Yewstance's page

Organized Play Member. 317 posts (694 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

According to the Paizo Community Use Policy:

Paizo Community Use wrote:
You may use any of the text or artwork published in the Paizo Blog at paizo.com/paizo/blog, with the exception of excerpts of Planet Stories publications, Pathfinder Comics, and any logos and icons that aren't also in the Community Use Package. You may not use any photographs published in the blog (because those rights are usually not ours to offer). You may not use artwork, including maps, that have not been published in the blog, although you may create your own interpretations of material presented in our artwork and maps, provided that your interpretations don't look substantially similar to our materials.

So the distinction is that the actual card hasn't been used, just the artwork within the card? I'm not sure I recognize the difference, since it's effectively just a matter of cropping... but I'm not a lawyer. I'm highly interested in hearing the official response.

Bigguyinblack wrote:

Hi. I played my first game of the ACG a few days ago and am hooked. I plan to play the RotRL version of Lini given to me by a friend.

I picked up the Druid class deck today and my local store should have my Ultimate Magic addon deck soon.
I'm ready to create a fun and powerful deck but I have a few problems. (Beyond being confused how to play via PbP but I'll figure that out.)

We're definitely happy to have more players! I think I can step in and answer your questions.

Bigguyinblack wrote:
1. I am akin to your primitive ancestors in that I don't have one of those fancy-pants super computers that fit in your pocket. I have a home computer and a flip phone. That makes it tough to e-mail morkxii a picture. But I do have a printer with a scanner and a receipt for my class deck. Would it be enough to scan the receipt plus Lini and e-mail him that?

Yep! Anything that construes proof of purchase should be sufficient, which a scanned character token and receipt certainly should be.

Bigguyinblack wrote:

2. I may not actually be ready until 2 days before the event starts. Not only do I not have my Ultimate Magic addon deck yet but I'm in negotiations with a buddy for the Droogami promo and maybe the Bag of Sticks if he can find it. But he can't get it to me until July 7th.

So assuming a table is fine with a brand new player, and MorkXII is fine with me scanning my proof, and my buddy gets me the cards in time, I should be able to play at a tier one table if they will have me.

If your promo card and Add-On deck aren't ready by the start date, that isn't a big issue. You can choose to add them after you start the character for future scenarios (though you will need to take Card Upgrades to switch them in if you didn't start with them). As long as you're confident you'll be ready by the start date, all should be well. Some tables may be willing to give you an extra day or two to get things sorted if absolutely necessary, but you shouldn't rely on that.

If you have any additional questions after reading the Card Guild Guide, feel free to ask them here!

wkover wrote:
Just noticed that Yoon's card feat progression for spells is 4,6,6. Should be 4,5,6 - I reckon.

*Goes to check my OA2 box*

Huh, sure enough, good catch.

Zalarian wrote:

Greetings all!

I somehow wandered over here by finding the reddit post on the matter and since I have recently played a few of the early RotR and SS scenarios I would try the online version.

As I am new to this, I must say I was a little confused on using the deck handler sheet reading the instructions. However, once I read the rules document this cleared up quite a bit on how to use the spreadsheet and how to roll dice.

I have also asked a few folks to try and sign up in the same game so fingers crossed if a few of them decide to join. Looking forward to playing this!

Awesome to hear! The greater a success these events are, the more likely online play of Pathfinder will grow further!

wkover wrote:

BTW, cards that add/subtract the Corrupted trait, such as Corruptive Half-Plate, say to add/subtract the trait "to a card" - not add/subtract the trait to a card in your hand.

P.S. I just now realized that the "add/subtract the Corruptive trait" effects can be played on anyone's cards, not only on Linxia's cards. Doesn't matter in my case, but it could matter in parties with multiple characters with Corrupted cards - or if I give a Corrupted card to another player, for some reason.

Some good points here, but I do believe adding/subtracting a trait from a card would only apply to cards in your immediate hand.

Basically, if cards are referenced without additional context, the assumption is that they refer to cards in your hand. Examples include Blessing of Dispater (if corrupted, shuffle a boon into your location deck - the boon has to come from your hand even though it doesn't say). Or if something says "discard a card" (the card has to be discarded from your hand. It doesn't explicitly say "You discard a card" or "discard a card from your hand", but that's what it infers - you can't discard a Displayed card).

Much like "Draw" is always assumed to be from your character deck, unless additional context is given, like "draw the top card of the blessings deck". There's a certain presumption.

If the corruptive cards said "add or ignore the corrupted trait on any card", that might be different, but they generally say "a" card, like on Channel Corruption.

Irgy wrote:
I'd just like to point out that we evidently should be referring to it as "Zelhara's effect" not "Zelhara's power".

I swear this was my thought process.

It's written in something literally called the "Powers" section of her character card! You use Power Feats, even!
Wait, that section is on every bane and boon, and various support cards.
Wait, but the rulebook clarifies that there is text in the Powers section of cards that aren't Powers (Recharge checks, separate paragraphs detailing additional effects of playing a card, etc).
Damnit. I now officially hate the term 'Power'. I see where you're going with that statement.

Irgy wrote:

A fair point, but easy to fix:

"You may ignore the poison ([] or Corrupted) trait and immunities to it. [] Add 1d4 to your checks with that trait."

Not that simple. That means you can't both ignore the Corrupted trait and add 1d4 (because by ignoring the trait, your check no longer has that trait). That would functionally change - and weaken - the power, which is intended to work whether or not you negated the trait; simply that you used it in the first place.

It also means you could ignore those traits in some situations which may not be intentional, such as an effect that says "discard a card that does not have the corrupted trait to...", or other situations where you're not actually playing anything.

I'm sure there's a possible reword, but it's deceptively difficult to do off the top of my head that wouldn't have potentially undesirable consequences. It's particularly annoying that in one case (Poison) you'd usually only want to ignore the immunity, and in one case (Corrupted) you'd solely want to ignore the trait, meaning the wording has to catch both cases completely without impacting the additional power feats.

Irgy wrote:

Edit - PS I agree with the answers given already to the questions, but I really do wish Emil could get errata'd to just say:

"You may ignore the poison ([] or Corrupted) trait and immunities to it."
Then it would work everywhere people expect it to, would apply to more than, for example, zero boons in S&S, without being the slightest bit overpowered, and no-one would have to go around in circles over whether it applies or not.

I'd particularly like that, but they'd need a different errata because that would break one of his role card power feats, which appends "and add 1d4 to your check", to trigger from playing a Poison traited or Corrupted traited card.

And agreed on the "Finish One Thing Before Starting Another" point. That line of text in the rulebook delayed my understanding of Triggers by some time, because it explicitly overrules that a trigger should 'interrupt' an ongoing examination effect (like Augury), even though that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

Also, thank you all for your answers. All of them were what I expected to some point. The Traitor's Blade sounded like RAI (though I'm not convinced about the exact wording), whilst the "poison traited weapons only, not additional poison sources even if they're from a weapon" looked exactly like RAW. I still find several elements clunky here, but at least there's now a basis to refer to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had countless issues with the website redesign. Links broken (redirecting to the homepage rather than the storefront or a product line or a forum page is most common - even the official Organised Play page for PACG has most of its links not actually take you to the correct locations), odd navigation and site map trails, issues with navigating in multiple tabs more-or-less simultaneously...

There's actually a forum for website feedback, and I've barely touched it with my response because a quick glance through it indicates that all of my issues have already been mentioned or cataloged by other people reasonably well, so it seems like I'd just be adding more noise by duplicating existing complaints. Suffice to say, issues have been here for a while.

On the plus side, at least the "How to format your text" spoiler is working again.

All of your answers are what I expected, though it still annoys me that there's a grand total of 1 poison-traited weapon in the entire potential arsenal of Emil, and it's deck 4. Basically just there for the items (pre-power feat); oh well.

I still don't follow one thing, though.

skizzerz wrote:
4. If you're ignoring something, the thing you're ignoring has no effect. So, if you can ignore the Corrupted trait on Traitor's Blade, nobody has to discard anything for you to play the card.

Traitor's Blade says "(If corrupted, do X) or you may not play this card" while Emil says "When you play a boon". I recognize that ignoring the corrupted trait would prevent the effect, but I don't understand how you can start ignoring it before you play it.

Specifically, Traitor's Blade reads to me as "you have a prerequisite. Fulfill this prerequisite, and now you are officially playing the card" . Emil's power only allows you to cancel the Corrupted trait on a card you're playing.

But I'm trying to break it down sequentially, and there isn't a 'sequence' for playing a card. Either you play it or you don't, so by the act of removing it from your hand and saying "I use the Traitor's Blade", you suddenly end up with your answer; with both effects coming up, Emil cleanly cancels the downside as his effect implies.

I'm still having a hard time disentangling myself from thinking about how it works when broken down. It almost seems like "finish one thing before starting another" should come into play here. I can't play this card until I do X, according to Traitor's Blade, so until I do X, I am not playing this card, implicitly. If I'm not playing the card, Emil cannot cancel the Corrupted trait (yet). This remains my hangup.

skizzerz wrote:
I think the intent of Zelhara is that it only applies to text in "Powers" sections of cards (boons, banes, characters, other support cards which feature a "Powers" block). It won't apply to things that happen with Corrupted cards due to locations, scenarios, adventures, or adventure paths. If you look at it that way, the wording makes more sense.

That's how I interpreted the intent, though as it remains it's suggested by the rulebook that a lot of corrupted penalty texts are not "powers" (again, if it's in its own paragraph and is not "X this card to do Y", it's called out on page 23 as not a power).

Good catch on the "You", though. Skimmed over that. No Seelah protection.

skizzerz wrote:
The recharge at end of turn is explicitly called out as not a power on page 23. Given that rule, I would say displaying Tower Shield similarly is not using a power since it does not have an effect. Contrast that with Daji from the Witch Class Deck (since I had him handy for a PbP): "Display this card. While displayed, if you have the Witch trait, gain the skills Arcane: Intelligence +2 and Craft: Intelligence +2". Here, displaying clearly has an effect in and of itself, so that is a power.

I'm not certain I understand the difference. Tower shield is "Display this card. While displayed (take less damage)", whilst Daji is "Display this card. While displayed (gain skills)". Gaining skills is only useful when they're referenced; same as damage reduction. I don't understand the distinction here; could you clarify why these are fundamentally different?

Also, if displaying Daji is a power... does it remain a power if you don't have the Witch trait, and so that paragraph doesn't do anything?

elcoderdude wrote:
Does manipulating a card based on text written on the card count as playing the card if doing so has no immediate effect?

Exactly. And if it does count, then why is "Display it for Displaying its sake" count as a power, but "Recharge it for recharging its sake (during reset your hand for armors)" doesn't count?

If that counts too (which I'm quite confident it doesn't), then Linxia... well that's pretty phenomenal.

This is the second of two posts I'm making, each covering specific questions I had when interpreting Class Deck characters.

The general questions being asked here are as follows:

  • 1. What defines "Playing a boon", or "While playing a boon"? Are there ever traits "on a boon" that aren't listed by default?
  • 2. Can you ever retroactively count or choose to use parts of a power in an effect?

First, I'll quote the relevant rulebook text for the appropriate references. Added in spoiler text.

Rulebook Passages:
MM Rulebook, Page 11 wrote:

Some cards allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of check, or to use one skill instead of another. (These cards generally say things like “For your combat check, use your Strength or Melee skill,” or “Use your Strength skill instead of your Diplomacy skill.”) You may play only 1 such card or use only 1 such power to determine which skill you’re using. A few cards that can be used on checks don’t use any of your skills; they instead specify the exact dice you need to roll or the result of your die roll.

The skill you’re using for the check, and any skill referenced by that skill, are added as traits to the check. For example, if your character has the skill Melee: Strength +2, and you are using your Melee skill, both the Strength and the Melee traits are added to the check. When you’re playing a card to determine the skill you’re using, that card’s traits are also added to the check; for example, revealing the weapon Heavy Pick for your combat check adds the Pick, Melee, Piercing, and Basic traits to the check. (This isn’t the same as giving you a skill; for example, playing the spell Immolate adds the Arcane trait to your check, but it does not give you the Arcane skill.) If a power adds an additional skill or die to a check, that skill or die is not added as a trait to the check. For example, a card that adds your Strength die to your combat check does not add the Strength trait to your check

Alright, so moving on to specific questions/examples. These are way more simple than the questions in my last post.

Timing and trait questions?
Emil has the power "When you play a boon that has the Poison ([ ] or Corrupted) trait, you may ignore that trait and immunities to it."

  • If you're up against a card that's immune to Poison, you can use this power to play a boon with the Poison trait, such as the Thousand Stings Whip... but it doesn't help you play a card that can ADD the poison trait to your check, because you're not playing a boon with the poison trait, right? If you recharge the Venomous Hand Crossbow +1 or Venomous Dagger +2, you're adding the Poison trait to the check, right? Or are you actually adding the poison trait to the boon, and so you can use that against poison-immune enemies?
  • If you can't recharge these cards to late add poison, then I wonder why these cards are even in the class deck, because only Emil can use them effectively and Emil doesn't actually have any power that benefits adding the Poison trait to his check - only using boons WITH the poison trait.
  • Can you reveal a Venomous weapon, then add the Poison trait through another means that includes a Poison-traited boon (like the Venom items in the deck), then retroactively use the Venomous Weapon's additional power? I'm pretty confident you can't, because it's 2 different steps of the check, but I'm really trying to find reasons why these weapons are here.
  • On a related note; if you can ignore the Corrupted trait when you play a boon with it... that doesn't prevent Corrupted downsides that occur BEFORE playing it, right? Or are they treated as 'simultaneous'? Take Traitor's Blade, that says "If this card has the Corrupted trait, a random character at your location must discard a card or you may not play this card". Can Emil not prevent that, because you'd need to do that to play it, and therefore before you get to use Emil's power?

I'm pretty sure you're not playing a boon with the Poison trait if you "add the Poison trait" via an additional power. It doesn't say "add the Poison trait to your check", but nor does it say "this card gains the Poison trait" like, lets say, Channel Corruption's template suggests. I would read it as adding the Poison trait to your check, which is entirely unhelpful for Emil, weirdly. These are tied closely into questions about Mogmurch as well, though, so switching to the Goblin's Burn deck...

Mogmurch has the power "While you play or would banish a spell that has the Fire trait, gain the skill Arcane equal to your Craft skill."

  • Once again, if you're playing a spell that can ADD the fire trait, the spell itself doesn't have that trait, correct? So "Ice and Fire" cannot be used with Mogmurch's temporary Arcane skill, correct? If I've misunderstood the "add the X trait" the whole time, then that would explain a great deal, but the rulebook doesn't seem to clarify this (that I can tell).

Pretty much tied into the same question for Emil. I also had a question written up about "Sphere of Fire", but it was sufficiently answered by the rulebook (what isn't explained is why Sphere of Fire has the line of text "This counts as playing a spell", when that's implicit anyway. Using a power on a displayed card is playing that card).

I will, however, leave with one last, purely hypothetical question.

  • Can a power have an effect that may or may not be changed in a later step? If I have a weapon that says "reveal this to use your Strength or Melee skill. If you have the Arcane skill, add an additional 1d12", then can I play an item during the check that says "gain the Arcane Skill equal to your Intelligence skill" and get an extra 1d12 to my check? This is a component of some other questions I've had, but won't be bringing them up now.

As my previous post; I'd be greatly appreciative of anyone who can provide clarifications; whether I'm misreading or misunderstanding, or whether there's an issue with the powers themselves.

I've been umm-ing and err-ing on making this post for a while, but it's increasingly hard to ignore the fact that there's a few specific elements about PACG that I don't understand (or that I'm uncertain that I understand, and it bothers me). Fortunately, I can narrow down exact examples.

This is the first of two posts, each covering specific questions I had when interpreting Class Deck characters.

The fundamental question being asked here are as follows:

  • What defines a power on a card, in the most precise wording possible?

First, I'll quote the relevant rulebook texts for the appropriate references. Added in spoiler text.

Rulebook Passages:
MM Rulebook, Page 8 wrote:
Playing a card means using a power on that card by performing an action with that card that is specified by the card itself (see Boons, page 23). Choosing to activate a power on a displayed card also counts as playing it. If a power says using it counts as playing a boon, it counts as playing a card.
MM Rulebook, Page 8 wrote:
If you play a card in such a way that it leaves your hand, that action can trigger only 1 power.
MM Rulebook, Page 23 wrote:
If a paragraph on a boon doesn’t require you to perform an action with that boon to cause an effect, that paragraph is not a power; do what it says at the appropriate time. For example, if a paragraph says “After you play this card, if you have the Divine skill, recharge it instead of discarding it,” and you have the Divine skill, you must recharge the card after you play it. If a card says “If proficient with light armors, you may recharge this card when you reset your hand,” and you are proficient with light armors, then when you reset your hand, you may recharge that card. When you are required to do something with the card as part of the effect (rather than to cause an effect), that does not count as playing it. So in either of the previous examples, recharging the card does not count as playing it.

Alright, so moving on to specific questions/examples.

What is a Power?
Zelhara has the power "[..,], when a power happens if a boon has the Corrupted trait, you may ignore that power.".

  • Powers only include when you do something with a card (recharge, display, etc) in order to make an effect occur. The rulebook (of which I only summarized some parts above) is clear that additional consequences of playing a card (like the recharge check of a spell) is NOT a power if it's covered in a separate paragraph, and playing a card can only trigger one power at a time (again clarified in the rulebook).
  • But if that's the case, then doesn't that mean this power doesn't apply to a huge number of the boons in HV2? Honestly, I feel a bit confused about what is and isn't a power, but I think if a card says "Discard this to do this; if this has the Corrupted trait, bury it instead" then I think the "bury it instead" is a power, because it's in the same paragraph. But if the card has a separate paragraph that says "After playing this card, if this card has the corrupted trait, bury it" it's NOT a power and Zelhara won't prevent that.
  • But maybe even the first assumption I made ("If it's in the same paragraph, it's a power") is not quite accurate, because of the other rulebook portion saying "If you play a card in such a way that it leaves your hand, that action can trigger only 1 power". That means that Zelhara saying that she can ignore a power, that means she'd have to ignore the entire paragraph, therefore undoing the entire use. But if that's the case, then Zelhara has a dead power (actually, another dead power, as the rulebook also says that she can't play a weapon then use her power to change the skill she's using with it).
  • Basically, what corrupted downsides can she ignore or not ignore? Can she prevent the "added cost" of playing Traitor's Blade (it's own paragraph of text, and on a card that appears to be themed for her due to being a knife)? Can she undo 'replacement' downsides like on the Sacrificial Dagger? Ghoul Hide? Discord Bottle? A huge portion of the Corrupted downsides are listed in their own paragraph and occur when a card is played... which is the same principle of the Recharge check on spells, and explicitly stated in the rulebook as "Not being a power".
  • But there's another element. What about other situation about 'powers' that occur due to "a boon having the corrupted trait", but the power isn't on the boon itself?
  • What about WotR Seelah's "When you acquire a boon that has the Corrupted trait, bury it" power? That totally seems to fit the bill of "A power that happens if a boon has the Corrupted Trait", can Zelhara prevent THAT?

I'm pretty certain that a lot of my conclusions are not in lines with Rules as Intended. So is this a case that the power's intent does not line up with the rules, or am I just horribly misunderstanding fundamental rules about what defines a "power"? If it's the latter, I'd greatly appreciate being corrected with clarifications.

Linxia (plus role cards) has a power that says "When you play a boon that has the Corrupted or Shield (or Heavy Armor) for its power, you may...".

  • So I'm confident that "While you reset your hand, you may recharge this card when you reset your hand." is not a power. I'm not 100% confident on WHY, but presumably because you're not "Do X to do Y". You're not recharging it to do anything, simply recharging it. But I'm a bit more vague on other powers; so lets take Tower Shield as an example.
  • When you display Tower Shield, are you using a power? It has an effect that's "While displayed", but that effect doesn't immediately occur (unless you're taking damage at the start of your turn, I guess). So it's not "Display to do X", it's just "Display", much like recharging armor at the end of your turn.
  • The rulebook says that CHOOSING to use a power on a displayed card counts as playing it. When it says "At the end of any turn, you may recharge this card.", is that a power? Or does it again fall in line with the above "You're not doing Y as a result". What about "If you do not, succeed at a Strength of Melee 6 check or discard this card." Is any part of this last paragraph a power? Why or why not?
  • What about the Ultimate Combat "Display" armors? Can I display Dwarven Plate? Does that count as playing it? What about if you Display it in response to taking combat damage? I know that using its powers after its displayed certainly count, of course.

I've got a couple more questions, but I'll leave them for a separate post, because they're not essentially the same (though they may be related) to the nature of "What is a Power".

Once again, I'd be greatly appreciative of anyone who can provide clarifications; whether I'm misreading or misunderstanding, or whether there's an issue with the powers themselves.

I can't wait to see the flavor in action. :)

I'm hopeful that we'll get a more signups in the last week or so of recruitment (there's still a while yet). Players who chose one or two tables may branch out to more if there's still space by then, and players who are on the fence may choose to commit shortly before the deadline. But yes, merging tables may have to be done if the PbP demand isn't high enough.

Thanks for setting up the table so early!

I've loosely assigned myself Chuffy from Goblins' Fight, but I may yet change my character. There's no shortage of fun ones to try, though I will lean towards the Goblin character decks. Sadly, I have no promo Goblin characters (as much as some of them look interesting).

For reference, I own the following Class/Character decks, in case anyone wants to know. Might be relevant if someone really wants to try some specific combination of team members (like Tup + someone resistant to fire).

Yewstance's current Class Deck options:

Class/Character Decks

  • Goblin's Fight
  • Goblin's Burn

  • Monk
  • Barbarian
  • Inquisitor
  • Alchemist
  • Oracle
  • Magus
  • Summoner
  • Hunter

  • Occult Adventures 1
  • Occult Adventures 2
  • Pathfinder Tales
  • Hell's Vengeance 1
  • Hell's Vengeance 2

Ultimate Add-On Decks

  • Ultimate Combat
  • Ultimate Magic
  • Ultimate Intrigue

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:

I signed up for one table, to allow as many other people as possible to participate.

If there are still slots open as we approach the deadline, is it OK to sign up for a second table?

Yep! There's no technical limit to how many tables you can sign up for, but you should try to make sure you don't overextend yourself.

Also, you're entirely right; it's asked that players don't sign up to more than 2-3 tables for the time being to make sure there are spaces for more entrants; there's another 3 weeks of recruitment yet!

Doppelschwert wrote:
Yewstance wrote:
The Promo goblin characters are timed-exclusives to subscribers, for example; that's a good solution that I have no problem with. If they were a situation where "You get this character by attending this convention or being a subscriber, otherwise you can never get this character and too bad if you just got into the game and you like the look of them", then I'd be upset. Fortunately, I don't really see that as happening with how Paizo and Lone Shark treat the PACG product line.
The closest they got to this is a boon that unlocks Arueshalae for OP, which was a convention exclusive reward.

And I personally hope that it's a boon given out again in the future, particularly via online conventions. Or, alternatively, something else happens that makes her legal to play, like a Character Deck that includes a character with the Spy trait. (I can totally see a character deck with a Spy, an Investigator and a new Vigilante)

Longshot11 wrote:
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*.

Honestly, I'm kind of the same way, though perhaps not to the same degree (especially because I play games heavily regardless). But being told "This is not available for you" because of my geography, or work hours, or anything to that result is a tough pill for me to swallow.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, and certainly I have little issue with it appearing in purely co-operative games, for the most part. But it still can cause problems.

Not-quite hypothetical negative example:
There's a sort-of-MMO out there (which will remain unnamed) that gave, among other things, unique in-game products and boons for high tier Kickstarter backers. Whilst these boons and products were exclusively usable in a PvE setting (so they were clearly non-competitive), it didn't entirely solve the issue of it being 'unfair'... because these tiered backers could potentially grind faster and progress faster. They may be more desirable as teammates (of which you could only have a finite amount), so even when there's no obvious competitive element, there are still inferred or 'meta' competitive elements encouraged or enabled by the game that the existence of these products compromised, to a point.

If I was able to purchase these boons/products myself if and when I decided they were worth it (and the game was enjoyable enough to justify the investment), I wouldn't really mind - I'm not opposed to microtransaction based models, at least certainly not for free games. But they were exclusive to Kickstarter backers, leaving everyone who missed the Kickstarter (or elected not to participate) being treated as second-class players.

For the most part, I don't have a big issue with seeing custom rewards delivered in PACG, to a point, but I'd greatly appreciate such an idea is handled with care. If you're going to release a special boon (lets say, some promotional boon) or reward it to people, can that boon be otherwise released down the line? Could it appear in some product 6 or 12 months down the future, even if it has different art or lacks the same 'flashiness'? If it's a non-material reward (like the ability to use a certain character in Organized Play), is it also available through online events?

The Promo goblin characters are timed-exclusives to subscribers, for example; that's a good solution that I have no problem with. If they were a situation where "You get this character by attending this convention or being a subscriber, otherwise you can never get this character and too bad if you just got into the game and you like the look of them", then I'd be upset. Fortunately, I don't really see that as happening with how Paizo and Lone Shark treat the PACG product line.

TL;DR: I have mixed feelings on the idea of anything reasonably 'exclusive' or 'promotional', but I'm willing to be tentatively optimistic about them if they're handled carefully. I've been burned by such an idea before, and am speaking from a position where physical PACG event attendance is all but impossible 100% of the time.

That's a good point. I re-read both cards to check this out.

See, the issue here to me is that both are implicit to my reading. When Marshal (as written, not as FAQed) says "and if you succeed at the check, choose another character at your location to get a charge", I would read that as a new statement. Specifically because I parse it mentally as "spend charges to do X. Because I have spent one or more charges, after the check this additional thing happens". If it was intended otherwise, I reason, it would specify "choose another character at your location to get a charge for each charge expended".

I would parse the Heirophant the same way. Its power reads "and after the check, a character at your location may shuffle 1 card from her discard pile into their deck", which I parse as "spend charges to do X. Because I have spent one or more charges, after the check this additional thing happens".

Perhaps they never FAQed the Heirophant because the repeat references to singular entities ("a character may shuffle 1 card") was less confusing to players than the Marshal's? The use of "1" rather than "a" regarding cards/charges comes to mind.

But I completely agree. The fact that one is FAQed but the other - with the same specific problem text - is not does imply that they work differently, even though I'm quite confident that the intent is that the effect (besides the die replacement) does not scale with number of charges expended.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Paladin In Citadel wrote:
The whole structure of the ACG, which in general rewards splitting the party, has always seemed at odds with the "never-split-the-party" ethos of role-playing games. I imagine it is too late now to have that particular "bug" of the game addressed, since it does not appear on the list of core complaints.

As a matter of fact, the playtest had a few changes that did encourage people to stick together. For one thing, there may be more cards and powers which explicitly can support 'local' checks (checks by characters at your location), but there was also a rule where, I think, if a player failed to defeat a bane then another character may bury a card to encounter that bane.

Or it was something to that effect; I heard my details second-hand, I'm afraid. Either way, there was some means of other people 'stepping in' to help.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dinketry wrote:

Thanks Ezren for the model.

I’m not a programmer; I don’t have any Excel knowledge beyond the basics. I’m still a bit lost and frankly, I’m feeling quite nervous about being a Box Runner and asking other people to join my game when I couldn’t tell them how to handle their decks beyond simply downloading the spreadsheet on the Campaign tab and entering their deck in the DON’T LOOK tab.

You reference, Ezren, “G1 in the instructions”. What instructions are these?

For the organisers, I think we need a very explicit guide for new players with the assumption that they know NOTHING about Excel. We need info on how to load your deck, what each of the tabs means, and some example of how you’ll use that spreadsheet during the game. Following gameplay threads is fine, but you have no insight from these on how the spreadsheets work.

I remain very nervous.

(Ezren here)

Ah, sorry, I'll step back a bit.

After adding your cards, row by row, in the DON'T LOOK tab, and writing your skills and powers in the lower section of the LOOK tab, here's all you need to know.

  • To draw cards, type in "1" in Cell G1, right next to the cell that says "Draw". That should be in the upper-right of your screen, and cell G1 should be in yellow.
  • Whilst there is a '1' there, the cell below will randomly pick a card from your deck that isn't already in another zone (like hand or discard). You just copy and ctrl-shift-v that card to your hand to draw it, and a new card will take its place.

The "Character Sheet" tab isn't actually used for anything, so you can ignore that in the default Deck Handler.

There was a slightly more explicit set of instructions sent out by cartmanbeck/Tyler for Outpost (a prior event like this), which included how to use the Deck Handler. Link here.

Tyler Beck wrote:
Oh dear, I've never had someone suggest my word should be GOSPEL for anything! LOL

At this point in time, I don't think there's any other source that's chimed in on any of these questions, so the Venture-Captain for Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Online Play is definitely the best we've got. :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irgy wrote:
Same question for Mythic Marshall actually, can I transfer all the charges or just one charge? Starting to think it is just one but if so been playing it wrong the whole time...

Formally has been answered in a FAQ for a long while, I'm afraid. You've been playing it as much more powerful than it is.

Redgar's ACG Characters wrote:
Is there a limit to the number of signups allowed thus far? (For those of us who may now be ACG addicts?)

Nope! Keep in mind you'll likely be expected to be available to make at least one full post per day, with a preference for also able to contribute to discussions/strategy, so don't overexert yourself. With that said, in previous events they've allowed up to 2 entries per player; they've just taken off any restriction this time.

Redgar's ACG Characters wrote:
Also, for those of us who are playing through S. 3 and 4 as their first/only ACG OP xp, any earlier seasons particularly recommended for snagging now while they are on offer? :)

I wouldn't say there's any real specific benefit to a given season. The later seasons have slightly more refined mechanics, with the Trader options in Seasons 3 and 4 being particularly solid (and, in my opinion, having slightly better Character rewards), but they're all good fun.

If in doubt, just pick one based on the Adventure Path you want most:

(Season 0) Season of the Shackles == Skull and Shackles
(Season 1) Season of the Righteous == Wrath of the Righteous
(Season 2) Season of the Runelords == Rise of the Runelords
(Season 2B) Season of the Goblins == Rise of the Runelords
(Season 3) Season of Plundered Tombs == Mummy's Mask
(Season 4) Season of Faction's Favor == Mummy's Mask

I recommend players and potential players ask any questions they wish here in this forum; though it's perhaps somewhat preferred to place them in the Discussion tab.

I'd recommend cross-posting recruitment to the PACG unofficial subreddit after a week or so, if it doesn't look like we're on track to fill all current spaces. It seems a good place to advertise.

If that is the intent, I'd specifically recommend advertising long enough in advance that players brand-new to PACG Organized Play have a chance to potentially purchase and have a Class Deck delivered. In some parts of the world, that alone can be a 2 week process.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
[...] Note: I'm not saying this is the rule. I'm just saying that this makes sense to me, and I wish it *were* the rule. :)

Oh I could think of quite a few rewords and changes I'd make that I'd wish were the rule. Amongst other things, I'd like these substitute characters to be one-use or perhaps once-per-tier, because otherwise I feel like it's very, very hard to prevent players from exploiting it.

"I want to play Linxia through Faction's Favor, so... I'll play as Valeros and, following the promotional scenarios, substitute her in for every game. That way I get to respec my character on the fly, every scenario."

The "Take your current card upgrades" I like, though I would still find it a little restrictive or perhaps slightly exploitable. Getting high AD# of certain card types is easier/harder than others, and meanwhile it hurts if you're playing a character who WANTS a deck B card all throughout the game, like Estra's non-optional Honaire or OA2 Yoon's potential Gom-Gom, or various other 'Owner' cards. That way your substitute always has to have a 'dump' deck B card.

Oh, and it'd need to be clarified for how it would be used with Aric/The Red Raven, that has a non-standard deck size (3 more cards than normal).

I'd still prefer your solution to my current reading, though.

wkover wrote:
[...] Note also that evil characters don't necessarily want to redeem all cards, since Corrupted cards provide benefits for certain characters (healing powers, etc.)

Yep, I think I mentioned that a couple of times in my posts, actually. HV2 characters don't have a built-in option to redeem cards at all, and have benefits for playing Corrupted cards or can ignore the penalties anyway.

For HV1 characters, Linxia is the only one with inherent benefits for playing Corrupted cards (her self-heal), but the other two can ignore the Corrupted trait in some circumstances, and there are still some cards that work better with more Corrupted boons in your deck, which are present in both decks.

To be fair, that's part of the problem I mentioned. Some cards you want to redeem for one character, but you wouldn't want to redeem for another character, so sharing Redemption cards is awkward. But not sharing them implies they're temporary, completing removing their mechanical impact.

Unless we hear differently from a higher source (a developer or direct Paizo official, etc), we should take everything Tyler/Cartmanbeck says as gospel. That leaves us with the following answers for the time being.

  • #1: Not really defined, but a reading of the rulebook leads me to believe you're absolutely allowed to take a Card Upgrade that you're not using, just to list it on your chronicle sheet. All Card Upgrades - whether 'overwritten' later or even if never used - are valid for replacement characters.

    Though... honestly Tyler may have meant to contradict me on that, but the use of the word banish suggested that they were suggesting that Banishing has a cost - not replacing a card from your deck (which is explicitly distinct from banishing in the game).

  • #2: Banishing cards, according to Tyler, strips them from being used with your replacement characters. Since that might be hard to otherwise track, I guess it should be noted on your chronicle sheet if you ever banish a card you spent a card upgrade on.

    Remember that Hell's Vengeance characters build their deck from the Hierarchy, then Card Upgrades, so they can't use "Current Adventure Deck - 2" boons inherently like player characters. So tracking Card Upgrades is critical (if you're a Tier 4 character, you can give an Ally 2 to your replacement if you took Ally 2 as a Card Upgrade... but not if you only had an Ally 2 because you filled it from an empty slot). It feels extremely arbitrary, but that's how the reward text seems to read.

  • #3: No conclusive answer, but Tyler's reading suggests that they cannot remember Redemption cards at all. My personal reading is that you can actually use the Redemption Card from your main character, if they have one, but that's all.

  • #3b: No answer. I suppose the fact that pretty much the highest authority said you could, so you can. I don't necessarily understand why, but I'm in no position to contradict Mike Selinker.

  • #4: You absolutely build them whenever you need to use them.

  • #5: Until otherwise stated, it seems you can use any Add-On deck you wish with them.

I can't say I'm particularly happy with some of the answers. Or the wording of the reward. Or the lack of clarification of a few things. But I encourage your table to make a shared assessment of how you will or won't use the character substitution rewards, as long as it doesn't contradict the rulebook or anything Tyler said, and stick by your assessment.

TColMaster wrote:
Elinnea wrote:
July 9th! I'm counting down the days...
Did I miss the sign up?

Not at all! Players for the tables haven't started being recruited yet. Nor are sign-ups to run a table closed yet, as far as I know.

Brother Tyler wrote:

No, you can add an add-on deck to either a class or a character deck.

And to answer the discussion question, I would simply go for the theme of one of the Goblin decks. It's more fun that way.

Yeah, I rescind my earlier statement. More careful reading of a later section clarified that "Character Deck" == "Class Deck" for ALL purposes (I was mixing it up with a different discussion at an earlier date, about character substitution), in which case I'd also be in favor of using Goblins Fight... if you have that available to you.

Doppelschwert wrote:

When you're playing him as scribble face in a goblin AP, you might as well get Goblins Fight and use that. It has plenty finesse weapons (not sure about weapon proficiency though) and a healing potion you can get back after every scenario once you hit AD3.

In general, playing the season of the goblins without the goblin decks (either shuffled into the box or used as character deck) is only half the fun.

I am 99% confident you are only allowed to use Class Decks, not Character Decks, with Ultimate Add-On characters. Otherwise I'd probably just recommend the Pathfinder Tales deck most of the time...


PACG Guild Guide Pg 7 wrote:
If your character is from an Ultimate Add-On Deck, you may add the cards from any 1 Class Deck.

Love the theming you've done for Aric with goblins!

Of the Class Decks you have; whatever seems most fun. Especially given how flexible Aric can be.

My brief thoughts on each (without getting them out and reading them all in depth again) are below. I've bolded the ones that I think are worth a particularly close look.

  • Ranger

    I don't own it, but the original 7 class decks are less likely to have boons as powerful as those in later sets.

  • Inquisitor

    Some good weapon options, probably among the most finesse-based decks of the lot. I don't remember it having particularly impressive items, however, but this seems a pretty close fit to Aric/Red Raven.

  • Alchemist

    Some interesting items for Aric especially, but the deck is very finely tuned to the associated character's abilities to ignore/get around banishment effects. Probably got some very powerful individual cards, but it will be frustrating to handle too much of.

  • Occult Adventures 1

    A lot of examination effects, good for Aric. Few weapon choices and very spell heavy, though. The Sign blessings may work out really well for Aric, given he can put them aside in his stash until he can get a glut of them all at once.

  • Occult Adventures 2

    A lot of... actually a lot of everything. Has that Sign potential too, so this may be a better option than OA1 unless there's some specific ally or item that you don't get here.

  • Magus

    Again, quite tuned for Maguses, and may not work so well for the magic-less Aric.

  • Andrew Warner wrote:
    There are still some "odd" choices in later class decks. Summoner has Staff of Cackling Wrath, which, because it has the attack trait and counts as playing a spell, counts as playing a spell with the attack trait has to be buried (or banished for Zetha) and so is a one shot card.

    True, and there are some in other decks as well. Pathfinder Tales has at least one armor that is particularly weak, but can be recharged to add a bonus to recharging a spell... but none of the Pathfinder Tales characters actually need to roll to recharge spells. But the oddities are reasonably few and far between, I would argue, compared to character powers and role cards in the original Class Decks that don't really mesh well if you're playing them in OP (without Add-On decks).

    At least in the Summoner class deck, you can justify almost any boon because the summoner Alase is built around the fact that she can hand off cards to other players on the fly, including when they're starting an encounter. In the Staff's case, it lets her arm a caster who has no attack spells at the ready. But on the flipside, you can justify the Pathfinder Tales spellweaver leather armor (or a name to that effect) because it can be played with base set Wizards and Sorcerers.

    Void_Eagle wrote:
    I'd be interested in joining as a player. Is there anything special I need to do?

    You need to have a Class Deck (or Character Deck or Ultimate Add-On Deck) and find a table to join. A month from now there'll be more than 20 tables looking to recruit players due to the Cards Against Gnomality digital convention that will be run, so there will be plenty of choices then!

    Other than that, you're good to go! You can read about more of the rules and requirements on the Campaign Info tab of this forum thread.

    I certainly think my approach was too conservative, but worth mentioning. Even so, it seems inelegant to have a page saying "We recommend the following class decks (but don't play X character from them, because reasons)". And my single biggest problem with the original 7 class decks is that they're so boring to build with compared to later decks... but to be fair, that's because I'm familiar with boons from the various APs, which new players presumably wouldn't be.

    And the undefined nature of Mother Myrtle and combat magic, as well as Varril and weapons, is pretty significant to me. We've had a half-ruling given in the forums, but no FAQ to point to players to say "This is why they can/cannot". We certainly can't lean on the intended rule (only 1 card/power may define the skill you use), because then a full 5 characters, at minimum, are effected, with at least 3 being non-intentional (Zelhara, Valeros, Rivani).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    First of all; my simplest, fastest answer is the same as Rhynn Davrie's above. I would not recommend the original 7 class decks, and the next series of Class Decks (perhaps excluding Witch, due to the added Cohort complexity) are relatively low in complexity but more interesting and balanced in execution.

    However, I feel there's a bit more to consider, depending on what your goals are specifically. So some additional considerations to make;

    Why not the Original 7 Class Decks?

    • Firstly, the class deck boons are consistently insufficient to solely support the playstyle of certain characters in these class decks. There are Clerics capable of Arcane magics (Zarlova), in a deck with no Arcane only spells. There are those suited to 2-handed weapons, with virtually none in the box. There are wizards suited to dexterity weapons, with precious few to choose from.
    • In my personal opinion, the boons just aren't very interesting, usually. The character designs themselves are fine (if occasionally underwhelming compared to later characters), but they have relatively bare boned cards to pick from, and with Ultimate Add On decks some classes will make precious little use of their core Class Deck at all.
    • Encouraging people to play a class that requires approximately double the monetary investment (assuming the original Class Deck and the Ultimate Add-On are the same price) may put people off.
    • The original 7 class decks make somewhat more use of phrasing or mechanics that were phased out or replaced later. The best example is that it isn't until about the Oracle Class deck (not sure when, precisely) that "Invokes" was introduced, which is a useful rules word for players to be familiar with, depending on the season being played.

    Complexity Considerations

    • It really depends on the audience how much complexity it's safe to add.
    • To keep the PACG complexity as low as possible, I'd avoid Class Decks that include Cohorts, as well as Class Decks that feature characters that require pretty precise understanding of rules that are normally unique to an Adventure Path (like Corrupted cards) or specific corner-cases (like OA2 Mavaro and 'Affecting the Check' and timing).

    Characters under 'Grey Areas' and Rules Debates

    • Here's another consideration; should we be encouraging brand new players to purchase class decks with characters that are still awaiting rules clarifications?
    • If so, what do we define as "a clarification"? A FAQ has been released is a pretty clear one, but what about an official hinting about RAI? What about an official outright stating "The intent is X"? What about an official saying "this is under discussion, but we're planning on X"? In any of these cases, is it fair that our only source for explaining a character power is to tell new players to go visit very specific forum threads, some of which go for many pages?
    • Personally, I feel we should avoid any class decks that include non-trivial debates about the workings of one or more of their characters that have not been officially FAQed. Due to the "Skill replacement and Varril" debate, which has not been resolved formally, this cuts out Inquisitor, Occult Adventures 1, Hell's Vengeance 2 and Alchemist.
    • In addition, if there are known mechanical exploits, which have not been FAQed, which are trivial to generate in nature from a single class deck, this should also probably exclude a recommendation from that class deck. Hell's Vengeance 2 falls prey to this (The "Animate Dead" + "Robe of Bones" issue), and if being played in non-OP Mummy's Mask, Skizza from the Gunslinger deck can fall into this category due to his exploit with Alchemists' Kit.

    Upcoming Rules Changes

    • One final consideration. Is now the best time to be going out of the way to introduce new players to PACG... when a lot of rules are on the eve of being changed? In 2019, we'll see the PACG Core Set and the start of the next AP being dropped, but with them will come rules changes that have not yet been finalised; just seen in playtests. Some of these rules significantly alter the workings of existing characters in Class Decks.
    • The best example of this comes from the Druid Class Deck, since Lini's "Menhir Savant" role may be rendered almost entirely inoperable, based on new rules about closed locations. However, a lesser example may also be seen in Oloch from the Warpriest class deck, since he may be weakened somewhat due to another rules change in the playtest that also allows other players to 'stand in' for combat checks. Oloch will likely remain better at it, but the overall power level will undoubtedly decrease when the capability is no longer entirely unique to him.
    • It's a matter of argument how much we want to consider possible, unconfirmed, rules changes and whether that should impact our recommendations. Or whether we should give recommendations in the face of them. However, one could make the argument that, at least, Druid potentially shouldn't be recommended as at least one Role card may be effectively wiped from it in less than a year from now.

    All in all, if we take the most conservative approach possible from the points I've made above, we should take the list that Rhynn made with some class decks removed due to complexity, ongoing rules debates or potentially significant upcoming rules changes:

    Paladin, Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Oracle, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, Gunslinger and Warpriest.

    Not necessarily recommending such an approach, but there's an argument to be made for it.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    +1 to Hawkmoon on both accounts.

    Mavaro's second power directly causes him to gain X skills (based on the checks to acquire the card you're searching for). Assuming at least one of those skills will directly change what dice you assemble or other bonuses you'll gain, it's directly relevant.

    Sharing a Personal Opinion, slightly off-topic:
    From my perspective, I do feel like the "Affecting the Situation" rules could be further clarified, because I've had long running issues with them. For example, the Wrath of the Righteous (and Ultimate Magic Add-On) card "Manual of War" I find often can't actually give you useful power feats mid-encounter, especially for the cast of characters that came with the Wrath of the Righteous Base Set, which seems to defeat the purpose of the already-borderline card. You can't use it to gain a power feat that lets you add an additional trait or change an additional trait, because that's a two-step process "Gain the feat, use the feat", nor anything that gives you a new power unless it's "Always-in-effect" (like "Gain Arcane: Charisma 3" when you've already cast an attack spell).

    In Mavaro's case, I still feel like there is a certain vagueness that remains. If you have a weapon that says, towards the end of its power detailing revealing it for combat; "If you have the Arcane skill, add 1d4", can you use Mavaro's power in the 'Play cards and use powers that affect the check (optional).' step to gain the Arcane skill off a spell?

    I'd think you can, because it's changing what dice you're rolling (see the example about "a power that adds 1 for each blessing in your hand" in the Affecting the Check rules), but is the weapon always checking that you have the Arcane skill, or only when you reveal it? What if it was an item that said "Discard this to add 1d4 to your combat check. If you have the Arcane skill, add 1d12 instead."? You CERTAINLY can't use Mavaro's power to put an Arcane card on top PRIOR to discarding such an Item, because that wouldn't directly affect the check... but can you use it afterwards, and would that retroactively change the item? I think so, because you haven't reached the 'Assemble your dice' step, but I'm not actually certain.

    If the item DOES retroactively change, because you haven't actually assembled your dice yet by the time you've played it, then what about costs? What about the Hell's Vengeance allies that read "Recharge this to X. If you don't have the Arcane or Divine skill, bury this instead."? Or do these follow spell rules, where you're actually 'setting them aside' until after the check is done to determine where they go (Discard, Bury, Recharge)? In that case, those allies generally aren't played, or able to be played, mid-check, but if there was an ally that could with similar wording, how would that work?

    As it is, I recognize the rule well enough to assess usual intent and restrictions, but I have sufficient doubts about corner cases, even after well over a year of heavy PACG play, that I feel sorry for newcomers coming face to face with that rule when it comes to characters like Mavaro. This isn't a big issue for the OA2 box, because it doesn't have any particularly problematic boons that care about your skills on the fly, but it is a problem for some boons from other sources.

    As long as it's specified on the reference sheet on the back of the rulebook (and of course the rulebook itself), I don't have any issues with "End Turn" including hand reset (as the final step). But then, I'm also a MTG player who has long ago happily memorised "start of turn" in that being "Untap -> Upkeep -> Draw" and don't always remember that it's not an intuitive understanding of a 'turn'.

    Perhaps if cards that forcibly ended your turn said "Move to your end step" rather than "End your turn", and 'end step' was clearly defined, in that language, in the rulebook? It still kind of seems an unnecessary change to me. As for renaming the 'end of turn' effects (to get around the incorrect assumption that end-of-turn effects happen at the absolute end of your turn, therefore after hand reset), that is an upsetting change for previous characters and adventure paths, as it's kind of ingrained in every aspect of the existing game. However, if that is a route, then perhaps "Cleanup phase" or "Cleanup step". So an End-of-Turn power would say "During your cleanup phase, X". It would also make the distinction between "End of the turn" and "End of your turn" slightly more visible, since it would instead be "During the next cleanup phase" or "During your cleanup phase".

    To clarify; I'm not suggesting that end-of-turn effects should be renamed. At most, I'm suggesting some rulebook changes that exaggerate that fact a little more. But to carry on from the hypothetical "End-of-turn is a misleading phrase", I'm providing a potential solution, even if I don't really want such a solution.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    The effect is not optional, per se, but you misunderstand how immunity works in PACG.

    When a bane is immune to a trait, that means two things:

  • You may not play cards that have that trait, or use powers or a power on a card that would add that trait.
  • If an effect would add that trait to your check, ignore that entire effect.

    For example, lets say you have the Toxic Cloud displayed (which adds dice and the poison trait to your combat checks for a full turn); when you come across an undead, just ignore the Toxic Cloud (both the trait and any bonuses it would otherwise provide). You can't add the poison trait, so the entire card becomes an impossible instruction, it does NOT make your entire combat check against undead equal to 0!

    So when Radovan is displaying Fell Viridio, yes he has to add 2 and the poison trait if he's able to. If a monster is immune, however, Fell Viridio's entire relevant paragraph is nullified. You don't add 2, you don't add Poison and you cannot banish a monster to add an additional 2d6+X.

  • Just to note; I've upped my number of tables from "1, 2 on request" to 2. I'm certain I can make the time, and I'm happy to help reach the 25 table goal!

    Keith makes a compelling point. Seelah also serves as a nice support character, as well as being verstaile, straightforward and thematic, and well-placed to use various Loot cards that Adowyn can't.

    Balazar is really useful and is able to provide very strong support. On the whole, I agree with Skizzerz and Hawkmoon. However, I'll provide a very slight dissenting opinion on one aspect, or rather a warning.

    Green Eyed Liar wrote:
    3) A character that will not usually overshadow my daughter's character (I like being her sidekick).

    Adowyn is widely regarded as one of the strongest characters in Wrath of the Righteous. But that's mostly because she is so exceptionally capable of examining decks to give the team valuable information, as well as dodging problem encounters, as well as generally being very versatile whilst also a strong Ranged combatant.

    The thing is that Adowyn is kind of a 'support' character in playstyle, to a point, so intentionally trying not to 'overshadow' her turns might be a little awkward. Balazar will have more impressive - at least visually impressive - combat checks and turns some of the time, in particular since he can bring to bear huge numbers of dice and static bonuses whenever he gets into combat in later Adventures. Your previous characters (Lem and Oloch) are pretty solid supportive characters that can happily expend resources to make someone else function way better, and Balazar's not quite so focused on that. He certainly is able to provide support, but he's going to have some very explosive turns later in the adventure path, which may or may not bother you based on requirement #3.

    Of course, you can just stack him with spells and blessings to help Adowyn out, and he'll still be able to work great. In my opinion, he is the most complex character to use in Wrath of the Righteous, so you may be turned off if you don't like tracking various different powers and sources of static bonuses and dice.

    Given the top card of the blessings deck was a Basic blessing, I'd have been happy for you to use Estra's Blessing of the Ancients, but it's your call. ^^'

    Aaand I just noticed that Sandstorm was just flipped from the blessings deck. Shall we leave the GM to deal with that or should we all move our own characters and do our own examinations?

    Also, since Sandstorm banishes itself, that means Blessing of the Elements remains on top of the blessings discard pile; so once again, my Blessing of the Ancients is free game for Skizza's turn. Not that I'm liable to run out of cards this scenario whether it's a discard or not.

    I'll take your word for it until I get more information. As I said; everything else looks great. I'm just not sure what that particular change is trying to achieve, I think.

    An excellent question. From my perspective; you're correct, you couldn't play the Cape in that situation.

    If you're in a specific step of play, which is identified in the Mummy's Mask Rulebook, you can't play cards or use powers unless they are immediately relevant to the situation at hand (for example, they'll change what dice you're rolling or give you some bonus). As soon as you would encounter the villain (technically before you start the encounter), everyone gets an opportunity to temporarily close their locations.

    At the point this happens, you are now in a specific step of play, "Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations" (Mummy's Mask Rulebook, page 16). Basically, you can't just use any power you wish anymore now that something is going on. So no casting Cures, or using powers to examine the top cards of decks, or anything like that. They only cards or powers that would be able to be used would have to immediately change a check that is currently being made; as a result, moving is not allowed during this step unless the card is allowed because of some other reason, like it explicitly states so. For a reference of a card that allows you to do this, see this power from the Ally "Dreamstalker" from the Occult Adventures 1 Class Deck.

    Dreamstalker - Ally 3 wrote:
    When you could attempt to temporarily close a location, discard this card to move and attempt to temporarily close your new location instead; after all attempts to temporarily close locations, move to your previous location.

    If you want to get really specific... there are situations when Cape of Escape would let you move during this step, though. Lets say you have to get into combat to temporarily close your location, in which case you can use the Cape of Escape to "Evade your encounter, then move". Maybe someone else's temporary close somehow caused you to get into an encounter (such as if they are at your location, summon a monster to close their location, and use a power like the one on the goblin Ranzak that allows someone else to take their encounter for them), and then you can use the Cape to evade and move.

    In which case, the Mummy's Mask Rulebook also covers this.

    Mummy's Mask Rulebook - Page 17 wrote:
    If anything causes a character to move before his attempt is made, he may attempt to close his new location, not his previous location.

    Emphasis added. If you've already made, or even started, an attempt to temporarily close; you're not going to get a second close even if you can legally find a way to move. If you are somehow moved before you make your attempt, you can try at your new location, but that's a very, very, very rare circumstance to occur.

    To be fair, there's a very large number of cards with the Mental trait that in no way interact with immunities or checks. For example, Mind Probe from the Occult Adventures 1 Character Deck (and, in fact, quite a lot of Mental-traited cards in the Occult Adventures decks). I would argue the trait still adds to the game experience; it's quite relevant, and has been even as far back as the original Rise of the Runelords where there have been powers which interact with the Mental trait, such as "Automatically recharge spells with the mental trait", etc.

    With that said, Detect Thoughts has never had the Mental trait, it's been printed multiple times and reprints never change the traits on a card. Thematic or not, it seems largely too late, from my perspective.

    Having heard about changes made in the playtest from participants, I find myself extremely optimistic, and looking forward to almost every change that were made during the playtest.

    All but one. At the time, I believe that the playtest had closed locations be immediately banished/removed from the table, allowing players at those locations to move freely. Whilst I understand that locations with ongoing "When permanently closed" effects may certainly survive in a myriad of ways (such as displaying them next to the Scenario card), I still feel like this is the only change I have a personally negative response to, at least initially.

    Of course, I haven't personally been in the new playtest, and I understand that things are subject to change, and I understand that not all powers will be balanced in the same way with PACG into the future.

    However, it seems like removing closed locations from play is shrinking potential design space, as well as...

    -Greatly nerfing Movement effects, of which were heavily used to move from closed locations to continue your turn or set yourself up for Temp Closes. Movement effects have been traditionally under-utilized by players, in my experience, for being seen as relatively weak or narrow in usefulness, and this change only cements that significantly. New benefits for teams working together at a location may somewhat allay this, but I suspect an already-borderline mechanic will likely grow only weaker at this change.

    -Infinite and semi-infinite exploration combos, or at least ones capable of exploring more than 6 times in a turn, such as one present on OA1 Estra + Ultimate Magic, were previously capped in power in that they stopped once you closed one location unless you had a repeatable movement option. With auto-moves from closed locations, that cap has now been removed.

    -A number of powers, and even entire role cards, are entirely neutralized if closed locations cannot remain in play; the greatest example being CD Lini's "Menhir Savant" role card, one of the most interesting role cards in that class deck from my perspective.

    On the whole, I'm extremely optimistic about the future of PACG and am looking forward to seeing all of the changes in practice. However, the change to the function of closed locations currently stands as the only change I don't really understand. It seems to slightly increase simplicity, but the design space cost and balancing changes seems unusually great for what amounts to a rather trivial change to gameplay.

    Opinion: I think the description of the "Sign" trait should be clarified that only Sign blessings may emulate other Sign Blessings.

    The Occult Adventures 2 Character Deck has multiple non-blessing Sign cards - I believe about 2 items and 1 spell, or something to that effect - which cannot emulate or be emulated by other Signs, but are still relevant for certain character powers.

    EDIT: Also, the Spy trait is not unique to Arueshalae (besides as a Character trait). Several allies, including Slip from Skull & Shackles, and several Goblin allies in the Goblin class decks, have that trait.

    Doppelschwert wrote:

    [...]Also waiting close to 2 years for a character sheet just to save some work later on doesn't strike me as a very customer centric approach either.

    I really don't think they are holding back the sheets on purpose.

    Point taken, strong rebuttal. At the very least, though, I will emphasise the last point I made; that players interested in specific characters take to the forums to gather that information.

    Speaking of...

    bbKabag wrote:

    On behalf of people who need it and have already voiced complaints, I'll try a different approach.

    Is there anyone with the technical know-how and free time kind enough to share their character sheets that they made for the class decks that don't have official sheets as of yet?

    I am asking our PACG community to please help each other out instead of quarrel about what should be done or why. Some things are easier for others to do, some have the time, some don't.

    I personally do not need the sheets nor do I have the class decks available at the moment to help but I am hoping someone with a kinder heart can help.

    Please help out our fellow PACG players, thank you :)

    This has actually been brought up in this thread a couple of times. The short answer is that I'm sure several people - myself included - would be happy to share specific character skills and powers...

    However, the creation and distribution of full character sheets, including - for example - character art, is a rather more awkward proposition. Making them in your own time is fine, but distributing your own character sheets may not be in line with the community use policy. Keep in mind that these artwork and characters are Paizo's intellectual property.

    For the most part, most modern character/class decks are missing one role card and the Card List side of the character sheet's - everything else about a character has already been released in blog posts/previews of the products in question. Of the character decks lacking sheets, I personally own the following boxes;

    • Hunter
    • Magus*
    • Occult Adventures (1&2)
    • Hell's Vengeance (1&2)
    • Ultimate Combat
    • Ultimate Magic

    I'm a relative newcomer to Paizo's forums and products, so I'd want to get a second opinion before being certain what is and isn't safe to distribute. Once I get compelling confirmation of the community use as it comes to power texts, I'll happily transcribe some characters from my owned character decks on request if there are still no character sheets available.

    To bring up an unusually optimistic suggestion for this thread. I would suggest we consider the possibility that Paizo is waiting for the PACG Playtest to be sufficiently finalized prior to releasing the character sheets online.

    I'm not suggesting it's purely a prioritization/time commitment issue, but perhaps a means to minimize people grabbing/printing misleading information.

    Consider that the playtest, from what has been seen/blogged from PaizoCon, has unveiled some rather drastic rules changes, or at least significant templating and wording differences. On top of that, we know at least two characters (Rivani from OA1 and Zelhara from HV2) will require rewording/redesign of some of their powers (see the Rules thread on Varril's replacement skill for full context there).

    Given that several character decks have not been covered by a sheet yet, and given that printable character sheets often include errata'd/updated text, they could serve as a valuable tool to disseminate characters whom are templated to the 'modern' PACG, based on wording that will be seen in the upcoming 2019 "Core Set". This may be an information dissemination strategy, but it's inhibited by the fact that the playtest needs to be sufficiently finalized before they can get down to rewording and re-templating the character powers for the character/class decks. That may potentially still take months from now, but it does save them having to re-release the sheets down the line (leading to thousands of people 'not getting the memo' that their potentially printed/downloaded character sheets will be out of date as little as a few months after they first got them).

    EDIT: If you own a deck, I personally feel you shouldn't have a hard time creating your own version of a character sheet. If you do not own a deck, and simply are looking for the exact stats/text of a given character, then I'm sure various forum-goers will be happy to oblige if anyone asks. Yes, it's not an ideal solution and yes, I would personally prefer more communication on this topic, but there are solutions that people may take.

    1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>