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. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 571 posts. No reviews. No lists. 4 wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Damiel

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!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

If it's just a home game, you can technically do whatever you want. My advice on the idea would be first and foremost to make sure you don't double-up on feat rewards. If you are going to be doing all of the base scenarios, never let your characters gain Skill, Power, or Card Feats as rewards from playing the extra PFS scenarios. Also ignore any Loot related rewards from PFS scenarios as you should be receiving those from the base scenarios. You could think of different rewards to replace ones that don't work from the PFS scenarios, such as extra "gain a random card of X type" or something.

As far as characters go, you can pick any you like. They pretty much all work fine, though some better than others. You can search the forums to find opinions on pretty much everyone.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yes, Tanis knows about the issue and I believe it is on the IT team's list of things to fix. Registering a Rogue without selecting a character is the current workaround for this, so you're good.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is undefeated, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than the one he came from are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into the deck he came from.

When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is defeated, do not check to see whether he escapes; display him next to this sheet.

So, now we're back to the "beefier henchmen" interpretation, with the added effect of getting to display them next to the sheet even if they are undefeated if all of the other locations are closed? I don't really see the point in that. Why not just use the original text with some tweaks to make the interpretation some of us got from it clear:

"When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes; display him next to this sheet. If he undefeated, shuffle him back into the location deck he came from."

Andrew L Klein wrote:
If there is a way to adjust it for solo play (which I don't think should be done, it's really not overly hard in my opinion)....

It's not about whether or not it is overly hard (although having to deal with a 21 combat is pushing it for one character), it's about having mechanics that just don't work, making looking for the henchmen and villains in the locations completely pointless.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

Let's try this:

Old:
When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet. If he would escape, shuffle him into the location deck he came from instead.

New:
When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than yours are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into your location deck.

That's more clear, in a general since (the phrasing can be cleaned up a bit, like with what Andrew said), but it doesn't help the fact that a solo-character still has no way of ever putting Scourge or Plugg next to the sheet, making this a rather unfun scenario in that format.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So by the sounds of it, this is your first time playing OP? In that case, welcome!

The first thing you and your wife need to do is register for Pathfinder Society and create your characters. The easiest way to do this (that I know of) is to click on the Pathinder Society logo to the left of the webpage. Then either click on the My Pathfinder Society link on the top menu, or click on the "Join the Pathfinder Society and create your character now!" link just a little ways down the page (you can't miss it). At this point, you should be prompted to register for PFS. If you haven't played any public OP games, don't worry about the option that mentions being given a number and a confirmation code. If your wife has not created a general Paizo.com account, she'll need to do that first.

After you have registered for Paizo.com and PFS, you are now ready to create your characters! I'm not sure, but you may end up on your My Pathfinder Society page after you register, but if not follow the same links described above. It should also default to the Player tab when you go to this page (if it's not already selected, click on it). Then click on the Register a New Card Game Character button, fill in the appropriate information on the next page, and click the Submit Changes button. You should now have a character listed under your player tab. Take note of the number associated with the character (for your first, it should be your PFS ID#, then 1001).

After you and your wife have both registered your characters, you are now ready to report your sessions. If you are playing two player games, only one of you needs to report it and you will no longer need to do anything with your characters unless you made a mistake or there is a glitch (there is a common one where the class of your character might revert to Fighter, but still have the right name; hopefully that will be fixed soon). Before you report your session, you first need to create an event. To do this, click on the GM/Event Coordinator tab of the My Pathfinder Society page. Next, click on Create Your Event button. Fill in the appropriate information. A lot of this is optional, including giving the even a name, but be sure it has a date and time of day, uncheck the "Event is Public" box so it doesn't show up on the Event list/search, and check the boxes of the scenarios you plan to report under this event. Then click the Save Changes button at the bottom.

When you go to the GM/Event Coordinator tab, you should now be able to see your newly created event. When you're ready to report sessions, click the Report link associated with the event. You will now report each individual scenario you played. On the dropdown menu, select the scenario you are reporting. Make sure there is a date in the Date field. If you won the scenario, check the box beside "Scenario missions accomplished." From there, input the PFS ID and character numbers of each player's character and check all boxes that apply (what kind of upgrades were taken by the character, feats gained, and if they took the scenario reward). If you are finished, you can click the Save and Exit button at the bottom, or if you have more scenarios to report, you can click the Save and Go To New Session button. Repeat this process until you have finished reporting all of your scenario that you played during this event's time frame.

After you have reported all of your sessions, it is time to finalize your Event. To do this, go to your GM/Event Coordinator tab and click the Edit link beside your event. Check the "I have completed reporting for this event" check box right below the Event Description field, then scroll down to the bottom and click the Save Changes button. From then on, your event will not be visible by default on your page, but you can click on the "Show Completely Reported Events" link to pull it up if you maybe want to look at the sessions your reported for the event to make sure it pulled the characters correctly.

For now on you will just be creating new events unless you or your wife wants to create new characters. It doesn't matter which of you creates and reports the events, as long as you use the right numbers for the characters.

I hope this was helpful. Let me us know if you have any questions. Have fun and good luck!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think he's also factoring in that she has Melee: Strength +2, so between that and the +2 for using the sword, the -4 non-proficient penalty is negated and she just rolls straight dice when using swords. Plus the sword attacks are magic. I'm kind of tempted to build a Kyra starting with swords for OP and try to power through the Adventure 1 scenario that gives a power feat first to take Weapons. It'd be rough to get through, but the payoff can be rather nice. Although it probably wouldn't take that many upgrades to switch out to swords afterwords.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
If they still got to escape, then if you failed to defeat them you'd lose cards from the blessings deck. This would cause you to hit Jemma faster, and possibly even immediately after a fight where you just burned cards on the villains, and took damage afterwards.

Ah, that may be it. That would make it much riskier to fight them and may make the party less likely to want to go fight them if they have a larger party. However, they aren't that hard to beat with just 12 and 14 combat checks. If you are not ready, you can also hope you fail their pre-combat powers so they're evaded instead. If you face Mister Plugg and don't have Survival, you can use survival, rolling a d4, and auto fail so he's evaded. If you face Master Scourge and don't have Fortitude, you can do the same. Now if you have the skill and a good Constitution or Wisdom, you may have an unlucky roll and have to fight them when you're not ready. Even with the worst case scenario of losing a fight with them in a 6-character game and having to burn 8 blessings if no locations temp closed, I still think that's better than how the scenario works now with a solo character.

But then you would need to write in what happens if Jemma is drawn while drawing blessings to randomize the location of the undefeated villain. I've always been under the impression that since the blessings you draw are random, you can't look at them after you draw them. You draw them, shuffle them with the villain, then deal them out to the open locations. I do this so that I don't know what blessings are in the randomization pool, or else if I did know I would have a better idea of what locations don't have the villain if I find a blessing tha I remember being in that pool. So playing that way, I wouldn't be able to check if one of those cards is Jemma.

If this is the reasoning behind the "saying in the location, but still needing to prevent escape" think, instead of the current mechanic, you could just have a line that says, "If Master Scourge or Mister Plugg are undefeated, use random blessings from the box instead of the blessing deck to determine his new location."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The villain Brinebrood Queen summons the Whale to fight you before you act against her.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, she's definitely not made for small groups or solo. I really wanted to like her, but she is way too party dependent for me since I like to play my characters solo when I have the chance. I'll probably build her eventually, but I'd never want to use her in a party of fewer than four.

It's also weird to me that she uses a whip in her picture, but she never gets the Finesse ability and there are no whips in the Bard Class Deck. I ended up going with Lem (S&S) as my bard for organized play since he is the best mix of being self sufficient and having great versatility, in my opinion.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't really see the scenario as being much trouble for any number of players other than solo. I'm actually wondering what exactly is the design reason for the, "If he would escape, shuffle him into the location deck he came from instead." mechanic anyway, if it wasn't to turn the villains into tougher henchmen. If you still have to corner then, why would it be such a bad thing if they still escaped as normal? Is it just so they don't escape and then potentially banish henchmen? Or end up in the same location and make it easier to get the second villain? I'm not sure if the benefits of the mechanic are worth the confusion and wonky situations it causes, especially for solo-character play.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Wait, are you saying that you're letting characters trigger a chance to close Shark Island after beating the summoned shark? No:

Summoning and Adding Cards wrote:
If the summoned card is a villain or henchman, defeating it does not allow you to win the scenario or close a location deck—ignore any such text on those cards.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I'd hardly call it truly bad design. I mentioned it in the other thread I think, but some things aren't going to be as efficient for soloing. They'll still be doable, but it's going to play differently. The fact that solo play is allowed doesn't mean it will be (or should be) just as effective as with more players. This is a cooperative game that encourages teamwork and variety in your party. To expect solo play to work just like a party doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, I remember your comment about solo play and I'll say again that this game is meant to be perfectly playable with a solo character as there are always solo-character playtesters and there is no sense to make it an option if that isn't what they meant to have. In all other scenarios so far, the game works perfectly fine solo, so why can't this one?

No, you're not going to be as efficient soloing, but that doesn't mean it has to be harder. If you know how to play it, know when to be conservative, it's not hard. Playing this game as "a cooperative game that encourages teamwork and variety in your party" is just one of the ways the game can be experienced. I don't expect solo to work the same way and it doesn't, but in all other cases, it does work. Having two villains that you absolutely cannot defeat while playing in a legitimate format that the game is supposed to support and then being punished for that by having to deal with a combat that is more difficult than a character with no support should be expected to handle is bad design.

Andrew L Klein wrote:
There's no more of a reason for a solo player to use the unfun strategy than there is for a party of 4 or 6 to do it. If you want to actually play the game, you will, if not then you'll use that strategy. Group size isn't going to make any more of a difference in that aspect. To say there is no reason not to do it though is absurd. You have the same reason for exploring as you do any other time we've had odd win conditions. You find more gear, improve your character.

Yes, a solo character does have more of a reason to use the unfun strategy. A party of 4 to 6 can actually beat the other villains. They can actually have fun with it. If a solo character cannot beat those villains, it is unfun for that player anyway, because what's the point of even trying? Yes, I could explore a little and hope that if I meant the villains I fail at check that makes me evade them. But solo, as I said, has a different dynamic. You have to know when to be conservative with your resources because all of the turns of the game are your turns. One bad explore and you can be out of commission or even dead (see Man Overboard!). It's too much risk for not enough reward at this point. A party of 4 has to survive about 5 turns per character before Jemma shows up. A party of six, only 3 for most of them. In any of these cases, if they are able to find and take out the other two villains, they are rewarded with a lower combat check for Jemma, so the resources they used to get there are not a waste. As a solo character, you have to survive 19 turns on your own before Jemma shows up. Most of my solo games don't even last that many turns before I beat them. Without any reward for the resources that are burnt, there's no way I'd actually take all of those turns, or even half of them for that matter.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right, sorry, I meant that it is impossible to beat Plugg and Scourge as a solo character and if that is the case, there is no reason at all for a solo character to not use the totally unfun strategy described in the other thread. What's the point for looking for the other villains to defeat if you can't really defeat them? You're just going to get yourself hurt and make it even harder to beat an extremely difficult combat for a solo character when Jemma shows up.

So yeah, you can still win, but Jemma is hardest of all when you have no help as a solo character does. No extra Blessings or other support from other characters. And no, every scenario isn't that hard solo. They're actually pretty balanced as long as you play smart. I've played every Adventure 1 scenario solo with Tarlin with little trouble (including this one when I used my own logic for it since there was no clarification available yet). And although he needed to fail 10 times before he got his Deathbane Light Crossbow +1, my Olenjack has beat every Adventure 1 scenario and the first three Adventure 2 scenarios on his first try after that (again, playing this scenario wrong).

If this is how the scenario is supposed to work, then it truely is bad design. Making it so Plugg and Scourge are unbeatable makes this scenario vastly more difficult solo than any other scenario.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yep—if he would escape, whether or not he would be defeated, he ends up back in the same location. If he would be defeated (and would not escape), he gets displayed.

Okay, so wouldn't it be easier and more clear if it was worded with "banish" instead of "defeat"? Also, as First World Bard asked, do we still get to have the location closed and have the villain hang out there alone? Otherwise, this scenario will be impossible for a solo-character.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Players usually cannot play as Jirelle in organized play because there is no Swashbuckler Class Deck yet. The reward makes a specific exception so that you can use her now with the Rogue Class Deck after you have finished all of the Adventure 1 scenarios. There is only one version of Jirelle right now, the one that is in the Skull & Shackled base set.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Right, and as I've said in the other thread, I read that as the "instead" only referring to "if he would escape" because that is what is in that sentence. The only time either of them would escape is if they are undefeated because if they are defeated they go to the sheet. If the "instead" was meant to apply to the previous sentence, then they shouldn't be two different sentences. There should be a ; instead of a . after the first part.

Hence, this is why we need official clarification. The fact that there has been no official word kind of gives me the feeling that they're thinking about rewording the scenario in a major way, otherwise they would have given a simple "yes" or "no" by now.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It's at the start of your turn, so if you are already there at the start of the turn, it happens. And since you only start your turn once, it only happens once per turn. It does not happen on the turn you move there because you have already started your turn at your previous location.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
RULES: THE GOLDEN RULE wrote:
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. There is one exception to this: When the rulebook uses the word “never,” no card can overrule it. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule support cards, support cards overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types.

So in this case, the Rum Punch card overrules the Alehouse. You do not get the chance to recharge the ally to draw a card because it goes straight to the ally pile.

Edit: Recharging occurs from your hand to the bottom of your deck unless otherwise stated. You cannot recharge a card from the ally pile to the bottom of your deck.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:

Hmm, my understanding of the scenario is that once Jemma pops up, if you beat her you just win. No escaping or other stuff.

Soloed this one with Meliski the bard. Managed to trap and defeat both Plugg and Scourge with about 5 turns left before meeting Jemma, used that time to rework my hand by discarding and absolutely stomped her.

I still need an official clarification on this. By my reading of the rules and the scenario text, there is no reason to trap Plugg and Scourge. The scenario says, "When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet." The rules determine Defeat of a villain before the Escape of a villain, therefore the two extra villains never escape if you defeat them because they go straight to the scenario sheet at that point. If you had to trap and defeat Plugg and Scourge, the scenario text should read, "When you would banish Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet." This is how The Secret of Mancatcher Cove reads.

This issue was discussed in length in this thread, but an official clarification was never given.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
grifter100 wrote:

I´m working on converting the Carrion Crown adventure path for the cardgame. I was just wondering how Paizo felt about publishing homebrewed cards on here as I certainly wouldn´t want to step on anyone´s toes (or have my toes stepped on by Paizo).

Is there any official word on this?

An old thread of mine may be useful reading for you as I asked some specific questions about converting an official Pathfinder product into the card game. The short end of it is that as long as the product appears on this list and as long as it complies with the Community Use Policy you are okay to use locations, names, artwork, etc. from them. One key parts of the Community Use Policy is to not explicitly adapt the storylines of the products, so basically just don't have any "flavor text" on the cards. Have mechanics only. Since I was planning on doing We Be Goblins which is a free PDF, I would likely tell people to read certain parts of the PDF instead of having any flavor text.

One strange thing about Carrion Crown though is that Adventures 3, 5, and 6 are the only parts of the Adventure Path that is part of the list. I don't know if that's intentional or if they other three parts just got accidentally deleted like the first We Be Goblins module did for a little while.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
RotR Kyra (and RotR Seelah's Crusader role) had powers that added dice and the Magic trait to any check to defeat a bane with the Undead trait. That would work no matter what type of check you were making, even the Wisdom check.

Darago from the Wizard Class Deck also adds dice and the Magic trait to his checks against Undead.


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

I've really been meaning to convert We Be Goblins! into the card game, complete with playable versions of Mogmurch, Poog, and the rest of the gang. Unfortunately, work and school has kept me really busy lately. I used to tinker with homebrew content (mostly for Pathfinder RPG) during my free time at work, but now I'm usually using that time for school assignments.

I still want to work on it and get it done eventually, especially since Damiel is out now to make it a bit easier to make Mogmurch. Skull & Shackles also seems a bit more fitting than Runelords for the module as far as flavor goes. Hopefully I can finish it someday.

But yeah, I think one of the main reasons for the lack of homebrew activity is that there is a lot of official content available now. Skull & Shackles is out and its adventures are being released monthly. In addition to that, OP scenarios are being released weekly with adventure compilations monthly. The difficulty of both of these is increased compared to Runelords, raising replay value (there are currently 4, about to be 5, OP scenarios that my group hasn't even had a chance to attempt yet because we've had to replay so many scenarios). You also have the Class Decks now which increases character variety, lowering the need for homebrew characters.

Since this official content is being released so consistently, I'm not sure if we'll see a surge of homebrew content any time soon. Before you know it, when people start to settle down and get used to the content that is out, Wrath will be coming out and likely with a new set of Class Decks, starting the process all over again.... I think this is kind of a nice problem to have.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

A little late to the party (had a busy few days with work and school), but since it's Veterans Day, I have time now. As I bought all seven of the class decks, I've had a good deal of experience with a lot of the class deck characters, both first hand and second hand. Now, all of my experience with these characters has been through the organized play system with the Skull & Shackles set, but most of this should translate well enough to Runelords as well.

VampByDay wrote:
As for the Bards, Meliski looks interesting, rerolling a die could possibly be better than Lem's +1d4 thing. Although he has no starting weapons, so that could really hurt him in the early adventures.

The Bard class deck was actually the first one I bought Lem had been my favorite character in the game since the initial playtest, until Damiel came along. Meliski didn't interest me at first, but looking at him now with playing the game more recently after OP started, I really see the value in him and want to try him out. One of my main problems with the Bard characters is that I enjoy solo-character play and a lot of the character abilities are made for helping other characters. Because of this I'm actually using the S&S version of Lem as my current OP Bard.

VampByDay wrote:
Clerics: Tarlin looks kind of like Seelah, a heavy hitter with a bit of magic (probably for healing.) Better at normal fighting than Kyra but worse against undead. Zarlova is also interesting, basically a cleric version of Ezrin. High wisdom and Arcane (plus the eventual mystic thurge) makes her the master of magic, but no starting weapons and few cleric spells with the attack power probably make her early game VERY difficult. It's nice to see some OTHER characters with high int other than Ezrin (he's the only guy with a decent int in the base game!)

In my opinion, this is one of the best Class Decks. Tarlin and the class deck version of Kyra are very good weapon based combat clerics. After taking two power feats, Kyra hits VERY hard as long as she has a sword. Heggal looks like a very fun bard-like cleric while Zarlova would be a very nice spell casting cleric. I can see her as being especially nice as an alternate character in a home AP instead of an OP class deck character.

VampByDay wrote:
Fighters: I'm really interested in Flenta and Vika for different reasons. Flenta gets a high int and a few spells, plus free spell recharges whenever she cats. That and her melee is nothing to sneeze at. Vika gets the craft skill (something super rare) and it's attached to her strength! Downside is that there aren't a whole lot of good magic bludgeoning weapons.

I haven't had the pleasure to have a Flenta in my group yet, but Vika is my fighter. She is a rather solid fighter and having the Craft and Disable skills as a fighter is very nice.

VampByDay wrote:
Rangers: Agna looks like she has the capability of just CRUSHING anything with her off-hand abilities. Probably one of the best straight-up fighters in the game, but she never gets the divine skill, so healing might be a problem. Arabundi starts off with spellcasting, and a decent array of very useful skills, like knowledge, so he seems playable as a sort of supportish character.

Agna is my ranger. I don't really see her as CRUSHING everything with the off-hand power unless you go Aggressor and pump the power up to the max. Most fighters can be just as good or better with their recharge-instead-of-discard weapon powers. I'm actually planning on going Beastmaster instead and taking the power to reveal animal allies to boost any of her checks. I also find that one of her best features is that she can recharge animal allies instead of discarding them. Using that for the extra explorations she needs, she shouldn't need too much healing. I also have another ranger player in my regular group and he started with Wrathack and took Arabundi for a spin this past weekend when one of the players wanted to replay The Lone Shark again with a new character. They both look like pretty solid characters. I think I might make an Arabundi at some point to try out a ranger with spellcasting from the beginning.

VampByDay wrote:
Rogue: Olenjack is what I think Misrael should have been. Ally heavy, can reveal allies to deal a bunch of damage, and a decent int. Plus he's charismatic so that can help with picking up allies and all. Only downside is that he only has 2 starting weapons and his strength is a d4, so if he has to fight and doesn't have a ranged weapon, he could be in trouble!

Olenjack is my rogue. So far I have only played him solo and I don't know when I'll actually start bringing him to the group since I've completed almost all of the OP scenarios out right now with him. He's a lot of fun to play solo, but he does take some work to get started. Upping his ally-display ability to (2) is practically required for him to function unless he has a lot of support. He also needs some good ranged weapons to hold his own in combat. And yes, being stuck without a weapon can suck for him, but remember that his favored card type is Ally and he has a power to recharge an ally to evade a bane. Hopefully if you don't start out with a weapon, you can evade the first few monsters you meet, cycle your deck, and find one of your weapons. Also, if you're really interested in playing Olenjack, I would definitely recommend buying the Rogue Class Deck and adding its boons to your box. The new Poison items in it really help Olenjack function, especially if you plan to take the Spider role. I also played with a Wu Shen player Saturday and she seemed pretty fun and effective, although its a little sad that she (and most of the rogues) have to take weapon proficiency as a power feat. Lesath, who is the only one that comes with weapon proficiency, looks like a lot of fun and will probably be the next rogue I make.

VampByDay wrote:
Sorcerer: Amaryllis seems good, especially because she can try and grab discarded spells from her discard pile once (or twice) per turn, which is great for keeping herself alive. Valendron also looks decent, with good spread-around skills instead of being super specialized, so he can take care of a variety of hazards.

Sorcerer turned out to be my least favorite of the Class Decks. I was a bit disappointed that RotR-Seoni's auto-recharge power wasn't a standard sorcerer thing that at least three of the four characters would have (like innate healing for Clerics and adding a d4 for Bards). Two of the sorcerers can get auto-recharge as role powers, but ever since the game was first released the auto-recharge just made perfect sense to me as something sorcerers should do based on the RPG as although they have a smaller variety of spells than wizards, they could cast those spells more often. Anyway, so most of my experience in OP has been with RotR-Seoni, but I did have one player use Valendron and he seemed to enjoy him well enough. Although I do think its a little weird that he starts out with two weapons and no armor, but he has the ability to gain Light Armor proficiency and not Weapon proficiency.

VampByDay wrote:
Wizards: I am interested in Dargo, the 'undead killer' especially since there are quite a few undead in the game. However, he seems to loose to Ezrin if he's up against non-undead. Melindra seems have some of the best stats (dex-disable for barriers, int, and chr for picking up allies.) However, she might be lacking in the combat department.

Although I haven't played him much yet, Dargo is the wizard character I currently have built. He seems like fun, but he has a bit of a weird Skill and Card List distribution. He starts with 2 weapons and 2 armor, but never gains the ability to have Weapon or Light Armor proficiency and he has a d4 Strength and d6 Dexterity while having a d6 Charisma and d8 Constitution and Wisdom. Something just feels really off about that. But his necromancy ability seems like a lot of fun, so I went ahead and built him. I think I'll probably be a lot happier with Melindra, though, so I'll likely build her soon. I got to see her in action when a friend tried her out Saturday, but she ended up as shark food (RIP) and he built Radillo as his new character. He seems happier with her.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Well, to be fair, as far as I know there was only one "silent" update. Chris' first comment was just letting everyone know about the initial update of the files that still had a bunch of mistakes (like leaving in the boxes without check marks for the Runelord characters that started with proficiencies). I know because I downloaded right after I got the email updated, then re-download after Chris' comment and was like, oh, that was just for the update that already happened....


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, I get the same thing when I click on the Sessions link for any of my characters. You should, however, see all of your reported sessions if you instead click on the Sessions tab (instead of the default Player tab when you go into My Pathfinder Society) and click on Show Player Sessions. But this will show all of your sessions together, listed by date. You can't divide them up by character.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Sweet! Almost every single thing I pointed out has been fixed. They look amazing. Thank you so much! The only lingering issue from my old list is that although Wu Shen now has to spend a power feat to get the power she used to get "for free" from the Pray Stalker role, the power feat box for "or close a location" was not removed, resulting in her having a total of 13 power feats in that role:

On the Prey Stalker role, change “[ ] Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to defeat a barrier ([ ] or close a location)” to “[ ] Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to defeat a barrier or close a location”.

Otherwise, awesome job! I'm glad that at least the empty check box for proficiency thing on the Runelords sheets got resolved quickly and am overjoyed that all of those other issues also got fixed. You guys are great! I may take a new, fresh look at the sheets to see if I can spot any more mistakes and I'll be sure to update the list when a significant number of new FAQ/errata come out, but for now, I am a very happy gamer and editor.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, many scenarios already allow multiple upgrades. Random card rewards need to be written in as upgrades, so a lot of scenarios already have the possibility of needing at least two of the three upgrade spaces:

Filling Out a Chronicle Sheet, page 14 of OP Guide wrote:
If your character is gaining scenario rewards, note any feats gained under Scenario Reward and, if you gained a deck upgrade as part of a scenario reward, check off a box and fill in the boon type and adventure deck number of the reward. For example, Chris has just completed a scenario from adventure 2, and she’s gained a random item from the box as a scenario reward. Since scenario rewards come from her Class Deck box instead of the game box, she takes the items with an adventure deck number of B, 1, and 2 from her Class Deck box and randomly pulls a Conch Shell, which has an adventure deck number of 1. If Chris wants to upgrade her deck with this reward, she checks off a box under Deck Upgrades and writes “Item 1” in the adjacent blank.

The third one is likely just in case a Scenario allows for two random card rewards or if an Adventure includes a random card reward: 1 space for normal upgrade through play, 1 space for random card from the Scenario reward, and 1 space for random card from the Adventure reward.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The first sentence in the Dying section of the rules:

"If, for any reason, you are ever required to remove one or more cards from your deck and you don’t have enough cards, your character dies."

So no, poor Alahazra should have died. The same thing happened to my first Agna. I believe that example from the Golden Rule is talking about location decks, because there are already rules for what happens when you have to draw cards from an empty character deck or blessing deck (the character dies or the game is over and you have lost).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The Guide says the following on Dying:

"If your character is dead at the end of a scenario, your character does not gain the scenario reward, even if the rest of the party does, but you are allowed to upgrade your new character deck (see Upgrading Your Deck). Build your new character before the party begins upgrading.

When your character dies but your party wins the scenario, the party may use the cards you gained during the scenario when they advance their characters, but they may not use any cards from your class deck."

So last night someone's character died. The Guide says that he could take an upgrade for a new character. I was wondering what the proper way of recording this upgrade would be? I ended up just putting an entry on his new chronicle sheet for the upgrade, writing in the notes that this was from his dead character, XXXXXX-1001.

I was also wondering about the second paragraph I quoted. It notes that if "your party wins the scenario" they get to use the cards the dead character gained. Does this really matter? It talks about this like it's a specific situation, but is there a reason that the characters, including the new character of the player whose character died, cannot use the cards of the dead character for upgrades even if they lost the scenario? In the base rules it says:

"The other characters may use the dead character’s cards when they rebuild their decks after the scenario; any cards they don’t keep are then banished."

It doesn't make any stipulations about it being only if the rest of the characters win the scenario.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

pluvia33,

Thanks—you're correct about most of those. We won't be changing Lem, though, as we avoid making strictly cosmetic changes to the FAQ, and these sheets should only have updates that appear in the FAQ.

No worries. I'll go ahead and remove that one from the running list. Thank you for the hard work!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The character sheets have been updated and a lot of things have been fixed. Here is what is still on the list:

Edits Needed/Suggested:
--------------------

Rise of the Runelords

General Style Change: The check marks were removed from proficiency powers that characters like Valeros get automatically in the last update, but the boxes were not removed. It now looks like all characters need to take these feats to gain them.

Lem

For his first power, you may remove “Once per check” since you can only activate powers once per check according to the rules. (Also make this change to both of his Roles)

Sajan

Under his first power, change “([ ] you may add the Magic trait)” to “([ ] and you may add the Magic trait)”

--------------------

Skull & Shackles

Damiel

Change “When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead” to “When you play a card that has the Alchemical trait and would banish it, you may recharge it instead”. (The most recent updated corrected this for his roles, but not in his base character section.)

Change “When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill until the end of the step” to “You gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill while you play or when you would banish a spell that does not have the Attack trait”. (The most recent updated corrected this for his roles, but not in his base character section.)

--------------------

Class Decks

-Rogue-

Wu Shen

On the Prey Stalker role, change “Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to defeat a barrier ([ ] or close a location)” to “[ ] Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to defeat a barrier or close a location”.

-Sorcerer-

Seoni

On the Tattooed Mystic role, change “(or [ ] 2 cards)” to “([ ] or 2 cards)”.

-Wizard-

Darago

Under his Roles, change “Darago (Nercromancer)” to “Darago (Necromancer)”

--------------------


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew Klein wrote:
Not sure why you would automatically assume you do something the game has never set a precedent for doing.

Probably because this way of using Loot is something the game has never done, therefore all you can do is assume?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, no. You are supposed to use the standard rules of keeping the same deck and only making changes via the use of the upgrades you gain from scenarios or filling holes (from banished cards or new card feats) with Basic cards. It could be spelled out a little better in the Guide, but what your event coordinator was suggesting is covered in the first sentence of the Do Not Cheat section of the rules: "Do not falsify rolls, do not falsify your Chronicle sheets, and do not add new cards to your character decks without acquiring them properly."

1 to 50 of 571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.