW, but if it was so, you would soon discover that it had a lot more drawbacks that the occasional situational advantage for Grazzle... :D


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Way I see it, the whole *point* of the (Class) Deck upgrade system is that in OP you can't have random drop-in players walking way with cards from your box - so it feel utterly extraneous to home games. Of course, you playing several campaigns out of a single box creates similar issue, however.

AFAIK:

- OP Traders work differently than home game: you use them at START of scenario - so you trade you Class Deck cards for MM-appropriate cards (Remove Curse, etc.)

- There IS some sort of "replacement" mechanic, usually given as a reward (ex. Reward: "at start of scenario, one character may replace 1 card in their deck with Scarab Buckler"

- There is also some sort of stipulation about replacing Blessings - I believe at start of game, you can replace any 1 Class Deck blessing with 1 Blessing with the same AD or lower from the box.

Disclaimer: I'm not OP player and I've 'gathered' the above info from random posts, so it may not be correct. Furthermore, I'm not sure if the above rules are set in the Organized Play Rules (which are available as free download on this site) or/and in part in the Seasons themselves (Seasons being the OP "sets").

Finally, for your specific issue - I would just recommend - whenever you start a scenario, you freely replace all your Basic Class Deck blessings with the set-specific Basic blessing(s); at the end of scenario you make the reverse switch - so your box remains game-ready for the other parties that use it. You *could* also do the same for Loot (at start of game replace any armor with Scarab Buckler; switch back at end game) and potentially ALL of your deck cards - but it all comes down to the amount of upkeep overhead you're willing to do (presumably, a lot of notes/spreadsheets would be involved).

Good luck!


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:


Alternately, you might top-deck the spell:

"When you would discard a spell other than as damage, reveal this card and banish a monster to put the spell on top of your deck instead of discarding it."

This would change exactly nothing for classic Ezren though. Furthermore, I seem to recall a character being able to draw the top (item) card of his deck upon casting a spell (though, I *could* be thinking of Pathfinder Adventures characters): if there is indeed one, then Vic's fix again does nothing for those characters.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Thoughts?

Well, it's obviously a very heavy nerf of the Robes and it severely undercuts their usability for a big party -which seem really heavy-handed if you *only* wanted to fix the Animate Dead interaction.

So I'd like to ask -have there been *general concerns* about the power level of the Robe, or are you just future-proofing ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Storn Bladebite wrote:

After the gunslinger CD was released, my group wanted to use it to play the SS gunslinger in WotR. Then we were curious if she was supposed to be able to single-handedly defeat an army with the power:

"You may discard a weapon to defeat a barrier that has the Cache, Lock, or Skirmish trait."

Since all armies have the skirmish trait,...

Today, the Gunslinger would probably get a more correct/practical wording like "...to succeed at your check to defeat a barrier..."

You can probably find in each set obsolete wordings that were good enough at the time, but did not (and could not possibly have) take into account stuff that showed up in later sets.

Still, it may be argued that even current rules cover your case:

"If a power allows you to automatically defeat or acquire a card,
... Doing so counts as succeeding at all checks and requirements to defeat ... You may not use such a power against ... any card that has a check you’re not allowed to succeed at.

So, a literal reading of the Gunslinger - and looking at the Italic part above - would mean your power automatically succeeds at all checks called for by the Army, and you indeed defeat it.

A more conservative reading -and looking at the bolded part above- may result in the conclusion that you're NOT allowed to play the Gunslinger's power AT ALL, since the Army has (the other players') checks you're "not allowed to succeed at". This *would* be supported by the explicit rule that
"Whenever you ... make a check, you—and only you—must resolve it. No other character can ... defeat it".

Finally, it can perhaps be argued that a "mixed' -and the most sensible- solution is allowed - you play the Gunslinger's power, you automatically succeed at the Gunslinger's check to defeat, but then you "ignore impossible instructions" - so you don't succeed at "all checks and requirements" and instead leave the other characters to take their own checks.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Keith Richmond wrote:
I'm still worried about it, though :)

Incidentally, I was thinking about the best way to fix this mechanically, without actually nerfing either card’s intended functionality – so I think the best play here might be similar to Restoration et al. FAQs – you make Animate Dead to “display” for its power and you check if it discards at the end of the turn.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Although it is only when you get to the recharge check of Animate Dead that it's decided if the spell will *end up* Discarded, Recharged or Banished - you must IN THE FIRST PLACE discard the Spell to play its power and *then* draw 2 monsters.

Therefore, I would argue you must FIRST reveal Robe of Bones and banish a monster, at the time when you would PLAY (= discard) Animate Dead, and only afterwards you get the spell's effect (draw 2 monsters).

I would ask Keith for a ruling on the above, however:

While "my" approach does saddle you with the requirement to have at least 1 monster in your hand *to begin with* - since Animate Dead does remain in your hand, you again can get into the same exploit loop (banish 1 Monster, draw 2 monsters, banish 1 monster, draw 2 monsters...)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
What do y'all think of that?

Sounds good and thematic enough, though I can't give it a proper test right now.

What I can say *without* test - consider the "Fun factor" for 6-p, where each player will pretty much have to spend 1 of their 5 turns (or about 20% percent of their useful character time!) on hand rebuild. On these grounds, if you're going to take only 1 of Frencois's suggestions - I'd really recommend the other one - something along the lines of "When the location Prison is closed, each character at that location may reset her hand."


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Doppelschwert wrote:


My intention with that conversion is to punish the player for picking the crew for an encounter with a monster and losing; its primary use is not intended as a shield that blocks incoming damage away from you, even though that is a side effect for BYA damage that I want to support as well.

Oh, OK. Now I get it. And yes - you would actually achieve this primary purpose.

For Structural reduction - higher Class ships have it par for the course, going as high as "reduce 3", iirc. (There's also Loot armor that reduces 1 with reveal, but I assume you won't have that either)

Now, for the BYA though (and it also goes for failed combat - you would usually fail by no more than 4 or 5) - this damage is intended to mess with your hand, potentially denying you important cards or even leaving you without means to fight the encounter itself. Granted, Crew already gets you out of this predicament (by granting you out-of-hand combat resource that is impervious to damage), but let me try and give an example to show you what I mean:

I'm in a party of 6 (or whatever), and I have 2 cards left in my hand. I encounter a monster with 1d4 BYA damage. Now, I have a pretty good chance to be hand-wiped before combat even starts, and one of the cards in my hand is something I want to keep throughout the scenario (say, my best weapon). So, instead, I just call on the Crew and roll the 1d4 - now ANY character in the party can suffer that damage instead of me - and with more characters it's highly likely that several of then will be able to comfortably throw away at least 1 low-importance card. The damage (again, this may even be post-check combat damage) is "watered down", as instead of hurting my most precious cards - it's dispensed around the whole party and and it hits our LEAST precious cards.

So, you're trying to circumvent people's armor as "punishment" - but in my XP, people don't carry a lot of armor in S&S, and your "byproduct" - the ability to spread any damage around is actually a superior boost for people that encounter something with a nasty BYA and without armor in hand. You alone can judge where that lays on the scale of your difficulty preferences; personally, as a *player*, I'm not opposed to having an easy way to circumvent all the cheap BYA in S&S, which was obvious but obnoxious attempt to make armor at all relevant (as opposed to later design philosophy where Lone Sharks realized armor has to actually be able to contribute something else - like adding dice to checks, giving movement power, etc..)


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I don't know why you removed Allies from playable cards - it was thematic and I liked it; also, "of a type" seems a redundant wording - you're fine with "You may not play cards other than (allies or) blessing".

At the same time, I stand by my assessment of the Damage=> Structural conversion, which is now even MORE powerful!

I would suggest you return the "damage conversion" upgrade path and nerf it somewhat, for example:

"□ Reduce damage dealt to you by 1 (□ 2)(□ 3); your ship is dealt 3 Structural damage instead."

(though I agree the above will reduce early game usability of this power for low-count parties)

Also, again in connection with damage reduction, and "at location", party-wide BYA/AYA damage - I'd like to see the general rule revised as "When A character encounters a card, A character may banish plunder..." - so as to give the damage conversion to the most vulnerable character. (see also cards like Brinebones - who is encountered by one character - but may deal his BYA damage to a completely different character and location...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
"Banish" closes (or other "banish") are REALLY cool. Else you end up always playing automatic with your always-the-same-perfect-optimized-deck. Automatic = No fun.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that second statement, but I'll give you that much: "banish closes" break up the pace of the game and give you tactical sub-tasks ("Guys, we need to find a crap card of type X to be able to close that!") which can be refreshing.

And of course - "banish closes" are great in AD3+ IF you want to "shop" for particular card type at deck rebuild...

1 to 50 of 1,005 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>