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

pluvia33's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar ACG Venture-Lieutenant, New Mexico—Alamogordo. 604 posts. No reviews. No lists. 4 wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 604 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yes, if you're doing organized play, random card rewards come from your class deck box instead of the game box. From the OP Guide:

"The procedure for earning scenario rewards (or adventure rewards, or adventure path rewards) follows the standard rules with one exception: If you are rewarded with a card from the box, you will instead take a random card of the same type from your Class Deck box. The card you take cannot have an adventure deck number higher than that of the scenario you completed."

Also, back to the Flenta issue, I had an interesting thought. If a Flenta player has at least one spell card feat and is playing with a box that has the add-on deck, she can cast all of her spells and exploit a loophole with Charm Animal. Normally, real spellcasters have to bury the card so they can only gain one animal ally each scenario. Flenta, on the other hand, has to banish it, but can get it right back due to her power. So she can try to go fishing during a scenario and get as many of the animal allies as she can (7 at Adventure 4). Since she can recharge instead of discard her weapons and essentially auto-recharges spells after a point, she can cycle her deck pretty efficiently if played right. This can be enhanced further with role powers. But of course, bad luck with location or plunder pulls can screw the whole thing up.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
So Flenta does not cull her deck box, and when she uses her power, she pulls cards from the game box.

I don't think he's misunderstanding, although he did miss one "0" spell. Charm Animal is also Arcane. That gives Flenta 4 spells in the box if the box has the Character Add-On Deck, and only 2 if the box doesn't have the add-on. So those are the only cards she'll be able to get back into her deck whenever she uses her power once Adventure 4 starts. And there is the possibility that some or all of these cards could end up in locations or as plunder.

There is a thread in the VO forums about this issue and this is a very long post I made about it:

Yeah, I don't have a Flenta player, but I have been worried about how her power would mesh with later adventures. I didn't know quite how bad it was until I read what you mentioned, though. For a spell focused Flenta, it can become impossible for her to get an appropriate replacement spell, regardless of if the "0" spells are in the location decks or not. If she took two Spell card feats and played all five of her Class Deck spells, there will be no replacement for the fifth spell no matter what.

Personally, I thought the power was a little too underpowered anyway. Maybe she can have her power changed to something like this:

"After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, draw a random spell from the box that has an adventure deck number lower than the current scenario, if any, and has the Arcane trait and recharge it."


"After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, draw a random spell from the box that has the Arcane trait and recharge it. The adventure deck number of the spell must be at least 2 lower than the current scenario, if any."

Unfortunately, these suggestions would increase the power's character count by 31 or 56 when the original power is already rather wordy and I know that tends to be a major concern for the developers. I really can't think of any better way to reword them, though.

But yeah, without any changes to the power, I think the only option you have for the situation is to follow the Golden Rule:

"If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction."

So if Flenta searches every single spell in the box and there is no B, C, or P arcane spell available, she just doesn't get a replacement spell to recharge. Kind of sucks.

It is also worth noting that after mentioning B, C, or P just now, I went ahead and checked the spells in my box as well. Out of the 4 Arcane non-adventure-deck spells that Mike mentioned, 2 of them are C spells. That means if someone is running an OP game without the Character Add-On Deck, Flenta will only have 2 appropriate replacement spells starting with Adventure 4: Speed and Instant Armor. Now that would REALLY suck for her.


EDIT: Just thought of a way to reword the power suggestions that might work to cut down the character count a little:

"After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, recharge a random spell from the box that has an adventure deck number lower than the current scenario, if any, and has the Arcane trait."


"After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, recharge a random spell from the box that has the Arcane trait and has an adventure deck number of at least 2 lower than the current scenario, if any."

Does that wording still work? This would bring the re-writes to a 19 or 32 character increase.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Since Pyrocat mentioned Free Captains' Regatta, I think he's asking if you can replay scenarios in a home adventure path, not organized play. In that case, I don't think the rules cover that area. Only time they mention replaying scenarios is for scenarios you previously failed at.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
As linked in the other thread Shade started, Mike confirmed in the past that scenario and adventure rewards are awarded simultaneously prior to rebuild.

So, I'm back to being able to save my Olenjack from taking a 7 card hand size during Adventure 4 by saving 4C for last? And technically I could combine this tactic with not finishing off Adventure 3 before doing Adventure 4 with other characters to easily only need to take 2 power feats from the base card?

If this is allowed, then yes, it is a little wonky and may seem like gaming the system, but again, I personally don't see this as a big deal. It would bring in a special kind of customization that you don't typically have when playing the base game by the standard rules. And when I was going through all of the OP playable characters, there were very few that I'd actually want only two or less power feats from their base card.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Shade325 wrote:
B) Take loot, rebuild, chose a card feat, then take an appropriate (Basic or Adv# minus 2) card from the box at the start of the next scenario to fulfill your card feat.

Actually, with this crazy "strict reading" of the rules, you would get the card to fulfill your card feat at the END of the next scenario when you have a new "Rebuilding" phase. In what phase at the start of your turn are you able to to add a card to your deck?

I'm sorry, but I frankly find this entire argument to be rather stupid and I apologize for the part I had in bringing it up. There is no timing order established in the rules for the application of rewards in relation to scenario rewards, adventure rewards, and the rebuilding phase. The order of sentences in a rule book do not determine the timing of said rules unless there are words such as "then" or "after" and so on.

I'm not saying that this isn't a valid topic. It would be nice to get some clarification on this issue. But thinking for a second that it is intended for you to not be able to get a card to fill in your new card feat at the end of an adventure is just preposterous.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:

So, RAW, it goes Scenario Reward > Rebuild & return cards to box > Adventure Reward.

I feel like the intent would have been for all rewards to be simultaneous, but I certainly don't see an overall issue with having to take adventure rewards after the rebuild, requiring Adventure Reward Card Feats to have you pull a card from the box instead of your plunder and earned cards.

Actually, if that is the chronology based on the sequence of sentences, you won't even be able to pull a card from the box to fill an Adventure Reward Card Feat because that is part of the Rebuild phase and you've already passed that. You'd have to play a scenario a card short and then fill the card feat slot from finishing the adventure when you come to the next Rebuild phase.

These two sentences appear in the rule book:

"If the players defeat the villain and prevent him from escaping, or they achieve a different condition for winning listed on the scenario card, your group defeats the scenario and earns the reward listed on the scenario card."

And then:

"If you’ve successfully completed all of the scenarios on the adventure card, you earn the reward on the adventure card."

To me, this is saying that when you have completed the last needed scenario in an adventure, you have earned the reward for the scenario and the adventure at the same time and it doesn't say you can't apply these rewards in any order.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
If you're trying to play with the sequence, it doesn't work. You might as well ask to hold your rewards until you want to.

My point is that I don't see anywhere in the rules that there is any sequence order given between when you receive scenario and adventure rewards. It seems like you gain them both at once when you successfully complete the last scenario in an adventure. If it is intended to be otherwise, then it should be spelled out.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right. I'm saying that you play scenario 4C last out of the Adventure 4 scenarios. Then you're completing Adventure 4 and scenario 4C at the same time and getting their rewards (a role and two power feats) at the same time, so you should be able to apply them in any order (as far as I know).

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I just had a thought while waiting for scenario 4D to be released. You can play scenarios in any order. Also, as far as I know, you can apply rewards in any order. Therefore, as long as there isn't any kind of lock-out mechanic for scenario 4D similar to the one in scenario 3D, characters should be able to simply save scenario 4C to be the final scenario they play in Adventure 4. They could then take their role reward from completing Adventure 4 and then apply both of their power feat rewards. Does anyone know if this would go against the rules at all? Of course this doesn't help with groups who are all caught up and plan to play the new scenario the week that it comes out, but delaying one scenario is better than delaying your Adventure 3 completion to maintain the standard power feat progression in relation to gaining your role.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
bbKabag wrote:
AdaptingFate wrote:
We have multiple games going at the same time, and just break the decks up and shuffle them back in when we switch games.
Normally that's fine. but when the other party gets 3 adventures ahead, and both parties start banishing Basics/Elites, it becomes a lot of work.

Since I run organized play with my personal base set, I plan on just using the organized play rules for purging Basic and Elite cards for my home game. This will change the dynamic a lot, causing you to encounter more power banes and boons more often right away once you start Adventure 4, but I think it would make the game pretty interesting. However, I haven't tried it yet since I'm waiting for the Adventure 4 correction pack before I start it in my home game.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You are right, and thank god for that! Storm is already one of the least fun barriers in the game. If you never get lucky enough to role a six, your only hope to get away from it is for it to move to a closed location (or at least an unoccupied location for a little bit).

Just last night in a two character game, my heart sank with dread when the other player drew a storm on his first turn. It's a horrible thing to have a Storm come up so early, with no locations closed yet. But then, on his next turn, he rolled a 6 and we cheered! Luck was on our side!

Anyway, the card says, "If you start your turn at this location [comma]". I really don't see how anyone can read it any way other than "when you start your turn at the same location as the Storm, you have to do stuff." This is a storm. Not a global catastrophe.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Shade325 wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
Yeah, I already messed this up for my solo Olenjack character since I finished Adventure 3 with him before scenario 4C was available, but from now on (unless they decide to change the 4C reward and move that power feat to, say, 5A), I'm going to be sure to not finish Adventure 3 with any of my characters until I've finished Adventure 4. That way I'd only have to take 3 power feats before selecting my roles. I'll suggest the same to the rest of the people in my group unless some of them are totally fine with taking all four of their base power feats. This would also give players plenty of time to finish scenarios 3A, 3B, and 3C before the group tries 3D.
Ugh... I hate that the system can be gamed like this. If you really wanted to game it you could skip 2D and 3 Adv, play through 4 Adv but take no level 4 upgrades, then get your role card and go back complete 2D and 3 Adv and pick those power feats from your role card.

Personally, I feel that this situation kind of backs people into a corner and encourages gaming the system a little. And yes, you could technically also skip scenarios 1C and 2D. Then you would only be forced to take one power feat (the one for scenario 4C) before you gain your role. You could even just start your character at Adventure 4 by the rules in the Guide.

I don't really see a problem with this because it comes with risks. For one, you're going to be underpowered (literally) when you play Adventure 4. You would also be missing out on, at minimum, the Adventure 1 card feat and all of the Loot cards from the first three adventures. An even bigger risk is that if you take a set indicator 4 deck upgrade during your run to get your role (something that's very easy to do thanks to the start of the Basic/Elite purge), you would only have one shot to win your Adventure 1 and 2 scenarios. If you fail, you won't be able to replay them. If you play it safe in this aspect and never go higher than a set indicator 2 upgrade, you'll run into the same problem during the Adventure 4 run. If you don't take at least a 3 upgrade, you can't replay an Adventure 4 scenario.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Balkar wrote:
Pulvia, why doesn't your wife just replay the failed scenario solo (or duo with you) quick before the next session? I know there are rules for that in the OP guide.

Personal answer, but it's mostly just an issue of time. We both work full time and are taking full time collage course loads right now. She is also not as huge of a fan of the game as I am. It's not that we CAN'T catch her up, it's a lack of time and the lack of desire to put what little time we have alone together into playing the game (on her end).

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, I already messed this up for my solo Olenjack character since I finished Adventure 3 with him before scenario 4C was available, but from now on (unless they decide to change the 4C reward and move that power feat to, say, 5A), I'm going to be sure to not finish Adventure 3 with any of my characters until I've finished Adventure 4. That way I'd only have to take 3 power feats before selecting my roles. I'll suggest the same to the rest of the people in my group unless some of them are totally fine with taking all four of their base power feats. This would also give players plenty of time to finish scenarios 3A, 3B, and 3C before the group tries 3D.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour wrote:
pluvia, the rule says that you may only gain the reward once, not that any replayed scenarios don't get a reward. So the thing you're worried about in 1 doesn't happen.

I'm confused. How does my concern in 1 not happen? The concern isn't about weather or not you can gain the reward on a replay. It's about losing the ability to replay a failed scenario if you upgraded your deck too far. Vic has confirmed that 1 is the proper definition of a replay, so if my wife wants to continue to play with the group, we I can't let her take any card upgrades higher than a 2 or she will be locked out of ever being able to try and complete Ghosts of the Deep, and in effect would never be able to complete Adventure 1, based on the rule elcoderdude quoted.

Even if she successfully completed Ghosts of the Deep before she took a 3 or higher deck upgrade, but didn't go ahead and play the and succeed at the rest of the scenarios, she'd then only have one chance to complete all of the other scenarios. The deck appropriate power level rule only goes into effect for replays, so she can play a lower level scenario for the first time, but if she then ended up having bad luck on Nature's Wrath and failed it, she could not replay it until she "upgraded" her deck down. Otherwise she'd have to deal with having an underpowered character for the rest of the Adventure Path.

And since the rule works in the other direction as well, if she did keep her highest upgrade at a 2 card and the group failed at an Adventure 4 scenario and wanted to replay it right away, she wouldn't be able to participate. This is an aspect of the rule that can really be a potential problem for any character. If for whatever reason a player just doesn't like any of the 3 cards in their character's class deck, or just has some bad luck and is unable to gain any 3 upgrades, they could be unable to replay an Adventure 4 scenario due to this rule. Granted, it's pretty unlikely that you'd not be able to get a deck 3 or 4 upgrade when you play an Adventure 4 scenario due to the wonderful Basic/Elite purge, but it is a possibility.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I don't really understand the whole thing about not taking the reward. Can you succeed and decide to not take the reward? And if so, why would you?

I believe it has been mentioned by Tanis or others that you can elect to not take a reward, although the Guide does not seem to explicitly say you can that. It can probably be debated weather or not the Guide implies that taking the reward is optional upon a success.

As for why you would elect not to take a reward, here's a situation: You're playing with Siwar for the first time with a new party. You're starting out with Ghosts of the Deep. Your party wins, but you are pretty happy with the spells you already have so you don't really need the random spell reward. You think the random weapon might be nice, but you don't have a weapon card slot in your deck yet. So you elect to not take the reward. When you finish Adventure 1, you gain a card feat and take a weapon slot. You then go back through Ghosts of the Deep with a different party and this time take the reward, hoping to pull one of the magic daggers as your random weapon.

Probably not one of the best examples, but that's a type of situation in which you might not want to take the reward on your first play of a scenario.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The Guide to Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play puts some restrictions on what scenarios a character can replay. However, as far as I can tell it doesn't explicitly describe what a "replay" is. I could see three possible definitions of a Replay as far as Organized Play is concerned:

1. The most basic definition would be a play of any scenario which the character has played before. The big problem I see with this definition is that if a character fails a scenario, but decides to go on with the rest of the group, they could eventually be locked out of ever being able to complete the earlier failed scenario. For example, my wife has been playing sporadically. She has currently played and completed two Adventure 2 scenarios and played and failed an Adventure 1 scenario. My group is currently getting ready to run through Adventure 3. If she were to jump in and gain a set 3 deck upgrade, she would never be able to finish Adventure 1 unless she played a scenario and "upgraded" down to a lower set number card to replace the set 3 card.

2. A Replay is when a character plays a scenario which they have already played and gained a Success in. This could potentially lock a character out of being able to take a scenario's reward if they decided to not take it the first time.

3. A Replay is when a character plays a scenario which they have already played and gained a Success in and from which they taken the reward. The problem with this definition is that it could be abused to let a character always be able to replay a scenario, such as Ghosts of the Deep, by just choosing to never take the reward so they can be available to help other characters through the scenario.

So which definition is proper for Organized Play and can it be spelled out better in future versions of the guide?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
What do you mean by "appropriate for Organized Play"?

I mean Loot that can work fine without modification with the "temp replace" mechanic. Basically any loot that doesn't have any powerful "Banish" or "Remove from play" powers like the mentioned Immortal Dreamstone and Vailea. Allowing cards like those in Organized Play with the "temp replace" mechanic causes a loophole, allowing for someone to use these powerful abilities during multiple scenarios when they originally weren't supposed to by design.

Andrew L Klein wrote:
6 loot in too many adventures is going to get a little crazy. That's one per scenario, plus one for the adventure, or you end up with a multiple scenarios in one adventure giving multiple loot and really upping the power level. An adventure, maybe two, per adventure path works with that, but I think going past that might be a bit much.

I think having 6 loot cards in three of the six Adventures for a Path wouldn't be too crazy. Like I said, We almost have that many in Skull & Shackles with Adventures 4 and 5 only being one short from that mark. Adventure 2 gives out its 7 loot cards over three scenarios, with 2-3 cards each. The thing about Loot cards, or any cards for that matter, is that they tend to work for specific play styles. It's not likely that a character would actually want every single Loot card that comes their way, but they really shouldn't and that doesn't mean that some Loot cards are bad. It just means that they don't fit everyone's needs.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I love how Loot works in Organized Play. The temporarily replacing mechanic makes the cards very versatile and kind of makes more sense to the party. I mean, why would the party just ditch that weird artifact or say good-bye to that ally they just saved and never call upon them again?

In particular, I really like how the Adventure 2 Loot reward works in Organized play. With a whopping 7 Loot cards, there are plenty for everyone to pick on of them, even in a 6-character game, all under one reward. Unfortunately, this is the only Adventure in Skull & Shackles with 6 or more OP appropriate Loot cards. Adventures 4 and 5 come close with 5 Loot cards, but even then not all of them may be appropriate with the "temporarily replace" mechanic, such as the Immortal Dreamstone and Vailea, since they have powerful Banish powers.

So I was thinking, might it be possible to have more Adventure Decks in
Wrath of the Righteous and future Adventure Paths which have at least 6 Loot cards that are appropriate for Organized Play? I think that'd be a very nice thing to consider, as long as it wasn't forced, still felt organic to the game. Any thoughts?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right. That's what I meant by, "filling holes with Basic cards." And unlike the standard base game, with the way Organized Play works you're ALWAYS going to not have enough cards in your deck to make the required amount if you banished a card. This is because you don't keep the cards you acquired during play and only use them to upgrade the cards you have in your Class Deck.

In the situation you mentioned, even if your party acquired item cards during the scenario in which you banished your Caltrops, you are not required to take an item upgrade to replace them. And even if you do take an item upgrade, you are not required to use it to fill the hole that the Caltrops caused (although that is an option if you don't want to just put a basic card back in there).

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The rule is in page 5 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play, under Building Your Character:

"All the cards must come from your Class Deck, with one exception: You may substitute any character card of the appropriate class (along with a matching role and token card) from a base set or Character Add-On Deck. For example, if you’re using the Fighter Class Deck, you may use the fighter Valeros from the Rise of the Runelords base set or the Skull & Shackles base set."

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

The Wrecker's extra text doesn't activate if there aren't any other characters at your location. Is this intended?

The ability says, "a random other character summons and encounters..." It doesn't say "at your location" anywhere in the power, so it doesn't matter if the other characters are at your location or not. Giles Halmis is on a mission, and defeat is the only thing that will stop him from going after all of your friends.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:

This one was my first loss in OP.

Every previous scenario, we played as two tables of four; for this scenario, we played as one table of six. We got unlucky in our henchman/villain placement, failed to defeat a couple of banes, and in general didn't appreciate how much more aggressively you need to explore in a six-player game than in a four-player game.

We closed five locations, and never saw Krellort.

To add insult to injury, I lost the roll-off for the deck 2 weapon.

Congratulations on not losing until now. I've lost scenarios 1A and 1B many times. And six-player games can be rough if you're not used to them. It's a totally different dynamic compared to a four-player game, but it's totally playable if you know how. During the S&S playtest my six-player group failed the first few scenarios, but almost never failed after we got a feel for how to work as a team. The problem with the different group size dynamics in organized play is that all players may not be used to or may not enjoy certain party sizes. Some may hate small 2-3 character groups while others may hate large 5-6 player groups. Personally, although this can be considered a weakness for OP, it can also be seen as an opportunity to experience different forms of play that you may have not tried otherwise.

Anyway, I don't really have much to say about my group's run through the scenario. We ran through all four of the Adventure 2 scenarios in one night to help catch us up to current releases. It was a three-character party: my Lem, a Zarlova, and a Wrathack. Other than the villain/henchmen difficulties being a bit higher than we're used to, it wasn't too big of a deal. Krelloort's mechanic that sends him to the bottom of the deck if he's not the only card was kind of nice since it meant we'd know where he was after our first encounter with him. We won with little trouble and were pretty excited about our unharmed treasure stack, but sadly we didn't get a single non-B weapon. Sad day. I can't wait for the beginning of the Basic/Elite purge in Adventure 4.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Shade325 wrote:

While I like the idea of a ship heavy scenario I might have prefered something like "When you would encounter a non-villian aquatic monster, roll a d8..." There might have been a bit more balance for the fighter/rouges whose decks are designed to kill monsters.

I don't know if that would really be enough ships to really get the right feel for the scenario, unless you're playing with Shark Island. In a thread in the VO boards, I suggested this addition to the scenario to help give a character's combat power more play:

"When you encounter a ship, you may recharge any number of weapons or spells with the Attack trait; for each such card recharged, add 1d4 to your check to defeat the ship."

Since you have your own ship, this can be seen as a show of your prowess and/or providing support to your crew when you encounter an enemy ship.

Not sure if it really would have helped your Meliski player, though.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour wrote:
Actually, Tanis, is having Tankard Owner: Damiel all that useful?

Maybe that's her point?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Oh, tease! Hopefully he'll be in Set 4, then. I'll probably want to play another Lem during Season 1. And I also can't wait to see Damiel's card! Hopefully I'll be able to afford getting all of these.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Blog wrote:
One of the nice things about these cards from an organized play design perspective is that they're easy to integrate. If you're playing an iconic character and you have a promotional card from this line that's owned by that character, you can start with it. If you're not playing an iconic, don't despair—you might get an opportunity to unlock access to these cards through a scenario or some other special reward. Those of you playing Valeros might wish to pre-order Iconic Heroes Set #1 now.

First, fixed that for you. Second, does this mean that we are getting a mechanic in organized play to add these cards to the appropriate Class Deck boxes so they can permanently be part of an iconic Guild character's deck? That would be pretty awesome! Maybe a big Card Guild Guide update is coming soon?

However, if this is the case, it would make me a bit more sad that Lem, the only iconic I'm currently playing with, doesn't have his figure set projected for release yet.

Edit: Wow, didn't read the Tankard at first. If the above is correct, Potion of Flying in the Fighter deck just got epic.

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

With the break from scenario releases, I've been using the past two weeks to try to catch up a bit with my players, as only one other player in my group had a character who'd finished Adventure 1 before the break (Adventure 1 feels like a really big hump to get over for some characters). So after getting as many people through Adventure 1 last week, myself and two of my other player powered through all four Adventure 2 scenarios last Saturday and Who Rules Hell Harbor was definitely the most memorable.

The Zarlova player was feeling pretty confident going into the scenario with a d10 +2 Wisdom. Probably a little too confident. He had been hogging the Besmara's Tricorne for the rest of the Adventure, but ended up letting our Wrathack player use it for this scenario. He was so cocky he even started at Shark Island to face a ship right away. He trusted luck a lot more often than he probably should have, barely ever using blessings on his ship combats (I think Wrathack and I may have played more blessing for him than he used on himself). He had a lot of bad luck, even when blessings were used. Lots of 1s and 2s on his d10s. He ended up letting his ship wreck twice because he took way too much structural damage and only cleared out two of the five monsters from Shark Island before the villain was found at the location.

Wrathack and my Lem had much better luck. I don't remember either of us losing any ship combat. I added my d4 and used a blessing on nearly everyone one of my ship combats and with a d6 +3 for Survival, Wrathack was usually in pretty good shape as long as a blessing was used. Sadly, the Tricorne never came up, so that was kind of lame. It is also worth noting that we had spread out, never being in the same location until the end, and I think IMPERVIOUS was encountered about four times. That was annoying. But luckily, MARK OF YUNNARIUS was only encountered twice, giving one haunt to Zarlova and one to Wrathack.

Again, I really liked the scenario and look forward to playing it again. It'll be interesting to see how different characters handle it.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think the Doctor would be a pretty cool character. A few things I'd think would be fitting (or just random brainstorming, throwing stuff out there):

-I personally think he should have is an unconventional Intelligence based Diplomacy skill. Although he is certainly charismatic (so definitely keep the respectable d8), the Doctor's brand of diplomacy is based around being clever and out thinking his opponents.

-To play more off of that, I think he should have a Diplomacy based combat ability, similar to a sorcerer's blast. "For your combat check, you may discard a card to use your Diplomacy skill +1d6 ([ ] +1) and add the Attack, ([ ] Magic), and Mental traits. If you roll an 8 or higher on any die, recharge the card instead."

-I also like the idea of the Doctor being a master of items, so I think he should have an ability to potentially use them better than anyone else. "When you play an item and would discard ([ ] or bury)([ ] or banish) it, you may recharge it ([ ] or shuffle it into your deck) instead."

-The same can also be said for allies. "When you play an ally that lists Diplomacy in its check to acquire, you may recharge it instead of discarding it."

-And how about having the right card for everyone job, or crazy tinkering? "At the end of your turn, before you reset your hand, you may bury a card to search your deck and add any one card to your hand."

Like I said, just brainstorming. Some of these abilities might be a little overpowered, and obviously some of them would either be power feats on a role card or some of the feats for some of the powers would need to be on role cards.

By the way, for your initial write-up, the Doctor is short one Skill feat and has one too many Power feats for the base character.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, that's rather nice of you! I just finished my solo-Damiel home play run through Adventure 3 and didn't plan on starting Adventure 4 for a while anyway. Need to play catch-up with my OP players over the holiday, so this all works out fine.

Although I'm personally not worried about this as a subscriber, I am a little worried for retail buyers actually getting the correction pack. Based on what I've seen with promos not making it to my local store from their distributor and hearing similar stories on the forums, I'm not sure if I'd expect much better with this. I'd recommend asking your local store to inquire about the pack (and the retail promos they should be getting) when they make their Adventure Deck 5 order.

Also, if anyone might not be getting Deck 5 for a while and buys their cards via other online retailers or large chains like Hastings where there isn't as intimate of a relationship with between customer and owner, would it be possible for them to request the pack through customer service?

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

There's a proposed fix to the rulebook that relates to this:

On page 16 of the rulebook, under If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location, change ".. the location is not permanently closed, but it is temporarily closed, and the defeated villain cannot escape to it" to "...the location is not permanently closed, but if there are no other open locations for the villain to escape to, banish the villain."

I know that the rulebook didn't say that before, but I felt that this was implied to be how it works when you are playing with non-goal villains based on the wording of Secret of Mancatcher Cove.

Vic Wertz wrote:

And then in this scenario we'd say that when you would banish a villain, display him next to the scenario instead.

But I have to be honest, I still can't quite wrap my head around some of your viewpoints. Does that make things better or worse?

If I'm the main one you can't wrap your head around, I'm sorry. I understand it just fine this way and that wording makes it clear to me that you have to corner the villains to move them to the scenario sheet. However, again, if the "sub-villains" still don't move around, this makes the scenario much more difficult for solo-character play than it should be since you can never corner the villains in this scenario by yourself. I still think the best solution to this issue is to just let them escape as normal and put the clause of blessings always coming from the box when villains escape into the scenario.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Vic gave some more info about the Iconic Heroes Sets and the cards that come with them over here.

Ha! Called it! For the most part. With the final rule the owner won't be able to get it back if she has banishes it for some reason, but I could see how making it that easy to get back could be abused.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Solo Character Run

Character Name: Damiel
Role Card: Grenadier
Skill Feats: Dexterity+2, Intelligence+2
Power Feats: +1 hand size, Proficient with Weapons, to add 1d6 (+1), (or Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Mental)
Card Feats: Weapon+1, Item+2
Weapons: Vindictive Harpoon (loot), Shock Musket +1
Spells: Aid, Cure
Armors: Magic Chain Shirt
Items: Alchemist's Fire, Masterwork Tools, Potion of Flying, Potion of Glibness, Potion of Healing, Potion of Heroism, Potion of Heroism, Sapphire of Intelligence
Allies: Old Salt
Blessings: Blessing of Achaekek, Blessing of Erastil, Blessing of Milani, Pirate's Favor (loot)
Current Party Ship: The Truewind

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
The current Class Decks used characters from the NPC Codex. However, that book only includes the 11 Core classes. If future Class Decks feature classes from the Advanced Player's Guide, for example, there aren't as many NPCs readily available for those.

I believe the Cleric Class Deck characters actually came from the Inner Sea Gods book. I think they may take a lot of the new characters from the Inner Sea NPC Codex. I haven't had a chance to read it, but since that came out in 2014 I would think it'd have characters with Advanced Player's Guide classes.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Since Scourge and Plugg are still villains, I'd think you'd still have to corner them in order to defeat them.

No, you don't have to corner any villains to defeat them. You just have to succeed in the conditions to defeat them to defeat villains. You check to see if the villain escapes after you defeat him. If the villain is then cornered, you either win or the villain is typically banished if there are multiple villains in the scenario. That is why I've read the scenario the way I have.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

No, you have to choose a Role that corresponds to your character because the role card essentially replaces the Power section of your character card. You choose between the two Roles available for each character.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've continued to just run this scenario under my original interpretation, making Plugg and Scourge essentially act as powerful henchman (no need to corner them), since there has not been an official FAQ or errata and since Vic backtracked on his original clarification.

I really think the best solution to fix this scenario is to just have Plugg and Scourge act just like any other villain, except that when they escape after being undefeated you still use blessings from the box instead of the blessing deck. Then, when you would banish them (by defeating them and preventing their escape as normal), they go to the scenario sheet.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, no offense to whoever came up with him, but Darago is probably the most poorly designed character in the game as far as Skill and Card allocation goes. I really wanted him to be my main Wizard because his Powers seem really fun, but after he died, I moved on to Melindra. She may not have the weapon and item support in the class deck that she needs to really shine, but at least her general structure is relatively sound. I do have a player in my group that seems to be sticking with Darago, so I'll hopefully at least get to see who he plays out over time.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
pluvia33, I think you're mixing up the AP and the OP adventures. I'm sure that Tempest Rising states that. (I don't have the cards in front of me.) The actual (OP) Adventure 3, Treacherous Waters doesn't state that.

No, I wasn't "mixing them up" at all. I know very well what the OP Scenario rewards are. I was just stating, as a precedent, that in the base game AP you gain your Role as a reward. In OP, that has not happened yet and there is no reason for anyone to believe you gain it any other way.

You can't just assume that you automatically get your Role after completing all scenarios in Adventures 1 through 3. Again, where was it ever mentioned that this is how it works in OP? I've never seen it stated anywhere officially. If it was just stated randomly in the forums somewhere, I don't remember ever seeing it, and that would be a very sloppy way to distribute a very important rule.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
ThreeEyedSloth is correct. The scenarios/Adventures don't tell you that you've earned the Role, the character/role card does ... after completing Adventure 3. (In fact, they've said that you need to have completed all the scenarios up through 3.)

Actually, Adventure 3 of Skull & Shackles, Tempest Rising, has a Reward of: "Each character chooses a role card and gains a power feat."

The character sheets tell you, "You may choose one of these roles after completing Adventure 3." This line is not on the actual character/role cards. The character sheets are not part of the standard rules and cannot give you a reward. The character sheet is just telling you that after Adventure 3 is around the time when you would most likely gain your Role (hence the line on the sheet having may and the line on Tempest Rising not).

Also, as I said, completing Adventure 3 of organized play only gives you your third power feat, so if you take your role at that time, organized play will be using a non-standard Power Feat progression.

And where is it actually said that you have to complete all of the scenarios up through 3 to get your Role? If you do use the line on the character sheet as guidance, it's telling you that you just need to finish Adventure 3, creating the potential for a VERY non-standard Power Feat progression since scenarios don't have to be done in order: run your character through all scenarios in Adventure 1 and 2, except for the ones that give Power Feats. Then play all of the Adventure 3 scenarios, get your Role, then go back and get the Power Feats from Adventure 1 and 2. You can now choose all of your Power Feats from your Role!

This is why it seems that an official rule is needed or maybe an extra, mid-AP scenario to gain your Role which requires that you have completed Adventures 1, 2, and 3 to play (although it's unlikely as the schedule has already been released). When we asked Tanis about Roles in the VO forums at the start Adventure 3, the only response was: *chuckles evilly*. So yeah, I think we have to just wait and see.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It is interesting to finally see a PFS RPG reward. However, since this thread is already made, I thought I'd ask a couple questions I had about the scenario.

First, this:

"When setting up the scenario, set aside all loot cards with an adventure deck number of 2 or lower that characters haven’t chosen. Choose the same number of characters to each temporarily add 1 of those loot cards to his deck, replacing a card of the same type. Return the loot cards to the box at the end of the scenario."

I'm not exactly sure what this means. What is the "same number of characters" in this case? So if there are four loot cards left over, that means choose four characters? What if it's only a three character game? Should it be "Choose up to that number of characters"? And "may" is nowhere in this line, so do these characters have to replace a card from their decks with Loot, even if they don't want to?

Second question:

Still no specifics on the gaining of our character's Roles? I thought that the Power Feat gained for finishing Adventure 3 was the fourth Power Feat that you would get after taking your Role, but this is actually just the third power feat. Seems kind of weird. Maybe we'll be finding out some answers when the first Adventure 4 Scenario comes out?

Aside from those things, I think the other mechanics are pretty interesting. Makes it seem like you're trying to make the scenario really hard from PFS RPG players who might try to just jump right into this scenario for the reward.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yep! Again, during playtest. And it was even funnier then because everyone in my group thought that it was a misspelling of Lubrication.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was the swarm, but I remember encountering crabs at the House of Stolen Kisses during playtest. We all had a good laugh. We also thought it was funny/disturbing whenever we encountered Animal Allies at the location....

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, Wu Shen works perfectly fine without Poison cards. Her sneak attack ability adds the Poison trait and there is only one minor Poison related Power Feat for her in the Death Whisperer Role which would be easiest to just use with her sneak attack.

It is Olenjack that really needs the Poison cards in the Rogue Class Deck to fully utilize his character, especially if you plan to take the Spider role. He has no innate way to add the Poison trait, but one of his initial Powers relies on the Poison trait to trigger.

So even though the character sheets are available for free online, if you want to use Olenjack or if you are playing in Runelords and want to use one of the two Finesse based characters (or you want to download the S&S character sheets and use one of the Finesse characters from there without buying the S&S base set), you'd definitely want to get the Rogue Class Deck to mix in the boons from it.

There are a few characters in other class decks with similar needs, but the Rogue deck is the one that I personally feel is needed the most if you want to use the characters from it. The others, it's mostly just nice to have the extra support.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right, I kind of understand where people are getting the idea from, I just don't believe it is actually true. Yes, if Melindra is able to have cards from both the Wizard and Rogue decks in her character deck, it will definitely expand "the best she can be" and probably make her more powerful than she could have been with just the Wizard deck. My argument is that she NEEDS that to make her concept work well. Even though this will make her more powerful, I don't think this would make her more powerful than a properly built single-deck Ezren or Radillo.

There are many characters than need more support to fully realize their potential and to be more in line power wise with more single-focused characters that already have all of the support they need in the cards of the single class decks. I believe that this multiclassing system would fix almost all of these concepts while also having other benefits as described in my initial post. The only one that I can think of that still night not have enough support with multiclassing may be a Gambling focused Meliski. Edit: Actually, adding the Rogue or Sorcerer deck would give him a second set of Ivory Dice and a Rabbit's Foot, doubling the number of Gambling cards he'd have available. Although it'd be nice for him to have a wider variety of cards, that isn't too bad, plus either would add some nice spells and other cards he may like to use.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Adding all of the deck is too much. Like in the RPG, it would make most sense to only increase the accessible adventure number for one of these classes. Having access to adventure 3 cards from two decks at adventure 3 is extremely powerful. More like the RPG would be better. Each adventure, if you multiclass, you pick one deck you use a higher number from.

I totally disagree with this. I really don't see how it is extremely powerful to have access to two different class decks. Personally, I just see it as bringing certain characters more in line with how powerful they'd be if they were just played through the normal S&S Adventure Path. You can say that being able to pull cards from a smaller, more specialized pool is better all you want. In some cases it is, such as just about all of the Rogue characters, but others would be much better off in a standard game. Melindra, for example, has a great Dexterity, horrible Strength, and has a starting deck with two weapons. In organized play, she's stuck with starting off with a Sling and a Quarterstaff as her best options. In the standard S&S path, she can pick between Shortbows and Daggers. Then as you go on, gaining new cards in the base game isn't that hard. She should be able to get better weapons and items pretty well as she proceeds, with a plethora of ranged options available in each Adventure Deck. But with the Wizard Class Deck, Adventure 3 and 4 are pretty much dead levels for her as far as Weapons are concerned as they only have a single option, both of which are melee.

Now, equating card game multiclassing to RPG multiclassing makes almost no sense at all. The vast majority of cards used in a characters deck are not class level dependent. Most of them represent gear which is character level dependent. The only card type that would make any sense at all with your type of deck multiclassing would be spells for spell casters as innate spells are class level dependent in the RPG.

Again, I'm going to emphasis that I personally believe that there would be no real increase in general power level if this system were implemented as I wrote it, other than from the bone I threw to single-deck characters. I'd really like to know what multiclass build you think would be "extremely powerful" in relation to other characters, because I really don't think any multiclass character would be any more powerful than the best build single-deck character for the class.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This is something that I posted in the VO forums. However, my post there never had a single reply. I’m assuming that either my suggestion was both not bad and also not really something anyone cared for, or simply no one noticed or felt like braving my wall of text.

Anyway, some of us on the forums have expressed a desire for more customization and flexibility within the Class Deck system. There are a number of class characters with too broad or too specific focuses and concepts to be fully supported by the cards within the deck: Melindra of the Wizard deck who can use more ranged weapons and items, Zarlova of the Cleric deck who can use Arcane spells, as could Flenta of the Fighter deck. There has been talk about wanting boon expansion decks to support such characters, but there are a number of issues with this desire. Although it would be nice to have boon expansions to help these characters, that would involve creating a new type of product which may have limited marketability. With Class Decks already providing a wide variety of boons to players, decks with nothing but boons might not have the same multifunction appeal that the Class Decks already have and there would be some overlap between the two product lines. With there already being the possibility of over 30 Class Decks to eventually be released, will we really need an additional way of getting more boons added to our game boxes? Honestly, probably not.

Because of this thought, I think adding a system of combining two Class Decks for your organized play character would be a much better solution to supporting these characters. So I would like to make a formal proposal to have a system of Class Deck Multiclassing added to Pathfinder Card Game Organized Play:


Organized Play: Multiclassing or Bonus Upgrade Reward

Once your character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path, you may Multiclass your character. If you do this, choose a second Class Deck to add to your character’s Class Deck box. For the rest of the Adventure Path, your character’s Class Deck box now includes all cards from both the character’s original Class Deck and the one which is added at this time. You cannot Multiclass with two copies of the same Class Deck.

If a character does not wish to Multiclass into a second Class Deck, the character may instead gain a powerful Bonus Upgrade. Select any single card from your Class Deck box with a set indicator of 3 or lower to gain as a reward once the character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path.

Whichever reward is chosen, be sure to record it on the character’s chronicle sheet in the entry of the final scenario needed to complete both Adventures 1 and 2. If Multiclassing was chosen, record the second Class Deck of the character in the Notes section. If the Bonus Upgrade was selected, record it in the Deck Upgrades section as normal.


These rules can be added to the Guide on page 8 in between the “Upgrading Your Deck” and “Chronicle Sheets” sections.

As I said, I think this is a good idea because it helps characters with different kinds of mechanics to be more playable and it can bring a larger variety of characters into Organized Play. It could also help encourage sales of Class Decks among OP players as they can try out different combinations of classes. It can even increase longevity of the existing class decks as more class decks are released. For example, when a Druid Class Deck may eventually be released, someone who loves Druids may look at the Ranger characters and think playing Arabundi multiclassed into Druid could be pretty awesome and go out to buy the Ranger Class Deck in addition to the new Druid deck.

I feel that after Adventure 2 is the perfect place to allow the addition of a second deck to characters as they will still have to use just their normal character deck to get through the first 1/3 of the Adventure Path, but it is before Roles come into play and gives plenty of time to make an effective mixed character. Since some people may not be interested in mixing Class Decks or would rather just spend the $20 on one Class Deck without feeling obligated to buy more in order to have a good character, I wrote in the Bonus Upgrade for people who stick to just one Class Deck. This, I think, will also cut down on characters that multiclass for the sake of a small benefit. For example, Vika will have to weigh the benefits of Multiclassing with the Cleric Class Deck for some more bludgeoning cards versus being able to snatch up a Belt of Giant Strength as soon as she starts Adventure 3. The ability to take this Bonus Upgrade comes at a time in the Adventure Path that will likely be one of the hardest times to get a deck upgrade of a number equal to the current Adventure as you still have all of the base set cards and two other Adventure Decks with no Basic/Elite cards being purged from the box yet.

There are a number of concerns that have been brought up previously in discussions about doing things like this. I’m going to try to answer some of those concerns in a preemptive fashion here:

-This will make it harder for players to keep track of what cards are theirs! This is one of the most common rebuttals to having any cards other than those from a character’s single Class Deck in a characters deck. If Melindra Multiclasses into Rogue and is playing in a scenario with a Rogue character, what if one of her Rogue cards gets mixed into a location or is given to the Rogue player? How are we going to know whose cards are whose? My counter to this is that this issue already exists. There is nothing in the Guide against having a 6-player game with nothing but Cleric Class Deck characters. Also, how often do you really mix up cards from your character deck? Is it that hard to remember that you were the one who shuffled a card into a location deck? Or that you gave a card to another character? Personally, I think that players should be able to keep track of their own cards. As an event coordinator, I would insure that anyone with cards from the same Class Deck would have their decks recorded on a Deck List before starting the scenario.

-This will make characters too powerful! I don’t think this is the case. I whole heartedly believe that this will only increase the ability of character to work within a wider variety of builds and be more effective in their focuses. I do not think any multiclassed character can be any more powerful than the most optimal build available to a single Class Deck. For example, I don’t think any Multiclass build of Flenta, Tontelizi, or Vika will be any more powerful than Valeros using just the Fighter Class Deck can be. Multiclassing can also be a double edged sword. Although this increases the versatility of your deck, it can also delude your pool of cards. When you gain a reward of a random card of a specific type, you could now have more than double the cards with a set indicator of B than you did before. You could also end up with unwanted cards to deal with such as having Agna multiclassing into whatever deck has the most Offhand cards, but now her pool of allies will have a much higher percentage of non-animal cards to deal with. Also, while multiclassing into Sorcerer or Wizard will give Flenta many more spells to choose from, she will no longer be able to max out her Spell Card Feats to let her gain up to set indicator 2 spells in the Fighter Class Deck. If she casts any of her spells after multiclassing, she would have to replace them with B type spells with the Basic trait.

-This will force players to spend more than $20 on OP to stay competitive! Some have said that one of the things they like about the OP system is that all you need is a $20 deck and you’re good to go. They say that doing this sort of thing gives people who buy more products the ability to build a “better” character and that this would be unfair to those who only buy one deck. As I said already, I don’t think multiclassing will make characters any more powerful than the best single-deck build of their class. Not to mention, this is a cooperative game, so why be worried about people having “better” characters anyway? Beyond that point, rewarding players who buy more products with more options is the exact same thing that the PFS RPG already does. You can participate in PFS just fine with nothing but the Core Rulebook, but if you want to use any other classes, feats, spells, etc., you have to own the books that those other options come from. Shouldn’t we want to give card game OP players a reason to want to buy more products?

And that’s all I can really think of. I’m sorry for the ridiculous wall of text. If you got through all of that, thank you for your time. Are there any reasons that anyone can think of that something like this shouldn’t be implemented? I think we should give it a shot. This is a test season after all.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, that's not a Loot card on the Deck List for S&S. I've been thinking that it might end up being an item for PFS RPG play, since we haven't seen a single crossover reward for that yet.

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I noticed this one today. Poor Damiel seems to be plagued by technical errors, typos, and the like:


Skull & Shackles


Titles in his Cards List (Weapon, Spell, etc.) are misaligned, shifted downward one and a half lines.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yes, Season of the Shackles is it's own Adventure Path that is meant to be played separately and you add the Adventure Deck 1 to the box as soon as you start. There is no Adventure B for Season of the Shackles.

And yes, It would be much simpler if you just play two different sets of characters for each Adventure Path that you'll be playing, but using the OP scenarios as extras does seem like an interesting idea. Either way, good luck and have fun!

1 to 50 of 604 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.