|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wow, was thinking of starting skulls and shackles with friends soon but this does skulls and shackles better than skulls and shackles does skulls and shackles.
In that Skull and Shackles is a card game recreation of an existing series of adventures, I don't know that I agree. :-)
But thanks for the kind words!
What do you do when you've gone through the entire Skull and Shackles adventure path for the PACG? Rearrange the cards and do it again!
The Bloodlust Corsairs adventure path is an entirely new 35-scenario adventure path with an independent story. It uses only the cards from the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Skull and Shackles base set and its six adventure decks--no need to print your own cards (but you will need all six adventure decks to play it). It includes two new rules: one for using your ship as a location, and another for playing any character as a wereshark!
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!).
Here's one I only just now discovered, by following another thread:
If characters A and B are at a location when another character elsewhere encounters the villain, they can each attempt to close the location. We've always played that only one or the other can try; if the selected character fails, the other one doesn't get a chance to try. (In practice, the character more likely to succeed is the one that makes the check.) One other way we've been playing in "hard mode," I guess.
Huh. You can play this game hundreds of times and still have errors, and I think I just stumbled onto one.
Are you saying that, if characters A and B are at a location when another character elsewhere encounters the villain, they can each attempt to close the location? We've always played that only one or the other can try; if the selected character fails, the other one doesn't get a chance to try. (In practice, the character more likely to succeed is the one that makes the check.) I see now that isn't the rule--and in fact, hasn't ever been the rule.
One other way we've been playing in "hard mode," I guess.
First World Bard wrote:
Alternatively, I might give the Shield of Rannick a try. If I try to solo it, I'd probably use Meliski; I've been itching to see how he'd do going Brawler with access to Amulets of Mighty / Fiery fists.
Well, Shield of Rannick is pretty awesome, I'll admit. :-) If you can wait a few days, you can try Bloodlust Corsairs--my adventure path with the Skull and Shackles set--and see what you think. I've honestly playtested very little of that with just a solo character (my usual group is 3 players), and I'll be interested to see what a solo run of that is like.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I most interested in how a Vigilante would be built in the card game
Conceptually, that seems easy. You have two sets of skills (maybe even two sets of powers, but that seems to be going a bit far). At the start of your turn, you choose one or the other, and you have that for the whole turn. They're balanced, but not the same: one has Strength d10 with Melee +2, maybe, and the other has Strength of d6 with no Melee, but Charisma of d10 and Diplomacy +2. Perhaps you'll have the best skill for what you encounter, but perhaps not.
With careful scouting, you'll have a bit of a sense of which "side" would be more helpful, but even then it might not be entirely helpful. An example: "An awesome ally is the next card over there? Okay, at the start of my turn, I flip to the Bruce Wayne side, move to your location, and encounter the ally. Diplomacy of 12 for the win! I discard that ally to explore and then...ah! A Bunyip! What a time to not be Batman!"
Seems to me like a signature weapon.
Our RotRL Lem did this; he had his Deathbane Light Crossbow for most of the AP, and always made sure to pick "Weapon" as his card type, so he always started the game (and often, ended the game) with it in his hand.
I would expect this character to also have a Adowyn-type power to pull a weapon back from a deck or discard pile, in order to hammer home the "signature weapon" concept.
Am I right?
We've shorted the blessing deck more than once, although strangely never put too many in.
We've done that a few times, and I only just realized why.
When we play multiple games in a night, I just take the blessing discard pile, put it back on top of the blessing deck, and use those cards for the blessing deck of the next game. Saves time.
Problem being, if we failed to beat the villain in the previous game, the blessing deck in the next game has something less than 30 cards. And if that happens a couple of times...
There aren't any B boons (except Silver Raven and Fiery Glare) that are arguably good enough to put a monster back into play to begin with - especially not the Wights.
We put the wights back in whenever we could, and we didn't care whether the boon was good or not. It seemed just generally good sense to shuffle henchmen back into the location decks when possible. More henchmen in the decks means more opportunity to close them down that much quicker.
Sure! You'll need one High Priest Y'Ganok villain available here.
You'll need one Bhole Jaws villain available here.
You'll need players + 1 (that is, up to seven) Titanic Bulk henchmen available here.
You'll need players + 2 (that is, up to eight) Denizen of Leng henchmen available here.
Please give it a try and let me know what you think!
Well, I'm a professional game designer, and I wrote Shield of Rannick, a full adventure path with 30 all new scenarios for your Rise of the Runelords game. I also wrote Mhar of Leng, a five-scenario "Adventure 7" for Rise of the Runelords. Both are absolutely free at welbybumpus.com, and I suppose that sells very well! :-)
I'm working on a new adventure path for the Skull and Shackles set called Bloodlust Corsairs. I haven't yet decided whether my project after that will be an adventure path for the Wrath of the Righteous set, or a large cross-over requiring all three base sets. Probably the latter, I think.
When I put stuff from a closed location back in the box, the other players sometimes ask whether we "lost out" on anything good. They've learned I usually respond with only "no, nothing good," or "you don't want to know the answer."
I'd always ignored these mats, assuming they wouldn't work for our group: we play open-hand, and these mats seem to assume you don't play that way. But I got to thinking that there's no reason we couldn't lay out our cards on the table just above or just below this mat.
So my question is: does anyone else use these mats but also play open-hand by laying the cards down on the table as well? If so, how well does that work for you?
But, for me at least, it would crush me to see that boon that I've long desired and never had a chance to encounter banished from the location deck before I could get to it.
But that happens every time you close a location and put the cards that were still at that location back in the box, right?
I actually went with Hexer. That was largely because her hex power (reduce difficulty) was easily my most used power on her card, and the ability to further enhance it was too good to pass up. Also, having the less interesting blessing recharge power freed me up to take the even higher tier blessings without feeling obligated to keep the old ones.
This is why I went with Hexer as well. Eventually I was drawing on a Craft or Arcana check, which was very powerful.
We have only 3 players, so I don't have some of the 6-player problems that others have, but I'm very pleased to announce that we completed scenario B-2 on our sixth attempt last night. Glad to finally have it behind us, and a bit demoralized that we may have trouble with scenario B-4 as well--but we'll see.
Our decks have been tuned pretty well despite the repeated failures, though, so we have that going for us.
As I mentioned in the thread about lycanthropy rules, I'm writing up an alternate adventure path for Skull and Shackles called Bloodlust Corsairs. Bloodlust Corsairs uses two rules variants: the first is Lycanthropy, and I'm reworking that a bit based on the good discussion in that other thread.
The second rule uses your ship as a location in each scenario. This really foregrounds your ship as an important part of each scenario. In full disclosure, I intend to produce two versions of Bloodlust Corsairs: one with this rule, and one without it.
To most players, such abject failure to progress would be highly discouraging.
This is quite true. Let me give two data points from my own experience:
1) A year ago, I bought the LotR card game to play with my wife. We chose starting decks as recommended in the rules, and enjoyed the first scenario. We lost the second scenario in a quite demoralizing way, tried it again, and lost it again. I looked up online the next day, and found that a specific deck build--one not clearly presented in the rules--is necessary to win that particular scenario. We planned to try that deck trick someday, but that was a year ago-- we've shelved the game and haven't opened it since. I was telling someone the other day that I'm just not a fan of this game because it's crippling second-scenario difficulty lost me as a casual player.
2) My wife and friend and I are huge fans of the PACG. Despite the suggestion to play Adventure 1 before Adventure B, we've decided to go in the "normal" order. We loved scenario B-1 (The Godless Ones) and beat it on our first try. But we've lost scenario B-2 (The Elven Entanglement) four times and it's killed Kyra once. We will try it again for sure; but if we weren't already a fan of PACG, it would have been shelved just like the LotR card game for us.
I conclude that the uneven and harsh difficulty will cause people to shelve this game, unfortunately.
We read it as allowing Seelah to use her Charisma for any card that has a "before you act, make a such-and-such check..." power. So if you may attempt a Knowledge 8 check before you act against a demon to remove its resistance to electricity, say, Seelah would use her Charisma, and not her Knowledge, for that.
We find it comes up pretty often, actually. A couple times in each scenario, at least.
Thanks for the thoughts! First of all, yes, the banishing should include cards in your hand, too.
Second, there is a secondary benefit for being in "hybrid form" that interacts with the other new rule in Bloodlust Corsairs (in short, there are some limitations on movement that you can ignore when in hybrid form.
I'll look at making the change something that non-Wisdom characters have more control over--tying it to explores seems a good alternative.
Closing Fort Hazard when you have no cards in your discard pile is the best time to close it; you ignore the impossible part of the instruction (as you can bury nothing), and the location closes.
Hey, all. I'm writing my next full adventure path, which uses the Skull and Shackles base set. It's called Bloodlust Corsairs, and it uses two new sets of rules. The first of these is presented below, and I'd like to get some feedback on it. These are rules for playing lycanthropes; they are powerful, but can be very dangerous if your lycanthropy is reckless or ill-timed. In Bloodlust Corsairs, the PCs become were-sharks--hammerhead sharks and tiger sharks initially, but dire sharks and such later on--but I want rules that work equally well if you want to be were-crocodiles or were-stirges or were-bandits or whatever.
Please give me any comments, criticisms, or edits you have!
I'm really excited they let me contribute those scenarios, and I was very happy to see them at PaizoCon as well!
You can get it for FREE, linked here. The article is called "Playing Cards in Ustalav." You don't need any cards to play them other than the Rise of the Runelords set.
Please let me know what you think of the scenarios!
Mike Selinker wrote:
You got it! I just have to wait for them to come out, so I know what they do...
Man oh man oh man oh man. I'm *SO* excited to see this. Because these:
Item - Lymirin Discourses (2)
...are items I wrote for this adventure path!
Jason S wrote:
I was just curious what people have seen, on average, with convention play for OP. (APCG developers can feel free to post anonymously on their alts :) ) Yes, this is probably colored by the players that attended, but nevertheless I’m just interested in what you’ve seen.
I'll tick through with my experience. I played 4 sessions at PaizoCon.
Jason S wrote:
How many players did you have at your table? Did you ever have a solo or 2 player table? How often did you have a 6 player table?
4, 4, 5, 5
Jason S wrote:
What level was the player skill? Better than expected? Less than you expected?
Better than expected, especially from the guy who had barely played the game before.
Jason S wrote:
Did anyone roleplay? :)
If you mean, "did something that didn't seem like a good idea because they felt it was what their character would do," the answer is no. And Kyra didn't ever shout "Blessing of the Dawnflower upon you!" before using Cure, or anything like that.
Jason S wrote:
Did anyone at the table misunderstand a rule and then have it corrected by playing OP? (I think this is one of the greatest benefits of OP).
Only once. One of the other players and I weren't sure how a summoned creature and location interacted. But Tanis happened to be right there to set us straight. (Quite a perk of playing at PaizoCon.)
Jason S wrote:
Were players teamwork orientated and did players discuss choices (at critical points) or did everyone "do their own thing"? Did players ask for blessings at critical points (or where they were in trouble) or did they just roll and fail without asking for help?
We all helped and coordinated a lot. This is probably because the first scenario is ruthlessly brutal; one player at our table and a few at other tables were trying it for the second (or more!) time, hoping to finally win it. After that, we learned some good cooperation pretty darned fast.
Jason S wrote:
Did players try to work as a group or did some players "go rogue" and start exploring locations that benefitted them in terms of boons (but perhaps they couldn’t close the location)?
No, we all worked well together about what locations each of us would be best at (and best at closing).
Jason S wrote:
Did you ever have time to harvest locations for loot (by not closing a location on purpose)?
No, harvesting locations for loot doesn't seem particularly useful in OP, particularly once you know someone's already got a weapon 1 or item 1 you're looking for.
Jason S wrote:
Were there any characters archetypes that were played more than others? Were Seoni and Kyra really common? :) Were any class decks more common than others? Were any class decks rarely seen?
We had two Arabundis, which mean a lot of extra d4s on combat checks for everyone!
Jason S wrote:
Were healers frequent or were people flexible enough someone would play one if no one else was playing support? Were there ever too many support characters at a table? Did you ever play in a group with no support characters (and were you successful)?
Let me expand on my earlier response to say we had the following:
Tables 1 and 2: Enora (me), Kyra, Arabundi, Merisiel
Jason S wrote:
I imagine players are very flexible with what characters they play in adventures 1+2, but in adventures 4+ do the trends in the paragraph above still hold true?
As your question is specifically about convention play, which I haven't done at those levels, I couldn't say.
Jason S wrote:
Was there anything else you were surprised by?
Yes, how much we had to just do ourselves (or were empowered to do by ourselves, you might say). We had a volunteer "run the box" at our first table, but he had to leave after that. He set up the second scenario, but I "ran the box" thereafter. I had a couple of questions at one point, but literally couldn't find any volunteers in the area to ask (although, as I mentioned above, the one time we had a pretty critical--like, win-or-lose-the-scenario-based-on-the-answer critical--question, Tanis happened to be there).
In all, though, I played with very pleasant, skilled people and would gladly play with any or all of them again.
Yay, I get a Councilor's Ring! And Enora.
Are we going to have whole tables of Enoras with Councilor's Rings at PaizoCon, I wonder?
I think I get the new "tiers" system, and the expanded example about Lem was helpful. But here's a question I had: could Example Lem be Tier 3?
The rules state that "A character advances to the next tier in one of two ways: either after completing an adventure and gaining its adventure reward, or by choosing to do so after gaining the card feat for his tier."
In the example, Lem finishes 01-1A, 01-1B, 01-1D, 01-2A (and gains a card feat but chooses not to go up a tier), then 01-1C, finishing an adventure and thus going to Tier 2.*
But couldn't Lem finish 01-1A, 01-1B, 01-1D, 01-2A (and gain a card feat and thus choose to go to Tier 2), then play 01-1C, finishing the adventure and then going to Tier 3?
Put another way, are there conditions under which you can do either "trigger" action (gain a card feat, or complete an adventure) but not go up a tier?
* Side question: Can Lem complete 01-1C as in this example but choose not to go up a tier at that time, either, remaining in Tier 1?
Here's an inconsistency:
The middle of the third paragraph in the Building Your Character section on page 6 says, about the skill-power-card feat progression: "Completing the same scenario multiple times does not count as progress towards these feats."
However, the last sentence of the Replaying Scenarios section on page 8 says: "completing the same scenario multiple times counts toward your feat advancement."
Which is it? (I assume the latter quote is an error.)
At the risk of a mere "I'm awesome" post, I did this last night with Heggal and won it on the first turn.
Only one location: Helm. Start there.
Starting hand includes a Farglass, Blessing of the Gods, and a couple other useful cards.
First turn, flip Blessing of Asmodeus onto the blessing discard pile.
Play the Farglass, note that the Hurricane Winds henchman is the second card down, move it to the top.
Encounter the Hurricane Winds and defeat it.
A Wisdom 29 check is required to close my location. Play the Blessing of the Gods as the Blessing of Asmodeus atop the blessings discard pile.
Bury hand. Close location. Win game.
I'm super skeptical of people's amazingly lucky play reports, so feel free to be skeptical of mine, but I found it pretty amazingly fortunate.
I'll be at PaizoCon. I got lotteried (lottereyed? lottereied? man, you'd think a freelancer would be better with words) into an event on Sunday afternoon, so I'm not available for the Aristocratic Luncheon of Freelancer Grace and Class that y'all are putting on...but I'll be around.
I got a few neat lottery events, but I went to sign up for other events and everything is either "event is full" or "signup not yet open."
Open registration opened today with errors, it's now closed, and we have no word on when it will open again? Is that about right?
On the most recent earning's call, Hasbro's CEO acknowledged that its games were overall on an upswing, and singled out Dungeons and Dragons in particular as doing well.
In all, D&D sales probably contribute an amount not much more than a balance sheet rounding error to Hasbro, but the CEO calling it out seems a good sign for the game.
Any of them. Seriously.
I've run Rise of the Runelords as gestalt, and I'm just about through Shattered Star with gestalt.
Here's the sneaky trick of it: you control your PCs' leveling. If they are one or two levels behind the "recommended" levels for the adventure, the challenge level works itself out just fine.
For example, we started Into the Nightmare Rift (recommended for PCs of level 13) when they were still 11th level.
If you want to put a little bit of extra work into the world-building, you can do that: for example, I make a few of the NPCs that the PCs face (both opponents and allies) gestalt as well, so the PCs aren't the only ones out there.
Full disclosure: in my gestalt campaigns, I limit people to only two classes: no multiclassing or prestige classes. Archetypes for either or both classes are okay, though. In Shattered Star, I have:
* a magus/wizard
What non-combat villains do you mean? The Pirate Council? That's easy--it just costs you a plunder card. Or do you mean the villains that have checks you need to make or you evade them (more like THEY evade YOU, amirite?) like Scourge and Plugg?
In any case, I have a few thoughts about your character choices:
First of all, I was in your exact position: starting with two other players that wanted Jirelle and Merisiel. I actually went with Oloch, but he's not a base-box character.
So, thoughts from the base box:
* Having a highest *anything* of d8 isn't bad, so your group will probably be fine with Charisma, even if you play Seltyiel.
* Lem seems better than Seltyiel to pair with your kids' characters, because he has a good Charisma and some healing. But he'll be competing with them for finesse weapons. Alahazra is probably a better choice than Lem, since she also has a good Charisma and provides healing.
* Alahazra is bad at facing barriers, but so is Seltyiel.
Perhaps try Seltyiel, and if it's just not working for you, switch to Alahazra?
This is neat to see. Seelah and Valeros are the only characters I've played through every scenario of RotR (although I got most of the way with Amiri), and Seelah was my favorite of the two.
Pirate Rob wrote:
This came up on Board Game Geek a little while ago, and I'll state here what I said there: I can't believe this hadn't come up before! I've failed to beat a villain a few times when testing Shield of Rannick, but we never had the medallion go into a location. Shuffling a medallion into a location deck without a rule about how to acquire it is problematic--there isn't any check listed about what to do if you encounter one! So medallions can't go into location decks.
Do this instead: When a villain escapes, examine the cards from the blessing deck that you shuffle with the villain. If you find a Sihedron Medallion, take another blessing card instead and shuffle the Sihedron Medallion back into the blessings deck instead. (Yes, this might mix up the order of Sihedron Medallions if there are more than 1, but that could be good or bad!) So, basically, what Jones said.
I'm going to include this in my next round of edits to the .pdf.
Thanks very much for the positive review! It makes my work in putting these alternate adventures together worthwhile to know that people are playing and enjoying them.
As to your specific questions:
1) Yep, you'd need to discard an ally when defeating the Bhole Jaws to have its location permanently closed. Defeating a villain means you don't need to make the "When Closing" check, but the scenario power still triggers: when you would permanently close a location, you must discard an ally or it isn't closed. So you'd need to have an ally in hand to do that.
That's difficult, sure, but note that the locations are all packed with allies, and the scenario contains an intentionally difficult choice: do I put acquired allies in my hand because I need them to close locations, or do I set them aside in order to better defeat the monstrously difficult Bhole Jaws?
2) Yes, Junk Beach is easy to close because Poison Traps are pretty easy at this level (don't tell that to Kyra, though!). Note that the Temple is even easier (it's automatic!) and so is the Dam (also automatic, but at cost!)--part of the design in including an extra location was to be sure a lot of the locations were fairly easy to close.
Glad you liked it, and happy to answer any other questions!