|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Four Horsemen — Pestilence wrote:
It is basically two talented classes (cleric and warpriest) rolled into one book, which added a lot to the length, but also the value.
This combined with how the Talented Witch turned out makes me wonder if the wizard, sorcerer, and arcanist will all be combined into one talented class. Now that would be a beast of a book!
I mostly found it weird that the Performance ability was baked into the class. It seemed like kind of an odd design choice for a talented class. I don't understand why the different types of performances couldn't have been broken down into edges and/or talents with a restriction that you can only select one type of performance ability. At the very least, I would have liked to have had the ability to choose between the classic performance or the Archaeologist or Dervish Dancer version.
Yeah, that's definitely understandable. A book of 18 or 19 Talented class, plus the abilities of 10 hybrid classes would probably be gigantic and needing to wait for 5 or 6 more classes to be tackled in addition to the 6 core classes that need to be finished up would make the wait for a Deluxe compilation much longer. Also, if this compilation is restricted to just the core classes (leaving out the Cavalier, Witch, and any other classes that might be done before the Deluxe book is ready to go live) that would provide some standardization and you wouldn't have to worry about working on the abilities of the Shaman hybrid class yet.
And Talented Prestige does sound like a really cool idea. It's great getting to watch the Talented Hero Line evolve. This is the perfect system for advanced players who want to have every bit of customization possible when they build their characters.
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
I've also already decided I feel the same way about all the core classes. So druid, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard are also in planning stages.
I don't know if you can or would like to answer this at this time, but as far as the paladin goes has there been talk of opening the Talented Paladin up to all alignment types even though Pathfinder has not done this in an official capacity (yet; as far as I know)?
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
By the same token, I'm pretty sure we're NOT going to release talented versions of the hybrid classes. That's because I'd MUCH rather take the things the hybrid classes have, and add them as options (with appropriate prerequisites) to both parent classes.
I totally agree with this design choice. I've already been hoping that the Investigator abilities would just be part of the hopefully inevitable Talented Alchemist. Applying this design style to the Magus seems like it would be rather challenging since the Wizard and Fighter are so different in build (particularly with the difference in BAB), but I guess the same can be said about the Bloodrager.
Although I would prefer it if all of the pre-occult classes were taken care of first and included in it, I'll definitely support a crowdfunding campaign for a deluxe talented hero book in whatever form it takes. Good luck in tackling everything!
Nice. I'm really looking forward to the Talented Bard. There are some really cool archetypes for that class and I consider it to be very underrated in general (especially when people are still in an old 3.5 mindset). I'd also really like the Talented Magus to come out sooner rather than later since I love the single weapon focus and unarmored ability of the Kensai, but don't really like its focus of critical hits being baked in. But I can be patient. I'll continue to buy these books to help support the system so every class can eventually get the Talented treatment.
I hadn't really played around with the Witch class very much before since I'm not a particularly huge fan of prepared casting or 1/2 BAB classes. The Alchemist and Oracle took just about all of my attention when the APG came out. However, I really wanted to see what a Talented book would be like with a full caster and I really like what I've seen so far just skimming through. I love how you can make a Bard/Magus style Witch with these rules (3/4 BAB, light armor, and up to 6-level spell casting, prepared or spontaneous) or you can make a very effective dedicated cloth healer/support character. I'm really looking forward to digging deeper into the book and playing around with the class.
I am a little sad that Constitution Dependent spell casting and hexes didn't get worked in there somehow, but that's something that can be houseruled in pretty easily. The Advanced Race Guide is the first time I ever saved an old edition PDF after it was updated, just because of the changes made to the Scarred Witch Doctor Orc archetype. I really like the flavor of the original and didn't think it was particularly overpowered or problematic. I also felt like the rewrite was a little wonky and could cause problems for me since I like to open racial archetypes to other races when possible.
I did have a question, though. Was it intentional to give the Talented Witch a base 4 + Int modifier skill ranks per level instead of the 2 + Int modifier of the standard witch? Just wanted to make sure that this was a conscious change and not a mistake.
Okay, so I wanted to see how much of a jerky-jerk Gashgelag was and now I think there might need to be some clarification. He has the following two powers:
"Any character dealt damage during this encounter may not use character powers until the end of the encounter.
Before you act, each character at your location attempts a Dexterity or Acrobatics 16 check. Characters who succeed are dealt 2 Fire damage; characters who fail are dealt 2d4 Fire damage."
So with the second power, no matter if characters succeed or fail, they have damage coming their way during the encounter if they're at the villain's location. So is it intended that unless the character can reduce the fire damage to 0, he can't use character powers? Or is the first power only concerned with combat damage, mainly coming into effect if the character botches the first of the villain's two checks to defeat?
I can see it being intended to work either way, so I figured I'd ask the question.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I've noticed several suggestions for additional products in this thread. Please note that the solution to the problem "you're producing things too quickly" is *not* "produce more things to fill the gap you just created!"
I would definitely never suggest any additional physical products to fill the gap. That would definitely be silly. However, I do think that extra products in the PDF/print-on-demand format like the upcoming Runelords OP season could be good ways to keep the more active players engaged while they're waiting for more physical content.
Keith Richmond wrote:
But yeah, I'm hoping Vic meant Righteous. There should be a month or so break between the end of Righteous and the start of Runelords, so I'd think that should be plenty of time for the developers to make the adjustments. It should just be a matter of picking which feat rewards to drop/change and updating the chronicle sheets.
While I'm a little disappointed in the delay of Mummy's Mask (mostly because it would be another set designed with Alchemist characters in mind and now I won't have a third version of Damiel to choose from next OP Season), I feel that the pros definitely outweigh the cons for me.
Rebel Song wrote:
I actually don't own Runelords because I started with OP. Now that the next season is Runelords, makes sense for me to get it! :D
I also hadn't bought Runelords up to this point, despite being one of the original open playtesters for the game. A friend of mine had bought the set for us to play and since it was still a little rough around the edges (both mechanically and literally with some of the decks having slightly different card sizes), I didn't really have a good reason to buy it since I went on to playtest S&S then got the final version of that set. I've mostly been focusing on organized play since it was started. Now I kind of regret not buying Runelords sooner because if I had, I'd have a little extra money in my gaming budget for a while. And now I need to be really careful to make sure that I get only second printings of the set (hopefully my local game store's distributors don't have any more first printings hanging around in their warehouses or something).
Mike Selinker wrote:
Mmmm, Gunslinger deck in Runelords. Sign me up.
Yes! In my book, Gunslinger is probably the most important Class Deck for home-play character options that hadn't already been released/announced. I'm glad that it's coming out sooner rather than later. Although I mainly use the class decks for organized play, I definitely see the Alchemist and Gunslinger decks getting a lot of home use during the off season.
Speaking of the "off season", Season of the Runelords is a good way to keep us Card Guild players happy while we wait for Mummy's Mask. However, if one set per year becomes the norm (which I think is a good idea), are there plans for the off season between future sets?
Also, any news on the release of revised Season of the Shackles files to support the Tier system?
With Adventure Deck 6 of the Wrath of the Righteous set shipped/shipping for most subscribers, it is now that time for many of us to request to have our subscriptions cancelled and wait for the option to restart our subscriptions with the next Character Add-On Deck. This is typically done to avoid higher shipping fees for the much heavier Base Sets and/or to be able to buy the Base Sets at our local game stores to support them, while in either case still having access to all PFACG promo cards.
However, although getting the subscription cancelled is usually a pretty simple process, around the time when Wrath was getting ready to come out Vic was mentioning that Paizo was working on some kind of new "subscription management" feature that would make excluding the Base Set from our subscriptions easier. I was just wondering if this feature was still in the works and if it will be out in time for Mummy's Mask, or should we go ahead and request our subscription cancellations for now?
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as my Alchemist is out in time for the next season of organized play, I'll be perfectly fine. Good luck Tanis and Co.!!
Does Tarlin have an entry in any of the Pathfinder books? I'm coming up with nothing and I'd like to learn more about his backstory, assuming he's actually an established character.
As far as I know, Tarlin has only been given an actual identity (name and backstory) in the card game. His artwork came the book Inner Sea Gods to depict a follower of Iomedae. The same is true for Zarlova who is the artwork for Nethys' follower in the book.
The owner of my local store had this card as it was included in the most recent issue of GTM. The first power the card has is this:
"If the current scenario lists cohorts, treat this cohort as if it were on that list."
So I'm assuming this means the cohort is an extra cohort in addition to the ones listed and you don't have to replace any of the existing cohorts.
My main question is, is Valais Durant legal in organized play? That would be a rather nice promo to have if that's the case. Since the scenarios don't usually offer very many cohorts, adding an extra one to the pool can be huge. If it is legal, I'm also assuming that the "only one copy of each promo" restriction still applies? Regardless, it seems like it would be a good card for players to keep handy if they can: "Hey, organizer, do you have the Valais Durant promo? No? Well, I have a copy. Please let us use it. Thanks!"
I was a little sad that Wrath didn't seem to have a lot of Alchemical support, so I was going to wait until the Alchemist Class Deck came out to play another solo Damiel (or other Alchemist) run through Wrath like I did with S&S. Now I can just dust off my completed S&S Damiel and play him through the second half instead! Nice!
I like having iconics in the class decks. I know some people may feel different, but I actually want that second or third version of the characters! I'm especially ecstatic about getting two new versions of Damiel around the same time!
Possibly interesting perspective: I was a Pathfinder RPG fan first. However, when I began playing the game, coming from D&D 3.5 play, I was a pure homebrew world player. I had next to zero interest in Pathfinder's Golarion world. The setting books and adventure paths weren't anywhere on my radar; I'd rather discover or create original worlds to play in. Exposure to the card game changed that for me. I started getting interested in these iconic characters that used to be nothing more than artwork in rule books to me and I got interested in the setting. As the Advanced Class Guide was getting ready to come out, I was reading every Meet the Iconics blog that was released and began reading the old entries for the rest of the characters. Now I'm running Jade Regent for my gaming group pretty much by the book with them using iconics as their characters (Harsk, Kyra, Merisiel and Valeros). I'm falling in love with Golarion as a setting. Paizo has expanded my interest in their RPG products with their card game. I don't know if many other people have had similar experiences, but it felt like a very natural transition for me.
I'm more interested in if the other three characters are the final line-up. Looks like what seems to be a Nagaji character, which I never really considered before but could actually make a solid beat-stick oracle. Maybe the other new character could even be a Changeling? I like how they've begun to use non-core race characters in the class decks (with the monk deck having a Tengu).
In OP, in theory you play each scenario only once, and the possibility exists that you fail at a scenario and still advance to the next one, for example if you go to a store for a single weekly scenario, you don't have the opportunity to replay a lost scenario.
I don't understand this assumption at all. In OP, myself and players I've run for have played many scenarios multiple times. Just because you might end up advancing to the next scenario doesn't mean you actually get to "Advance" your character.
Rewards and Tier advancements are only gained for completing scenarios successfully. On OP Adventure sheets it clearly says: "COMPLETE THESE SCENARIOS IN ANY ORDER"; that is the condition to gain Adventure rewards. So when you complete (successfully; a fail scenario is not Completed) the last of an Adventure's scenarios, you gain the reward.
As much as I loved being able to only take two power feats on my base card for some characters in Season 0, I think the best way to handle it with the tier system is gaining your role and a power feat when you advance to tier 4. With the rule you suggested, there can be some really funky game-working attempts to try to only having to take two power feats on your base character card. Just advance to Tier 3. Play one scenario to get your skill feat. Wait to play an Adventure 4 scenario to get your role and a power feat on it and then complete the scenario to get another power feat from your tier also applied to your role. Then you go back and finish the Adventure 3 scenarios to finally advance to Tier 4 and gain your die bump and whatever rewards are available for Adventure 3 completion. With the help of your Mythic Path, you probably won't be missing that Tier 3 power feat while you finish up Adventure 3, especially if it wasn't something you wanted for your character anyway.
The Tier System is meant to make it easier to get people to play in sessions that will let their characters advance. If we use rules that reward people for being more selective of the scenarios that they play, it is counter to the goal of the Tier System to begin with. So yeah, link roles to Tier advancement, please.
Yeah, the simple fact is that some characters would be far better off just playing in a standard game. They'd be able to make a much more appropriate starting deck and at least have a chance to get nice, powerful upgrades as they go on that are appropriate to their concepts. Having a "specialized" set of cards to choose from is supposed to be a major advantage with the Class Deck/Card Guild system. That's why we only get one regular upgrade per character per scenario. When a large number of people I play with are passing on upgrades regularly, not due to lack of upgrade cards gained but lack of good upgrades available in their class decks, I think there's a problem.
I'm very eager to see if class deck design is going to improve with the new three-character decks. If they're perfectly awesome, maybe there will be a reduced need for this system. Maybe it would be best to just offer some kind of Class Deck Add-On Packs or something for the original 7. That can be a pretty viable and flexible option with the connections Paizo has made with DriveThru. But even if the new decks leave nothing to be desired and there are ways to "fix" the old decks, I still think that something like this would be a nice way to bring in a new level of customization that can freshen up the OP program (and potentially sell more Class Decks) without being too MtG-level crazy.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I'm not looking at it in terms of the RPG. I'm looking at it in terms of general theme. Multiclassing, thematically, makes sense when adjusted right. Adding a second deck just because they have better cards, not so much.
Where have you ever heard of "multiclassing" outside of an RPG? And as I said, that's why it probably isn't the best title to give this proposed system. Also, they aren't "better cards", they're just a better variety of cards. Maybe better for some characters, but they need it. The Wizard deck sort of needs it in general. I'm sorry, but I don't know what happened when they were designing that thing. Rapier and Cutlass? Really? Unless Melindra was originally going to be a Finesse fighter that at least had the option to get Weapon Proficiency on her base card, I have no idea why those cards would be anywhere near a wizard deck.
Wow, my old thread kind of blew up today. It's nice to know that people are interested and that it's being looked at.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Jim, if you are a level 5 Fighter that decides you want to learn Sorcerer magic, you don't instantly become a level 5 Sorceror. You are a newbie Sorcerer, and have the power of such.
You're right, Andrew. However, multiclassing cards in the card game is not the same as multiclassing levels in the RPG. In the card game, the cards you have in your deck represent little more than equipment. Spell cards are nothing but scrolls or potions to someone who doesn't have the appropriate skill to retain it in their deck. In the RPG, a 5th level fighter can buy the exact same scrolls or potions as the 5th level Sorcerer can cast as spells.
I've said it before that "multiclassing" probably isn't the best term to use for the system I proposed because it isn't exactly appropriate. It has too much baggage when thought of in terms of the RPG with examples like the one Andrew gave. Calling it the "Dual Deck Option" or something might be better. Because really, to have actual multiclassing that is like the RPG, card game characters would have to have access to new Skills and Powers. This is only about have more appropriate equipment for characters. In the RPG, that is only limited by how much gold you have. In the card game, that amounts to having more cards in your deck and cards of higher adventure deck number.
They're planning a major revision for Season of the Shackles to put it in line with the new Tier system. After that happens, it may be much more difficult to covert the AP for standard home play. However, until that happens, as Parody said one of the only things you'd really need to change is just give out loot cards in the standard way instead of using the temp replace system. Also, the weirdly worded extra skill feat given in Scenario 0-4A, "during any one encounter in this Adventure Path, gains 1 skill feat" was originally the genie loot card Vailea. It was changed because of potential complications that could come up in OP. You should probably just gain her as a standard loot card instead. Nothing else really comes to mind that you should consider changing.
Just got my deck in today! Arueshalae is pretty cool. I hope she can be unlockable in OP, probably with the Rogue deck. She seems balanced enough to me compared to other characters.
But I did have a question for everyone: Is anyone missing Arueshalae's character card and the Arueshalae's Gift cohort card? I had two in my deck. They seem to be extras since I counted my cards and had 112 cards total.
Here are the release dates of each book and the number of Iconic characters in each:
Core Rulebook, 11: June 2009
There's only been one new class announced for UI which is pretty much guaranteed to have an Iconic. Don't know if the book may also have a few other things that may have Iconics like alternate classes like the Ninja and such.
Going off of a flat average up through 2015, Paizo has released 5 new Iconic characters per year. I'm sure they'll only release more classes, and in effect more Iconics, when they feel there is a niche that isn't currently being covered well enough by existing classes. After 2010 saw the release of class Archetypes, there was a slowdown in the release of new base classes until 2014. Personally, I think getting 16 new base classes in the last two years was a bit of a fluke and the frequency is probably going to slow down again in the next few years.
Myfly, a lot of the characters are not going to fit nicely into one of the four categories, especially when it comes to the Advanced Class Guide "hybrid" classes and the Occult classes (especially occult since they introduce an entirely new type of magic that isn't divine or arcane). However, if you can't look at the list of Iconics and match up the class tag for each entry with Parody's list, here (even added a few):
Martial/Beatstick: Valeros, Amiri, Sajan, Seelah, Harsk, Lirianne, Alain, Hayato, Jirelle, Kess
Divine Caster: Kyra, Lini, Alahazra
Arcane Caster: Ezren, Seoni, Feiya, Enora
Specialist/Skill Monkey: Merisiel, Lem, Quinn
I can't be sure, but I think the "when played" clause is left out of here on purpose, especially since she still has to perform the action with another card. It's a more powerful type of benefit, but has a higher cost so it balances out. So this can be useful in cases where a few monsters say you have to discard weapons for damage first if you have them.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Andrew L Klein wrote:
According to multiple people in another thread here, it's already been officially confirmed that Mummy's Mask will have at least one non-iconic character in the base set and / or character add-on.
It may not be guaranteed, but the non-iconic card game characters from future base sets and/or add-ons do seem like good candidates to fill in the holes in the Heroes sets (those and the promo and class deck characters). By current count, there are 13 iconics left that haven't been in a Heroes box. Since there are typically five characters to a box, that will leave at least two slots open for non-iconic characters. "At least" because we currently also only have one companion character left that we're sure of, so that can potentially open up two more spots that need to be filled. Personally I think the goblin characters can be good "companion" characters, but that would continue to screw over Lem with the small-mini-problem.
He might have been talking about her companion, since they pretty much need to go together? But then Feiya would be in the same situation so that must not be it. I just checked my Harsk and he is indeed on a medium base while his companion is on a small one, so Vic must have just misspoke?
The only-one-small limit really does mess things up. With two remaining characters with small companions and two characters who are small themselves, either Lem or Feiya will have to be pushed to Set 7 if they want to continue to follow this rule.
Elizabeth Corrigan wrote:
I'm sad that Quinn's not getting any love. One of the last iconics with no card game appearance or promise of one AND one of the last iconics with no mini. Investigators forever!
Hayato and Reiko are in the same boat, except they came into existence about three years before Quinn! No Minkai love. Be nice if they made Jade Regent after Mummy's Mask and put all three of them in there. I think Quinn would do just fine in that adventure.
Well, the answer that I got before is that it's because he's a little guy. They only want to release one small or smaller mini in each set, with the rest being mediums. Having companions in each set has kind of screwed Lem over. There's Harsk and Biter (small companion), Lini and Droogami (small iconic), Balazar and Padrig (small iconic), and Shardra and Kolo (small or tiny companion). I was hoping they would let Lem be in the set with Adowyn and Leryn (both medium iconic and companion!!), but they went with Enora instead. Feiya with Daji (small or tiny companion) has probably been getting delayed for the same reason, though I would have wished she would have taken priority over Shardra.
Anyway, as long as they all come out eventually, I don't really mind too much. I'll probably be waiting until Season 3 to play Lem in OP again anyway since Season 2 will be all about Damiel! Maybe the Set after Mummy's Mask could have a new version of Lem? I can dream, can't I?
Glad to see more Iconic Heroes sets finally listed! But I'm sad that Lem is still nowhere to be seen. Also, no new sets until November, they seem to be on an every-other-month release frequency now, and they're $5 more expensive. I don't really mind too much. I'll still be buying all of the sets and if that's how WizKids needs to release them to keep releasing them, I'm on board. I just hope it doesn't effect sales too much. I also really wish I could have my Lem promo for card game OP sooner. :(