Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Zon-Kuthon

pluvia33's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 347 posts. No reviews. No lists. 4 wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Based on the RPG, Damiel's spells should be no more one-shot than Ezren's. They are essentially the same type of "casters" with both of them having "spellbooks" and preparing "spells" at the start of the day or leaving preparation slots open to prepare what is needed when a situation arises. The only difference (and the reason for excessive "quotations") is that Damiel isn't technically a caster, his spellbook is called a formula book, and his spells take the form of potions. Otherwise, his extracts/infusions act exactly as spells do (including being affected by dispel magic) and he can prepare them for free at the beginning of the day just like a wizard can, day after day.

For him to not have the chance to recharge spells would be, in my option, a misrepresentation of his abilities. I feel that the developers are being very careful about how this issue is treated, evident by the fact that this thread hasn't been answered yet even though we have been assured that it is being discussed and we should wait for a ruling.

I still feel that the intent of the wording is considering the "step" being the entire process of the spell resolving, meaning it's entire Power text, so even if it is a display spell he'd still be able to recharge it. However, this would be problematic because it says he "gains" the skills. He could then play a display spell that lasts until the end of the turn and play Attack spells safely on a later encounter which definitely wouldn't be the intent. I think the ability really needs to have an elegant re-write to work. Once I get my Add-On Deck I'll be playing this as I feel it is intended. Since he isn't OP legal right now, I'm okay with doing that for now, but it would be nice to get the official word on it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I hope the promo doesn't come attached to the Add-On Deck for retail stores. It makes sense to do it that way for subscribers because a lot of subscribers don't want the Base Set as part of their subscriptions due to shipping costs. For retail stores, it's kind of the other way around. Some people are likely to get the Base Set, but might not buy the Add-On Deck because they don't plan on playing with more than 4 people and aren't too interested in the other characters. Some people who pick it up at local stores might be less hardcore/completest as a lot of the players on here. I know that my friend at least ordered the Base Set and not the Add-On Deck. Of course, that's likely to also mean they won't care as much about missing out on one little card, but you never know.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
Actually, no. Mogmurch was, indeed, supposed to be shipped to retailers in July as part of an announcement of the OP system for the card game. ... Some retailers (mine included) did not get the announcement pack. This could be because they didn't order any Paizo products for the month of July or there was an issue with their distributer.
All that is correct, and I'd like to know who their distributor is...

Hi Vic. I stopped by my local store today and asked. They use WarPath Games.

As I mentioned, he may have not gotten the announcement pack because he may have not ordered any Paizo products during the right time period. He's a really small store so much of his business is in special order. I was going to ask him to see if he could request it back in July, but I didn't get around to it and ended up subscribing starting with the Add-On Deck instead to make sure I get all of the promos (double dipping at my local store because I'd feel bad otherwise).

However, I also asked him if he got any promos with the Base Sets that he got in this week for me and a friend, and he did not. Was the first retail promo on schedule to ship with the Base Set or is it coming with the Add-On Deck? He wanted me to ask if there was someone he could contact (his distributer or someone at Paizo) so he might still be able to get the announcement pack with Mogmurch cards and the first retail promo if he missed it. Thanks and hope this helps.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, in the RPG a feat called Slashing Grace was created almost solely so Swashbucklers would like cutlasses. Sadly, that opened up weird things like finesse bastard swords and battleaxes. Be thankful that the cutlass is one of the few weird logic examples of its kind in the card game.


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

Yes, I've been thinking it for a while and since it's mentioned here, I want to echo Cartmanbeck in saying thank you so much for adding the anchored ship mechanic in the final game. Ship-less scenarios were the only thing I really didn't like about having ships in Skull & Shackles during the playtest. Great job, Mike and co.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right, but the same rules you quoted states an exception for ship promo cards, the same part that I quoted in my initial post. It says "as soon as you have checked off" and as the question in the FAQ states, you get a Class 0 ship feat during Plunder & Peril. So the rules state that you can treat Class 0 promo ships as part of your fleet at that time, right away, before you enter Adventure 1.

Unless you're reading that as, since that last sentence comes after saying "you shouldn't add other promo cards to the game until you begin the first chapter of the Adventure Path," that means that the ship sentence isn't stating an exception for Class 0 promo ships being available in "Adventure 0", it's just stating the mechanics for adding promo ships to your fleet and they are still under the restriction of the "first chapter of the Adventure Path" rule. That's an understandable conclusion to draw, but the FAQ does contradict that view.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Okay, that makes sense. So if a card is available for one thing, it is available for all things that it could be available for.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Sorry about that, Mike. I misunderstood/misremembered Vic's statement.

Promo ship discussion here.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

As a general rule, promo cards shouldn't be used until you start the first chapter of an Adventure Path. Ranzak has an exception due to him being a character. The rules also say this about ships:

"If you have a ship promo card, as soon as you have checked off any ships of the same class on your fleet card, you may treat the promo card as if it has been checked off as well."

This makes me believe that if you have the Goblin Weidling promo ship, it would only be available to you for your fleet when you check off a Class 0 ship feat. Promo ships still shouldn't be added to the pool to be possible encounters as random enemy ships based on this rule, or at least I wouldn't think so.

However, this FAQ was posted. Riptide Grindylow henchmen are only used if you encounter the Goblin Weidling as an enemy ship. When you "treat the promo card as if it has been checked off" does that mean that it should also be available as a possible enemy when you are not using at as your ship?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
How does this book (and also the other two) compare to the upcoming Mythic Spell Compendium from the Mythic Mania Kickstarter? From the desciption of that book, one could be led to think that the Kickstarter book would include this content here; would that be a correct assumption?

Based on this post from Jason, the answer to that question is: Yes, all of the spells from the Mythic Magic books will be included in the Mythic Spell Compendium.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

?? I'm showing good Fort and Ref saves in my PDF....


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Quick question: I thought that it was a general rule that you shouldn't utilize promo cards until you start Adventure 1 (with Ranzak being an exception since he's a character). However, the FAQ seems to imply that you can use Goblin Weidling from the beginning of the game, pre-Adventure 1. Is it intended for Goblin Weidling to also be an exception like Ranzak?

Edit: Sorry, should have checked the rules first. "If you have a ship promo card, as soon as you have checked off any ships of the same class on your fleet card, you may treat the promo card as if it has been checked off as well."

But still, you shouldn't be Encountering the Goblin Weidling just because it's part of your fleet, right?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, no. Mogmurch was, indeed, supposed to be shipped to retailers in July as part of an announcement of the OP system for the card game. That's how the person whose comment I linked earlier got his/her copy. It was not the convention promo (Goblin Keelhaulin' was), but it was available at Gen Con for subscriber pick-up and may have been given to other people. Some retailers (mine included) did not get the announcement pack. This could be because they didn't order any Paizo products for the month of July or there was an issue with their distributer.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, that's not ALL it says. When you use the extra 2d6, there is backfire potential. Someone posted the full text in the base set discussion:

Mogmurch (Goblin Alchemist)
Ally P
Check to Acquire: Charisma Diplomacy 7 or Ranged Craft 5

Powers:

Recharge this card to add 2d6 and the fire trait to any check. If at least 1d6 rolled on that check is a 1, you are dealt 1d4-1 fire damage.

Discard this card to succeed at your Craft check or to explore your location; each character at your location is dealt 1 fire damage.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, just "snagging fantasy images" is a pretty big no-no when creating content. A quick look on deviantART's copyright policy will show that you are infringing on an artist's copyright if you use their creations without permission. It doesn't matter if you credit them in the PDF. It's still pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. So if you found a really cool piece of art that you'd like to use, try reaching out to the artist, especially if it's someone on deviantART or a similar community. Explain the situation, what you're creating, that you are making it available for free, and ask them permission to use the art while explaining that the artwork would be credited back to them, maybe even with a link to their DA pages.

As far as free resources go, I don't know of any good ones myself, but if you search things like "public domain" or "creative commons" with things like "fantasy art" in Google, you may start finding the kind of stuff you're looking for. Stuff you can legally "snag" without needing to ask permission. Just know that a lot of this art will likely not be as shiny and new as a lot of the good stuff you'll find on deviantART or other stuff from current professional artists.

But yeah, as far as Paizo guidelines, you seem to be doing fine based on your samples. It's just the artists that you're technically violating right now. Good luck with your project.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
DirkSJ wrote:
And if we hit the boss early we would consider failing on purpose so that we didn't lose a full deck of boons (plus you get free blessings for failing!).
Since those blessings come from the blessing deck and not the box, I would hardly call them "free" when you fail. It seems like a pretty risky move to me, especially if you're trying to get as many boons from the locations as possible before time runs out.
We do it all the time - but we try to minimize things. We evade where possible (instead of failing; although we rarely keep evade cards) and we try to temp close. The extra blessings are a nice bonus, not the goal for us.

Yeah, I'd figured most people would still try to temp close, but the emphases on "free blessings" gave me the impression that the group purposely wouldn't temp close and made me question if Dirk was actually taking the blessings from the deck when failing. I could be wrong, but it's just the feeling I got from the statement.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
DirkSJ wrote:
And if we hit the boss early we would consider failing on purpose so that we didn't lose a full deck of boons (plus you get free blessings for failing!).

Since those blessings come from the blessing deck and not the box, I would hardly call them "free" when you fail. It seems like a pretty risky move to me, especially if you're trying to get as many boons from the locations as possible before time runs out.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The front and back of the card was made available in this blog post. It was a preview from a month and a half before the final release, but I'm pretty sure the scenario card didn't change. Maybe someone can confirm?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Sad to hear, but stuff happens. Is this printer issue affecting the Character Add-On Deck as well or will that be in stock soon?

Nice to see more information on the demo scenario. I'll look forward to that and try to drum up interest in the game with it before the Class Decks hit stores. Good luck with everything!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

My understanding: If you are banishing/burying/discarding/recharging a card because the power text of the card is telling you to do it for any reason, you are performing this action "for its power."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Lem is a character at his location, so yep! He can self-buff right out the gate. I won't be using him in my main S&S game because I love Damiel too much, but this version of him will be the Bard character I use with my Class Deck in organized play. He is a rather nice character.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

As long as you are playing with four or less characters, they will all function. However, they may not all function as well as possible. Oloch the Warpriest will probably work just fine.

As for the other three characters, the Add-on Deck (based on the Deck List in the PDF pack) provides a number of extra alchemical items (for Damiel) and animal allies (for Feiya and Lini). Some of these are only available from the Add-on Deck like Alchemist's Fire, Blast Stone, and Noxious Bomb which Damiel will likely miss dearly; and Dodo, Fox (Feiya's signature familiar), and Snow Leopard (Lini's signature companion).

So yes, it's possible, but I personally won't be doing it if I have my Base Set before I have my Add-on Deck.


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

There is no complete list yet. To my knowledge, this blog post has the most recent information on the promos for Skull & Shackles. Here is the list so far:

Ranzak - June 2014 (Free RPG Day)
Mogmurch - July 2014 (retailer packet)
Goblin Keelhaulin' - August 2014 (Gen Con)
Goblin Weidling - August 2014 (retail promo)
Owlbeartross - September 2014 (retail promo)
Goblin Pegleg - October 2014 (retail promo)
Magpie Princess - November 2014 (retail promo)
Mistmourn - December 2014 (retail promo)
Goblin Buckler Gun - January 2015 (retail promo)

There are three more promos that Paizo has not yet talked about.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
MightyJim wrote:
Interesting that this catalogue includes Wrath of the Righteous, but only 7 class decks...

Paizo has said they will produce more class decks if the current set does well. The current set of class decks and the companion OP season has only been released at Gen Con (as far as I know). Neither have hit the open market yet so I don't think they can properly gauge how well it is selling at this time. Although it's likely class decks will be doing well enough to make more, I'm sure Paizo doesn't want to jump the gun.

And yay d20! It's about time the most used die in the RPG gets to see some action in the card game!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

In case this is a more appropriate place to discuss this instead of the product discussion, here is my response/explanation for why I questioned the limits on combat style feats for the Talented Ranger:

That's understandable. Thank you for sharing. But I thought that the Combat Style edge was already plenty of a limiter. You could only take one combat style at levels 1-3, a second at 4th, third at 9th, and fourth at 13th. With that considered, I don't agree with your pools of 25 vs. 40 feats between 1st and 5th level. For the monk, in addition to the 25 regular bonus feats, they also have access to all of the style feats in the game with the Style Master talent. That increases his pool higher than I would like to count, especially if you have access to a lot of 3PP works that support style feats. And if you take the restrictions of the Combat Style edge into account, a ranger only has access to a small subset of the feats he has available depending on what Combat Style edges are taken. Not counting firearms, a single talented ranger can only have at most 9 feats to choose (taking a style edge that includes a "talent tax") at levels 1-3, and a max of 14 at 4-5. Also, I counted and I also found 40 individual feats listed between the styles, but there are some duplicates between the combat styles. If you remove all of the duplicates, you only have 33 plus access to all grit feats and gunslinger deeds (kind of a wash with the monk access to style feats)....

So rangers kind of still have a larger pool of options since most concepts can get all of the feats they need from a few styles, but I do think the edge restriction is plenty without restricting the Improved Combat Style talent. I'd at least like to be able to take Improved Combat Style "not more than once for every four ranger levels for each combat style edge," or something along those lines so I can make something like the Dual-Style Ranger archetype for the Spell-Less Ranger by Kobold Press.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm complaining a lot. I am definitely liking the PDF as a whole. Thank you again for all the work you do with the Talented Class and I can't wait to see the next one!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

That's understandable. Thank you for sharing. But I thought that the Combat Style edge was already plenty of a limiter. You could only take one combat style at levels 1-3, a second at 4th, third at 9th, and fourth at 13th. With that considered, I don't agree with your pools of 25 vs. 40 feats between 1st and 5th level. For the monk, in addition to the 25 regular bonus feats, they also have access to all of the style feats in the game with the Style Master talent. That increases his pool higher than I would like to count, especially if you have access to a lot of 3PP works that support style feats. And if you take the restrictions of the Combat Style edge into account, a ranger only has access to a small subset of the feats he has available depending on what Combat Style edges are taken. Not counting firearms, a single talented ranger can only have at most 9 feats to choose (taking a style edge that includes a "talent tax") at levels 1-3, and a max of 14 at 4-5. Also, I counted and I also found 40 individual feats listed between the styles, but there are some duplicates between the combat styles. If you remove all of the duplicates, you only have 33 plus access to all grit feats and gunslinger deeds (kind of a wash with the monk access to style feats)....

So rangers kind of still have a larger pool of options since most concepts can get all of the feats they need from a few styles, but I do think the edge restriction is plenty without restricting the Improved Combat Style talent. I'd at least like to be able to take Improved Combat Style "not more than once for every four ranger levels for each combat style edge," or something along those lines so I can make something like the Dual-Style Ranger archetype for the Spell-Less Ranger by Kobold Press.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm complaining a lot. I am definitely liking the PDF as a whole. Thank you again for all the work you do with the Talented Class and I can't wait to see the next one!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Huh, I'm interested to see the exact wording of that reward when my store gets the PDFs. But the from what you explained, it looks like you temporarily gain access to the Loot cards from whatever copy of the base set the group is playing on for just one scenario. You don't have to own the base set to get the Loot card yourself since it isn't a permanent upgrade. So since the Loot cards are all coming from the same set, the entire party (if multiple people have gained this reward to use in this scenario) must decide who gets which "1" Loot card (are there at least 6 Loot cards in Adventure 1?). Then at the end of this scenario, as long as a Loot card wasn't banished or otherwise lost during the game, it is available as a 1-type card upgrade of the appropriate type as normal to someone in the party? Seems pretty interesting if I'm understanding it correctly and works just fine as long as gaining the Loot card is on a temporary bases. Thanks for sharing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've been waiting for this! Thank you for getting this out, Owen. However, I do have one quick knee-jerk reaction:

Why was it decided to make the combat style bonus feats (Improved Combat Style) so restictive, only being able to take it once every four levels, when the Talented Monk bonus feats let you select from a much larger pool and take the talent as many times as you want? It seems like a bit of a weird choice.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Just to emphasize what Hawkmoon said about Loot in OP, when playing with the organized play system you do not play any of the base S&S scenarios so its Loot cards would never come into play. The only kind of Loot I can see as being made a reward in OP scenarios would be Support type cards that doesn't actually go into your deck and can easily be printed out from the scenario PDF.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew K wrote:
Is anyone really going to be defeating that many banes? The group as a whole, maybe, but each individual player? Doubtful.

If you are a single character solo player?

I do remember that the rules for the scenario during the playtest said that you maxed out at your normal hand size. I don't have my copy of the final game yet, but if that line isn't there anymore, maybe it got deleted by accident?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ah, good idea with the pregenerated characters. With that, here are the numbers of multiples known to be of blessings (assuming the pregens are correct and use the B card rule for starting decks):

Bard: 3 (all BotGs) - 9 multi-slots remaining
Cleric: 4 (2 BotGs, 2 Sarenrae) - 11 multi-slots remaining
Fighter: 2 (all BotGs) - 3 multi-slots remaining
Ranger: 5 (4 BotGs, 1 Erastil) - 5 multi-slots remaining
Rogue: 4 (3 BotGs, 1 Erastil) - 8 multi-slots remaining
Sorcerer: 3 (all BotGs) - 6 multi-slots remaining
Wizard: 0 - 5 multi-slots remaining

It is also interesting to note that other than Higher-Level Kyra who has two Scimitars (not necessarily a double since there is a B and 1 Scimitar on the Cleric deck list), none of the pregens have any multiples in their decks other than blessings.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Oh yeah, forgot about the tokens. Thanks. So only 5 slots available for multiples in the Fighter and Wizard decks.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I posted about this in the Flenta thread, but the Wizard Class Deck has 92 unique cards and the only (B) armor on the deck list is Cloth Armor. There is room to have 5 cards that are multiples of other cards in the deck, so it is possible that there are two copies of Cloth Armor in there, though it would be a bit of a sad use of cards.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, based on the PDFs, here are the numbers of unique cards in each Class Deck, by my count:

Bard: 85
Cleric: 82
Fighter: 92
Ranger: 87
Rogue: 85
Sorcerer: 88
Wizard: 92

The class decks are said to have 109 cards. If you include the 4 characters' main card, two-sided role card, and token that leaves 97 cards for you deck. So there are definitely some doubles in there, but Fighter and Wizard have the highest number of unique cards, meaning they have the least room for multiples (just 5 cards). A good number of the multiples are likely to be for Blessing of the Gods cards and I don't know how likely it would be for the wizard and fighter to have multiples of B level cards in their least critical card type unless it was done on purpose to make sure Flenta and Darago have enough cards to make a legal deck.

Edit: Fixed to take character token cards into account.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Why would there be two logos on a card? All of the cards would always have a single "<Class> Deck" logo on it. For example, the cards in the Alchemist deck would have either the "Bard Class Deck" logo or the "Rogue Class Deck" logo (about half and half). They would not have both the Bard and Rogue logos or have an Alchemist Class Deck logo plus the Bard or Rogue logo, assuming you were imagining one of these situations.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Damiel has a power that says "when you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead."
We will adjust that to "banish a card from your hand."

This will work in most cases, but I can see a potential problem for alchemical cards that may get displayed and then banished later. Would that still be considered "from your hand"? Even if it is, I could still see it being a confusing situation for players.

Maybe the standard "for its power" would be better, but that may be a reduction in the strength of the ability. Would having saying both be too longwinded/cumbersome?

"When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait from your hand or for its power, recharge it instead."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Interesting. So basically, Alahazra "summons" the cards from other locations to her, more or less. It makes sense to me.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
One problem is that the deck name is supposed to keep clear who owns which cards, so if you started letting players take cards from different decks, you would lose that.

Yeah, this is one of my only real concerns. However, I don't remember reading anything in the guide that would prevent players with the same deck type to be in the same game, such as a table full of Fighter players. Though I could be wrong....


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:

Personally, I hate the idea. Using decks from other classes only works for a a handful of classes, and forcing those onto everyone dilutes the mechanics and individuality of different classes.

Monks need to have their own Decks. So do Alchemists and Gunslingers. Using cleric deck to build paladins and Druids dilutes the individuality of those concepts. If want to do something like letting war-priests use the paladin deck I am fine with that, but it shouldn't be general practice.

I don't agree (I know, surprising since I thought of it). First, in case you didn't fully understand what I'm proposing, the idea isn't that you just use the decks from other classes. You have to buy the Alchemist Class Deck to play as an alchemist. The Rogue and Bard class cards from other Class Decks would just be available to you for further customization. The Alchemist Class Deck would come with all of the very alchemy kinds of things like potions and other alchemical items, just under the label of the Rogue or Bard class deck, making them available to other classes.

I don't see anything wrong with this and I don't think it dilutes the individuality of other classes. Yes, a Fighter or Ranger would have guns available to them through the Gunslinger Class Deck, but they will be nowhere near as good at using them as the Gunslinger characters, making them less likely to use them as much. Same thing goes for alchemical items for Rogues and Bards from the Alchemist Class Deck or unarmed fighting cards for Fighters from the Brawler or Monk Class Decks.

Personally, I think all of these things should be options for all classes, just like in the base game. The other thought I had was to maybe have Neutral Class Deck expansions. Maybe have an Arcane Magic Class Deck Expansion with about 50 new cards with arcane spells and related cards that can be used with any class deck. Or Gun-Power Class Deck Expansion with 50 new cards with guns and related things. Etc., etc. But I don't know how viable/popular that concept would be.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
As much as I love having more options - I'd be thrilled to have class decks be twice as big - I think one of the greatest selling points for OP of all is the super low entry barrier. All you need to play is a $20 class deck. Period.

And with this proposal, that is still all a player would need. The option for further customization would just be there for those who will want to buy a bunch of the different decks anyway. Again, it's just a thought I've had so I thought I'd share. I'm sure not everyone would like something like this.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ah, good point: "....treated as a failure with a total check roll of 0."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thank you for the explanation, Vic.

Just as a suggestion, if organized play is pushed back to a later date, do you think the release schedule might be able to be changed to 2 scenarios a week until things are caught up instead of releasing 5+ scenarios week-one? 4 scenarios already seems like a ton of content to get through in addition to trying to play the regular adventure path content for S&S.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The release of the Class Deck character sheets has made me think a lot about the future of the OP/Class Deck system. The main thing that has really been on my mind is the relatively low number of cards a OP character has to work with, considering the ~100 cards have to be split between seven different power levels (base plus adventures 1-6).

My first thought was: Will there ever perhaps be Class Deck expansions to add to your class deck? Like a pack of 50 or so Bard Class cards to add as options for your Bard Class Deck?

Then the talk of the ability to play the new Swashbuckler character in S&S (Jirelle), but using the current Rogue deck gave me another thought. What if future Class Decks don't have their own card types (such as having cards with "Barbarian Class Deck" on the top), but instead use one or two card types from the existing Class Decks? Consider this list:

Alchemist - Bard & Rogue
Arcanist - Sorcerer & Wizard
Barbarian - Fighter
Bloodrager - Fighter & Sorcerer
Brawler - Fighter
Cavalier - Fighter
Druid - Cleric & Ranger
Gunslinger - Fighter & Ranger
Hunter - Cleric & Ranger
Inquisitor - Cleric & Rogue
Investigator - Bard & Rogue
Magus - Fighter & Wizard
Monk - Fighter
Ninja - Rogue
Oracle - Cleric & Sorcerer
Paladin - Cleric & Fighter
Samurai - Fighter
Shaman - Ranger & Sorcerer
Skald - Bard & Fighter
Slayer - Ranger & Rogue
Summoner - Ranger & Sorcerer
Swashbuckler - Rogue
Warpriest - Cleric & Fighter
Witch - Ranger & Wizard

I made this list in a bit of a hurry, so some of the deck composition may be off, but the idea is that the new Class Decks would be able to use one or two card types introduced in the 7 debut Class Decks. For example, the Alchemist Class Deck would come with ~100 new cards that would be a combination of cards, half marked as "Bard" cards and the other half as "Rogue" cards. Of course, since the deck is for alchemist characters, there would be a lot of potions and other alchemical items included (likely mostly under the "Rogue Class Deck" label). The deck will be playable on its own like the current Class Decks, but it would then also be OP legal to mix and match cards from different class deck cards. An Alchemist can use cards from the old Rogue and Bard class decks to build his deck and a Rogue or Bard can pull in appropriate cards from the Alchemist Class Deck to build their OP decks.

Now this idea could cause issues. It would eventually be a lot of cards to keep track of and, at least based on my best-guess list above, some classes would end up with a lot of new cards while others don't get much. For example, Fighter would get at least double the amount of new cards compared to any other classes while the Bard and Wizard kind of get shafted. It would also be a little more complicated to keep track of everything.

But I also think that eventually having 31 or more different card types would be a little crazy and this would provide more variety to OP decks without having to release expansions for each individual class deck.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, from the sample spells in this blog post, may is nowhere in the new recharge line. However, Force Missile in this blog post does include may. The blog post with Force Missile was older than the Class Decks Preview post, so maybe they changed the recharge line and not having may in there is the standard now?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Can you comment on another remark made in the thread (even if it's to say you're discussing it or something) - are recharge checks now mandatory, due to the change from recharge box to being a power?

Just to throw my personal opinion out there, I would think the recharge attempt is "mandatory" but I would also think that it should be a check that you should be able to choose to fail (not attempt), like you can when encountering boons. I actually think you should be able to choose to fail any check you want to, but of course this would likely require a small change to the rulebook. All you would need is a small line in the Attempting a Check section, something like:

"You may choose to not attempt any check required by your character, in which case it is treated as a failure."

With that, you can remove any lines that specifically state that you don't have to attempt the check to acquire boons. There would likely almost never be a case when you would want to fail a check against a bane, but some corner case could come up where it is beneficial to the team. I think it just makes since to be able to fail any check on purpose if you want to for whatever reason. Again, just my opinion.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Bard: I'm going to be different and go with Lem [S&S]. With the ability to have weapons (with proficiency), finesse, choice of favored card, and being able to inspire himself right out the gate I see him as being the most versatile and self-sufficient bard available. He will be my first OP character. I really wanted to like Siwar, but with her not having weapons to start out with, having Ally locked in as her favored card type, and most of her role powers revolving around other characters, I had to turn her down. I may try her out later, though.

Cleric: Hmmm, looks like I'll be different again and take Tarlin. It was a close call between him and Heggal with his very good self-buff, but in the end I really like Tarlin as a good beat stick with a lot of potential self-healing. Although if there is only one Blessing of Iomedae in the class deck, I may change my mind and go with Heggal instead.

Fighter: I'll go with Valeros [S&S] on this one. Being able to gain the ability to move when a character encounters a villain is just HUGE. It was pretty close between him and Flenta, though.

Ranger: I'll take Harsk [CD] for this one. He has so much scouting potential and it doesn't cost him a single card to do it!

Rogue: Merisiel [S&S] looks good to me.

Sorcerer: I'd use Seoni [CD] for the big blasts. This was actually a hard choice because I wasn't really a big fan of most of the Sorcerer mechanics in general.

Wizard: Darago looks like a lot of fun. Having his undead minions do his dirty work is pretty cool. I really wanted to like Radillo, but d4s in Constitution and Wisdom can just be way too crippling for a character using the Skull & Shackles set and she doesn't have any powers that can make up for it. Way too much of her deck would have to be dedicated to making up for those stats. The only thing I don't really like about Darago is how much of his Cards List is used up by Armor. I wish some of that was moved over the Ally/Blessing slots.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I do see a conflict. The location wants you to banish a card to close. You're not really banishing a card, so it doesn't close. Since locations are higher on the Golden Rule ranks, it wins the argument.

Now, if a monster has a power that says Damiel has to banish a card to truly defeat it, he can "banish" an alchemical item, recharge it instead, and it still meets the condition for the monster because character abilities are higher up.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
nondeskript wrote:

As far as recharging on a banish close, this is my thought (and the way I will play it unless Vic or Mike say otherwise):

The check to close is to banish a card. If you do not banish a card you have not succeeded at the check. Period. It is no different then Merisiel closing a location that requires you to summon and defeat a bandit in ROTR. Yes she can evade it but if she does that you didn't make the check and didn't close the location.

Are there any examples in ROTR where you can effectively avoid the check to close a location and still close it? I don't remember any...

Counter-argument.

Let's create a hypothetical card for a moment:

Alch Pebble wrote:

Traits: Alchemical

Reveal this card to add 1 to your check.

Banish this card to add a die to your check.

By your logic, (it seems to me that) Damiel would never be able to use this card to add a die to a check because he could never fulfill the condition of banishing it. Which seems to me to bo 100% against the intended use of his power.

Counter-counter-argument:

"Rules: The Golden Rule
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types."

Based on this, Damiel is good with making a non-banish-banish to activate a power for a card, but not for closing a location.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Other characters have powers that state "for its power" already, such as Valeros: "When you would discard a weapon for its power, you may recharge it instead." Based on that, it seems like it would be intentional for Damiel to recharge would-be-banished alchemical cards even if it wasn't for their powers. Maybe wording like this would work:

"When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait from your hand or deck, recharge it instead."

However, something to consider (something that was brought up in playtest many times) is that there is precious little space for writing precise rules language on cards. "For its power" could have been left out to save space for Damiel's other more wordy powers, assuming that the intent is clear enough. There are far less situations that call to banish cards outside of their powers compared to reasons to discard a card other than to use its powers.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Here's another rewrite option that might work:

"When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill while interacting with that card."

Personally, I'd like it to be taking a step farther: "When you play or encounter a spell...." or even "When you play ([ ] or encounter) a spell...." as a possible Role power feat. It just sucks a bit that Damiel will be having a pretty hard time with acquiring Divine spells on his own, but I'm sure we're far beyond adding something like this. Maybe it can be in his Class Deck version. *wishful thinking*

1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.