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

pluvia33's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 327 posts. No reviews. No lists. 4 wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


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

If you are a single character solo player?

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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

Edit: Fixed to take character token cards into account.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thank you for the explanation, Vic.

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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


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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
nondeskript wrote:

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

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

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

Counter-argument.

Let's create a hypothetical card for a moment:

Alch Pebble wrote:

Traits: Alchemical

Reveal this card to add 1 to your check.

Banish this card to add a die to your check.

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

Counter-counter-argument:

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Here's another rewrite option that might work:

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

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


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gunslinger679 wrote:
How many of his 'captured' monster cards is he allowed to use on a single check ? Just one, or as many as he has available ? Thanks.

Page 12 of the rulebook:

"Remember that each player may not play more than 1 card of each type or use any 1 power more than once during each check."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Reptilian wrote:
Edit: I'm not sure what I would do with spells that are displayed until the end of the turn or something similar. Damiel probably has to banish those.

Yeah, that seems like a problem. Based on how Damiel's power worked in the playtest, I believe the intent is that he should be treated as having those skills whenever he is interacting with the right type of spell. Maybe it would have been better if it was worded something like this:

"Whenever you are using the powers of a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you are treated as having the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

No, I don't think you're interpreting it right. By "until the end of the step" it seems to be talking about the step of "playing a spell" so Craft is treated as Arcane and Divine until the spell is completely resolved which includes checking to see if he has to banish it and having the chance to recharge it.

In the RPG, an Alchemist gets a type of spell book called a formula book in which he records his "spells" used to make extracts. He can make this pseudo potions over and over again, just like a wizard with spells, so his ability, using the above interpretation, represents the ability very well.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
jjvreed wrote:
My order is still showing pending, not even shipped. We're in fiasco territory...subscription means you get yours dead last? really?

Don't feel too bad. I'm still showing as pending, too, and I'm basically just subscribing starting with the Add-On Deck to get the promos. I'm also buying everything from my local store to support them and after checking in with the owner yesterday, I was told that my order for the Base Set and Add-On Deck still hasn't hit his distributor. Since the store is only open on the weekends, next Friday will be the earliest I'll be able to get it now, if I'm lucky. Oh well. I'll want to make sure I have all of the promos to add to the box before I start playing anyway.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think it means the character attempting the check's Diplomacy skill. It says "that character may use her Diplomacy skill..", and the immediate antecedent to her is "that character" so it would mean "that character may use that character's Diplomacy skill."

Yeah, that's what I'm leaning towards based on the wording, but I'm hoping for the other case. The feat is otherwise kind of bad. Diplomacy isn't a very common skill so it wouldn't help a lot of characters, leaving them with a flat 1d4 for the check. With the main intent of these characters being for OP in which you would be using the same character with many different other players, it seems like something that would be a pretty bad choice. If you were playing with the same set of characters, like in an Adventure Path, you can look at your teammates and say, "okay, the party has 2 other characters with Diplomacy, it might be worth taking," or, "no one else in the party has Diplomacy, I'll stay far away from that." But in OP, you have no way of knowing what your party composition will be at, say, a convention game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
eddiephlash wrote:
Damiel. Like Sajan's Drunken Master roll, but with even heavier focus on potions. And it seems like he can use any non-attack spell as well as a wizard or cleric. Wow, I might have my first character picked out :)

Yes, I absolutely LOVED playing Damiel during the playtest, and the final version is even better! (Vic, Mike, slap me if you still don't want us to talk about things from the playtest, but....)

Dameil Playtest Ver.:
During the playtest, you had to succeed in a check to acquire the alchemical items to recharge instead of banishing them. You also had to make a check to acquire the spells to recharge instead of banishing them, using Craft instead of the normal skill. You didn't get to use Craft as a pseudo Arcane/Divine skill before. It actually made it easier for him to recharge spells (including spells that might be meant to not be rechargeable), but at the risk of losing them forever. This is so, so much better. I mainly like it because during the playtest I put skill feats into nothing but Intelligence until it was maxed out because I was worried about losing my beloved alchemical items and spells forever! Now I might actually think of taking increases in other skills before Intelligence is maxed out, maybe. I do like being really smart. The only thing I see that I'm a little sad about is that he lost the ([ ] or reveal) feat for his "to add 1d4 to your check" in the Chirurgeon role, but I'm still super excited about playing him!

As for the Class Deck characters, as I'm planning on using the Bard Deck in OP, I'm really liking Siwar. I do have a question about a power in her Manipulator role, though:

"When you attempt ([ ] or another character at your location attempts) to defeat a barrier that has the Skirmish or the Task trait, that character may use her Diplomacy skill in place of any listed skill on the check."

When it says "her Diplomacy skill" does that mean the Diplomacy skill of whichever character is making the check, or do you use Siwar's Diplomacy skill even if it's a different character making the check?

I'll probably be using Siwar or one of the three versions of Lem in OP.

Anyway, thanks for getting this up! I like the new design! I'll be reading them over and over and may have more questions later, although I also need to do some reading of the other ACG (Advanced Class Guide).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, mine is also showing up with that. I have the Base Set and Add-On Deck for September 4, even though I only signed up for the Add-On deck to start.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
vagabondriot wrote:
I do find it a bit strange that you can only upgrade (or have the chance at upgrading, since if I understand correctly, the draws are random) one card per scenario (outside of scenario rewards).

That's how I read it as well. It sounded a little weird at first, but it made sense when I thought about it. With a Class Deck you will have a very smell, specific pool of cards to choose from. You may only get to upgrade one card per scenario, but you get to choose a more specific card. When you play a normal scenario, you may get the opportunity to gain 3 or 4 new cards, but how many of them are actually worth keeping? It's 3 or 4 random cards verses a single card with much more freedom of choice. I think that balances out.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Indeed. How will this eventually become "a full fledge, tight rules system game" and evolve without us asking nitpicky questions? A comment like that is very counterproductive to what the developers seem to be trying to accomplish.

And this doesn't really look that complicated. One year seems much further out than the system should need to work smoothly.


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

So I mentioned this in the product discussion, but I think things might need to be a little more clear as far as what cards are available to add to an organized play box. It seems like the intent is that you should only be using Skull & Shackles cards for the box (meaning the Base Set, Character Add-On Deck, and Promo cards made for Skull & Shackles), that you shouldn't add any cards from the Rise of the Runelords release.

However, this isn't explicitly stated. The section on promo cards says you can have up to 12 promo cards, with one copy of each. 12 is the number of promo cards that they are planning to release for Skull & Shackles, so it seems like they are just stating that you can only use one of each of those promos. But taking it literally, the guild allows you to add old Rise of the Runelords promos to an organized play box.

Then you have the issue that some people will likely use the boons from extra copies of Class Decks to integrate more cards into their box which again is something that is not touched on in the guide. Then there are the new Special cards that will be included in the new minis sets, but I'm sure a new guild will come out by then since we'll have a new base set out.

This is the main kind of thing I was looking for since I'll likely be the main source of the OP game box in my area, but it looks like some things can be elaborated on.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So I've read it over a few times. There are a few things that I think should probably be talked about in the Adventure Card Guild Special Rules section, mostly pertaining to adding cards to the box other than the Skull & Shackles Base Set, Skull & Shackles Character Add-On Deck, and Promo Cards:

-Is it okay to have the Character Add-On Deck from Rise of the Runelords included in the box? I actually considered buying one, having never bought the Runelords Base Set, to add to my Skull & Shackles set to have more character options and boons, but ultimately decided against it due to being worried about the China/USA printer issue. Others may have had a similar idea.

-What about even mixing the Rise of the Runelords Base Set, or select cards from it? Most people probably wouldn't do this, but it should probably still be mentioned. I'm guessing that all Rise of the Runelords cards should be kept far away from an Organized Play session. Is that the intent?

-How about if someone wants to get extra Class Decks for their box to increase/diversify their pool of boons? Is it okay to have the boons from Class Decks included in an Organized Play box? If so, should it be limited to a maximum of one deck of each class?

-And one last issue of actually taking cards out of the box; if the base set being used for organized play is someone's personal copy and there is a normal Skull & Shackles Adventure Path game being played with it, is it okay for the characters in that game to have their decks kept together (taking them out of the boons available in the box for Organized Play) or should the cards in the character decks be recorded and divided back into the box? I'm guessing option two, but again it should probably be explicitly stated.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
agraham2410 wrote:
I assume the two hour game limit does not include the time it takes to explain the game to any new commers to the card game?

I don't think so, as it recommends demoing the game for them separately:

"If you’re new to the game, you should learn the basics before jumping into organized play. Ask your event coordinator if there’s a demo available to play."


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

Well, SOON! has arrived. Yay! Time to read....


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew K wrote:
Since when? My local shop got everything for Runelords

Are you sure they got all eight? Supposedly Fire Sneeze was only given out at conventions and to subscribers. Aside from that one, yes, retailers should have been able to get all of them. So far Goblin Keelhaulin' is the only promo announced for the new set that is not easily obtainable for retailers as it is a convention promo like Fire Sneeze, but there are three more that haven't been announced yet. Some may be easy for retailers to get, like Dance with Squealy Nord in the old set (since many retailers get Game Trade Magazine), but it's never a guarantee. It's even possible that a distributer might accidentally not send a regular retailer promo out with a local store's order.

The only way to 100% make sure you get all of the promo cards is to subscribe, which I ended up doing just to be safe since my store owner hasn't told me that he got the OP announcement pack with Mogmurch yet. Since I also want to support my local store, I'll just be eBaying the second copies of decks, treating whatever loss I end up taking on the resell as me paying for the promo cards.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So this only affects the class decks, correct? The base set and character add-on deck are still on schedule for an August 14th release?

If that's the case, I don't really mind the delay so much. It will give myself and others time to play the game without organized play first and digest the new mechanics. It will also provide more time for people to learn the organized play rules (assuming the guide is still released to the general public sometime before/during Gen Con) and try to get more people interested in the game before OP goes live at retailers. I don't know about anyone else, but for me its a little difficult to try to use organized play as a selling point for new players when all of the details aren't known yet.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Flat the Impaler wrote:
Any word on how many boons will be in each box?

Well, if you take what was said to be literal English:

"Each set comes complete with six figures—five iconic Pathfinder heroes and one associated creature, be it an animal companion, eidolon, or familiar. Each box also includes a unique Pathfinder Adventure Card Game card associated with each figure in the box—special boon cards unavailable anywhere else."

It looks like there should be six figures and six cards in each set. That would be nice. Totally worth the $30 price tag in my book. Some card game fans would probably consider paying that for six promo cards alone.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Duncan7291 wrote:
Is there a guide book for organized play for season zero? I would like to get some more information on this.

Still waiting for it. Considering that Gen Con starts on the 14th, it should be released by then.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
psionichamster wrote:

Anachronistic Adventurers

Link fixed for ya!

No, no. Link fixed for you. I'm still hoping that there will be a compilation of this series eventually. Seems really cool, but buying all of the individual PDFs is a little more costly and cumbersome than I'd like.

But as far as the main subject goes, I've been wanting to try a Fallout 3 style game and this seems like it might work well.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

There could also be effects that throw cards from your deck into location decks.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You're not playing PFS, but are third party books a possibility? If so, try the Talented Rogue and Talented Monk, using the combination options at the end of the Monk book. You'll have access to the maneuver feats without needing the prerequisites and you can take Flurry of Maneuvers so you can do dirty tricks as part of a full attack. It's some very nice stuff.

If that's not an option, Slayer might be your best bet to be an effective combat rogue. The Advanced Class Guide is almost here....

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

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