|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Scott Keim wrote:
The low-hanging joke here, of course, is that the undead took your brain...
I anxiously eye the Season O downloads about the middle of every month, as I'm not connected to a store so have to be a month behind on them (and pay for them).
I understand there was a week off from the program about the end of the year, but I was still hoping to see adventure 0-4 available by now--any ETA on that?
I don't sleeve.
We've played through Rise of the Runelords one full time, along with using the cards for a lot of one-off games (including playtesting for my variant-RotRL AP Shield of Rannick). The cards are showing wear, particularly the set B and 1 cards that have seen more use than the set 5 and 6 cards.
Our Skull and Shackles set is only up to set 4 (set 5 just came yesterday!), but those cards have gotten even more play than our RotRL set, with the main campaign, the OP campaign, and playtesting for my next variant AP. Those cards are also showing wear; again, it's mostly the set B and 1 cards.
We've only had one "giveaway" damage: the Fox in my wife's deck has a peeled corner that indicates when it's coming. We just swapped out for a Fox from one of the class decks.
I imagine we play this game much more than most players. The fact that these cards can stand up to our rigorous play is a real testament to the durability of the game. If we were going to take a third run--for example, if we planned to restart RotRL one holiday weekend and power through the whole thing with a new group--I might deem our set just a little too worn out, and buy another base set. That would give "fresh" set B and 1 cards, which is all we need; the other cards have held up just fine. (It's money I'd rather throw at Paizo than at a card-sleeve company and take up a lot of my own time--but I know that's not a decision everyone can make.)
I'm not rabidly anti-sleeving, and I do have some experience with sleeving: one of the game stores I played OP at sleeves their cards, so I have to sleeve my Tarlin deck cards when I go play there. I don't much mind using sleeved cards, but it's not my preference.
As for the future, I don't intend to sleeve Wrath of the Righteous, either.
Hope this feedback is helpful.
Myth Lord wrote:
That awesome Aurumvorax ripping through that robot should be my background from now on. Love that picture.
I loved seeing the art for The Choking Tower throughout, as it's a thrill to see my words come alive in art, but I particularly liked that aurumvorax image!
Mike Selinker wrote:
We are discussing this.
Quick, everybody fill your decks with blessings from the blessing deck discard pile before they tell us not to!
Let me put the question a little more precisely: when an adventure gives you a card feat, do you add a corresponding Basic card to your deck, or do you add a card you gained during play of the final scenario (which may or may not be Loot cards)?
This is a thorny issue. When I first read this, I thought the Theryon Method was definitely right. But after some thought, I realize that the Pluvia Method is how we actually play: if the final scenario of an adventure gives you Loot cards, and the adventure gives you a card feat, we'll often take the card feat and then fill that new "open spot" with a Loot card. This wouldn't be possible if Theryon was right--in that case, you'd have to take your loot, rebuild your decks, and then get the card feat--meaning before you start the first scenario of the next adventure, you must take a Basic card in order to fill the "open spot" you earned. Does anyone play that way? Are my groups just outliers?
Page one has v1.1, but it wouldn't accept that as the file name, so I renamed the file name to "v2" instead. I'm terrible at version-naming things; you can tell I don't do programming!
And I also noticed that for the 6C Scenario there is twice the same location "The old Light"
Oh, snap! Yes, that's an error that was once slated for correction but didn't get corrected. The second appearance (that is, the location for 3 players) should be the Dam. I'll fix this in the next version.
Boons put back in the box after you rebuild your deck are not banished. So they can't be removed from the game.
Oh! We've been removing too many cards from the game, then. Even after hundreds of games, you can still learn something new! Thanks!
Thanks to everyone for the thoughts and feedback here--I've uploaded a new version of Shield of Rannick to WelbyBumpus.com (you'll know it's the newest version because it has v2 in the file name).
In the new version, I've cleaned up some text, improved some of the story, and clarified the Sihedron Medallion rules in each scenario. This took a bit of doing, since what you do with the blessing deck is different based on what you're doing with the Sihedron Medallion.
* Banish or Display: you reveal the medallion, banish or display it, do the thing it makes you do, then advance the blessing deck.
* Shuffle: you reveal the medallion, do the thing it makes you do, then advance the blessings deck, then shuffle the medallion back in.
This is now set forth in each scenario, so should be clear--let me know if it's not!
For those interested in the gory details, here's one of the cases we went through in hammering this out:
Let's say you're playing 5A: Unearthing the Battlefield. You've done not so great, and your blessing deck has two medallions and two blessings in it. For your turn, you flip the medallion. You have to look at the "When the Sihedron Appears" section immediately and do what it says, so you make the check, then advance the blessings deck (say you flip a blessing), then shuffle the medallion back in. Now you've got one blessing and two medallions in your blessings deck.
At the beginning of the next turn, you flip a medallion so you again do the steps in "When the Sihedron Appears"--make the check, then advance the blessings deck--but you flip another medallion when you do. Since you've revealed a medallion, you immediately perform the "When the Sihedron Appears" step: make the check, then advance the blessings deck (flipping over the final blessing). Then "shuffle" both medallions back into the empty blessings deck. Your blessings deck now consists of two medallions, and that's it.
At the start of the next turn, you'll flip a medallion, make the check, then flip the other medallion and make the check, then try to advance the blessings deck again but fail to do so, immediately losing the scenario.
It's pretty rough when you get down that low but--and here was the important point for me--you're out of the infinite loop.
Unless someone at the table has lost an armor in the scenario (a rarity, in my experience), then the effect is functionally the same, just delayed: instead of being removed from the game when you use it, it's removed from the game when you select cards for your deck at the end of the scenario.
If someone had lost an armor, and you've gained no other armors, they have to keep it. But then, the effect is pretty much the same anyway: if someone had lost an armor and ended with an open "armor slot", she'd have to go hunting in the box for a Basic armor anyway (and might be stuck with that Leather Armor!).
Dave Riley wrote:
We're in adventure 3 and loving it. Playing with locations +1. Accidentally played with 5 locations on 3-A, which should only have 3 with two players, I think?
I'm compiling edits from the various discussions, and this caught my eye--you should have the normal 4 locations with 2 players in adventure 3-A...were you talking about one of the other scenarios?
I created cards using my templates to thank you for the fun I took playing your adventure path Ron.
I love this! I'd only ask you to wait a day or two if you mock up 4C or 4D, since I'll have a few tweaks there in response to some comments.
New version coming soon.
Neat concept! A few initial thoughts here:
1) Seems nicely well-rounded and functions as a slightly more versatile fighter in a group.
2) There are too few Dragon cards to make the first power really worthwhile, initially. It's really only effective when you use your second power to add the Dragon trait (although it's not clear whether that adds the Dragon trait to your check--I think the intent is that it does). I don't know the source material you're pulling from, but perhaps you could apply it as "Draconic Majesty" or something and get the bonus against a more common trait instead (like Humans, or Animals, or both if you drop the bonus to +1 ([ ]+2)).
Dave Riley wrote:
Agreed it's more logical, and likely the best solution. I've been running through a few options, particularly at a low blessings deck size, in order to find the best solution (while preserving the groans around the table when the medallion is revealed!).
I'd love to hear all about it! I'm particularly interested in how you fare in those scenarios where the Sihedron Medallion is shuffled back into the deck. I've been kicking around a minor rules revision for that--as well as a few other edits that the fine folks at BGG have spotted--but I'm not quite yet ready to release version 1.1.
Still have my money on Jade Regent.
I want this to be Iron Gods, out of sheer vanity--I'd like to see my third chapter of that, The Choking Tower, made into an official card adventure!
Fantastic job. There was no mention of the Set Type indicator of P for Promo. Are we not supposed to be playing with the promos?
You can, but I'm not counting on anyone necessarily having or using those. We expressly removed them from our box for playtesting, because some of them (looking at you, Fire Sneeze and Poog) are pretty powerful for B-level cards.
I'd treat P cards as B, C, or 1, just like in other games. I'll clarify when I make some edits.
Thanks for the clarification, Vic. Ron had submitted a scenario using PACG resources for an article in Wayfinder, and I was going to ask you about it. Looks like its permissible.
Yay! Now that I've passed the hurdle of technicality, my submission can be judged based on its merits (if any)! :-)
I am thinking of joining the organized play. Which is the best character if I wanted to focus on allies?
Heggal, without a doubt. He really relies on allies, and has the ability to get several. Heggal is my favorite of the 4 or 5 OP characters I play. (As a useful aside, I also think he's the most powerful of the characters I play.)
To get nitty gritty: I shuffle all the decks at the beginning of each scenario, but leave them in the box during gameplay. When I'm required to banish a card, I put it in the front of the deck. When I'm required to draw a random card of that type (plunder, large chest .etc) I draw from the back of the deck so I can't see what card it is, effectively 'random'.
This is what we do, but even lazier: we only shuffle the decks once every adventure or so, or until we feel like we're likely to have gotten deeply into that type of card (as is often the case with blessings, which we shuffle every scenario).
Nathaniel Gousset wrote:
Or you can simply remove the card for all the groups.
We sort of do this. We remove Basic cards banished by our "higher level" (now in AP 4) but not by our "lower level" (now in AP 3) group.
Plenty of times I've had to put BotG back in the box after our "low level" game when I've wanted to banish them; but I figure it works out because I've already banished some in our "high level" game.
Not precise. But easier.
After a quick glance am eager to try out with the husband. Nice work on the flavor text and arrangement - thanks for adding to the fun!
Thanks! I'd love to hear how it goes!
After a quick review, one correction is that scenario 3-A has the flavor text for 2-A.
I am definitely still taking feedback.
Six of the scenarios require you to shuffle the Medallion back in; for those, the possibility of seeing the Medallion several times when the blessings deck gets low is the intent: you're incentivized to hurry, since bad things are happening to you more often.
What isn't intended--but I now see is possible--is a situation where there's nothing but Medallions left in the blessings deck; you don't ever get a turn, because you keep revealing then shuffling then revealing then shuffling. In that case, you've lost. I'll work on a way to clarify this--suggestions welcome!
Jan Englund wrote:
So Ron, I encourage you not to follow the example Paizo has given us in the Rise of the Runelords – Base Set (I have not played the Skull 'n Shackles) and add a bit more fluff to your great looking adventure path. If it can be done with little effort, if you already have the story in your head, why not to add a bit more text to Adventure and scenario explanations?
One thing that I liked about my layout was the ability to add more story than Paizo was able to use on their cards--I didn't have their space limitation. I was shooting for something a little tighter, word-wise, than their OP scenarios (if you want more story, I really recommend checking out those).
Here's an unrelated question (although it's about 0-3D Going Under, so this seems the right place to put it):
The villain makes you summon and encounter the Blackwater Charda henchman. The Blackwater Charda henchman is one of the henchmen shuffled into a location during setup, so might not be available.
The best we can tell, the aboleth's power is ignored as impossible if the Blackwater Charda hasn't been defeated and sent to the box; otherwise, it forces you to summon the Blackwater Charda as normal.
(This initially seemed an error to us, but upon reflection makes some balancing sense: if you encounter the aboleth early, it's combat difficulty is so high that it's something of a kindness that it's not able to throw the charda at you, too; by the time it can throw the charda at you, its combat difficulty will be more manageable.)
What do you do when you've gone through the entire Rise of the Runelords path for the PACG? Rearrange the cards and do it again!
The Shield of Rannick adventure path is an entirely new 30-scenario adventure path with an independent story. It uses only the cards from the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Rise of the Runelords Base Set and the six adventure decks--no need to print your own cards (but you will need all six adventure decks to play it).
You can download it from WelbyBumpus.com for free.
Get it, play it, and let me know what you think (and how I can improve it!).
...and done! I've thrown together a website to host this. It's the Shield of Rannick adventure path, and it's hosted at welbybumpus.com. (Right now, it's the only product there, but it's nice for me to have a place I can put more!)
Look ahead at the next few scenarios you'll be playing. If you'll be facing a lot of sea devils, take the necklace.
Do you carry a lot of items but think your current items are otherwise not very good? Then take the necklace in order to gradually improve them.
Totally agree, cartmanbeck. I'm looking at releasing my full variant AP on Friday, using only RotRL cards. This thread is one of the places I'll post about that, just to let everyone know the kind of things I think can be done.
Tim Felts wrote:
I'm in the same boat--can't access the images, but I trust everyone else's judgment and I'm in for one as well!
Most of the Skinsaw Murders has a pretty gothic-horror feel to it. I would look at those cards/that story.
So I mentioned I'd be pulling a RotRL variant AP together, and I'm a week or two away from having a rough cut of this--anyone who wants to take a look at that for comment/criticism, or to help with playtesting it, please send me a Private Message with your email address.
Pluvia, perhaps the concern is that characters today can pretty quickly get to being "the best they can be" with the class decks; I know that I've often elected to forego any reward at all, because literally nothing available would improve my deck.
Multiclassing removes that, making the "best they can be" something that is a bit more powerful.
I don't think that's a bad thing at all, but I think that it does make characters more powerful. Not, however, "extremely powerful."
I agree, but the ability to use all the RotR cards to create post-RotR content would be very difficult without some patently arbitrary rules (like "add 10 to the difficulty of every monster").
I'm talking about doing the latter; you'd start it over again.
Hey, I've been looking into this in the past week or so.
I'm an RPG publisher. I'm quite familiar with the Pathfinder Compatibility License, as I use it for all my Run Amok Games products. Here is the obligatory plug for my highly-rated Pathfinder RPG games.
I had the good fortune to be accepted in the recent issue of Wayfinder, and that got me thinking a bit about the Community Use Policy, and how it differs from the Pathfinder Compatibility License. I'm quite amazed at just how much stuff--including oodles of art and even a few maps--that the CUP lets you use that the PCL does not. The key restriction within the CUP requirements is that you must not make any money from your product--essentially, you have to offer the product for free.
Specifically, I'm interested in rearranging all the cards from Rise of the Runelords to make a parallel adventure path, just the way OP is a "parallel adventure path" to S&S. You can see the similarities--there has to be, as the same cards are used--but it's a different story (in S&S OP, it's being captured by Jemma Redclaw and earning your freedom, rather than being press-ganged and having to overwhelm your captors).
I've gotten as far as laying out a structure for this RotR AP: the scope of each adventure, the villains and henchmen that I would use in each scenario, and so on.
My plan is to produce a .pdf. It'd be like the compilation of the OP scenarios, but all in one file. It would have one (or maybe two) scenarios per page. I'd be able to illustrate it fairly lavishly, because I'd be offering it for free under the CUP instead of under the PCL.
I still haven't yet done all my research for this; I've got several posts from the Homebrew forum still to review about releasing your own scenarios, and I still need to get a handle on just how much of a look I can use without violating the trade dress limitations of the CUP, for example. I also have a nagging suspicion that people over on the Board Game Geek forums are doing whole adventures and adventure paths left and right, but I'm rarely over there so I don't know. Plus I'm designing the whole thing.
But it'll be fun!
Your wall of text is intimidating, but the above is the crux of your proposal. I think it amps up power for Adventure 3 and later, but that's just a matter of designing the OP adventures to be a little bit harder, maybe. I'd use it, or more accurately, test it.
It takes all sorts, I suppose, but I'm disagreeing with you on a few fronts:
For me, the game is absolutely sustainable. We've played literally hundreds of games of PACG, and with the organized play options, it's basically doubled the lifespan of the Skull and Shackles game. We've played the entirely of S&S in the playtest, yet we're still excited for more standard S&S, more organized play of S&S, the final incarnation of Wrath of the Righteous, and the inevitable organized play of WotR.
I don't know that new character decks will be necessary to enjoy Wrath of the Righteous--WotR will include its own characters with some very cool options and will have plenty of new stuff all on its own. That said, I agree that I'd like to see the class decks for the "missing" classes like the druid, monk, etc. I'm sure those are an eventuality--I hope they take some lessons from the last class decks into account and include only 3 characters, rather than 4, per deck.
Linking to the Pathfinder Society is unnecessary and irrelevant for us. We're big fans of the RPG, but none of us really play Pathfinder Society any more--I can't see that any connection between the two will be something any of us use.
So I'm at the other end of the spectrum, personally, but I'd like to hear what others think.
Dave Riley wrote:
I don't sleeve, so I'm able to use the box insert as Vic and God intended. One thing I do lack, however, is a place to put removed Basics/Elites--for that one thing alone, I need a separate box (I put the minis we use instead of tokens, dice, and my scenario tracker paperwork all in the big compartment at the back of the box, so the removed cards can't effectively go there).
We were a little dismayed that our finely-tuned decks of weapons, monster-killing spells, and armors were rendered entirely useless by this scenario, in which you fight precisely one monster (the villain). By the rules, I think that even the monsters that a location summons--such as Hammerhead Sharks at Shark Island--would turn into random ships.
And those ain't easy ships; some of them have really high checks. (As a piece of trivia you may not know, all of those new ships are the ones featured in the recent release Ships of the Inner Sea.)
We won it our first time through, but only by realizing early on that weapons and most spells are just garbage in our hands. We discarded for blessings and useful allies, helped each other's checks much more than we usually do (Foxes were popular), and were more aggressive than usual about healing. Luck played a large role--when my Vika hit a ship, it often ended up being the Kraken's Spite, which allows Strength/Melee to beat (yay!).
FYI, our group is Vika, Tarlin, and Meliski.
Dave Riley wrote:
You play Damiel and Jirelle, but Damiel is the one with Besmara's Tricorne? Our Jirelle wouldn't dream of letting it go!
(We play Damiel, Jirelle, and my Feiya.)