Picked up the Wizard class deck today - bit puzzled by something.
No wizard can ever become proficient with weapons - yet several of the weapons are +4 difficulty for non-proficient users, making them essentially useless.
Is this a typo (I.e one of the wizards should be able to take proficiency as a feat) or just an oddity?
Melindra's Mage Spy role can take Weapon Proficiency.
I think its sort of an oddity. Depending on how good the weapon is, the +4 difficulty might be better than another weapon that did not penalize for lack of proficiency.
EDIT: And apparently one of them is able to be proficient.
Melindra's Mage Spy role can take Weapon Proficiency.
Ah, role cards, that makes sense - was only looking at the character cards. Explains the level 2-4 weapons particularly, less sure about the level B ones...
Although - it's taken this long to get to the cards in actual play - the only character who can be proficient is Melindra with d4 strength, but the weapons are mostly strength, not dexterity.
There's the Force Sling at 5 (which doesn't require proficiency); but Cutlass +1 seems like a very odd choice.
It almost seems like the deck was designed to use the Weapon Finesse feat (what with the Cutlass and the Rapier), but none of the Wizards have it. The Strength-based weapons seem odd thematically, maybe I should ask Tanis about that.
It's not just the d4, Melindra can only enhance her Strength by +2 at the most.
Can't speak to why it was done that way, but with some of those strength weapons, Seltyiel would (in theory) be playable with the Wizard deck, correct? It wouldn't be legal in Guild play unless there was a reward in the future that opened it up (a la Jirelle with the Rogue deck), but those weapons do open the possibility.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Even Basic, nonmagical weapons can give a slight advantage if you use their discard powers - a d6 weapon that discards for an extra d6 is giving you a 7 on average when discarded, which makes up for the 4 point penalty.
Obviously not a good first choice but I guess a d4+2d6-4 is better than a d4 plus nothing. And if you're going to lose a combat badly anyway why not discard the weapon for even a remote chance?
Even Basic, nonmagical weapons can give a slight advantage if you use their discard powers - a d6 weapon that discards for an extra d6 is giving you a 7 on average when discarded, which makes up for the 4 point penalty.
Obviously not a good first choice but I guess a d4+2d6-4 is better than a d4 plus nothing. And if you're going to lose a combat badly anyway why not discard the weapon for even a remote chance?
Better than nothing is a pretty low bar---why are we randomly making certain characters (wizards with weapon slots) significantly worse than the same character outside of OP, where there's no shortage of crossbows/etc for whatever combination of proficient/not/str/dex you have?
Use-once-and-banish divine spells taking up precious slots in the wizard or sorcerer decks would also be 'better-than-nothing', but they'd still seem like a pretty poor design choice, given how there's hardly enough room for all the needed *useful* cards for 4 distinct characters.Either this is the planned deck for Seltyiel in OP (in which case I'd still think a better choice would have been leaving the weapons out, and having hybrid deck rules for him), or it's just a waste of deck space.
Because the alternative isn't "nothing". That weapon slot in your deck could have been taken up by another weapon that you don't have a proficiency penalty for.
The main reason to invest in weapon proficiency for Melindra is the Spellsword (the other reason is to make your Crossbows help others, I guess). Your roll is crappy (d4 + 1d8 + 2, optional discard d6). But the recharge power may be worth it.
The Sorcerer class deck doesn't seem to have this problem - all of their weapons are dexterity based.
But even if Spellsword makes sense thematically, without Weapon Finesse, the Rapier and Cutlass +1 don't.
Even Basic, nonmagical weapons can give a slight advantage if you use their discard powers - a d6 weapon that discards for an extra d6 is giving you a 7 on average when discarded, which makes up for the 4 point penalty.
Obviously not a good first choice but I guess a d4+2d6-4 is better than a d4 plus nothing. And if you're going to lose a combat badly anyway why not discard the weapon for even a remote chance?
Whilst it's not likely, d4 + 2d6 -4 could end up as low as -1 at least with a single d4 you're guaranteed a 1.
At the other end, d4 + 2d6 -4 maxes out at 12 (and that's a 1 in 140ish) chance - yes it's better than a d4, but by adventure 2 or 3, it still probably means getting your hand wiped.
I definitely feel like Melindra would make a lot more sense in this deck if she had the finesse/melee/dexterity thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Make no mistake-I'm not claiming these weapons are at all optimal. Pretty much every class deck character ends up playing with cards you would never keep in a normal game. I presume the OP scenarios are based around that difference - you do get to pick exactly the cards you want for your deck, but you end up picking from a crappier set.
MightyJim, I realize that the minimum is lower for d4+2d6-4, but really a -1 or a 1 are both going to be a hand wipe. If you're fighting something in the difficulty 9-11 range(most early monsters) rolling that lone d4 is a guaranteed 5+ damage. At least by using the weapon you have any chance at all of making the check. Neither situation is where anyone wants to be, but any chance is better than no chance. And yes, as you get to later decks the odds get worse, but by then you really should have tuned your deck so hopefully the weapon cards are just dead weight.
I also wonder if some of these less-spectacular deck lists are deliberately intended to nerf the character a bit - look at the wizard with two armor slots, no way to get proficiency, and the only Basic armor is the terrible Cloth Armor. Perhaps he is too good with a "normal" wizard deck list.
I suspect they were simply designed thematically rather than tactically. For the most part.
Agree, some of the card choices for the class decks are really odd (and poor) at times. You'd think with such a limited choice of cards that they'd be more custom for the characters in the deck. Sigh.
Having said that, as Ezren, I often trade my weapon to a character that needs it in turn 1. Non-spells ruin my cycle. So for me it's not a factor.
Someone mentioned Darago. Darago is just bad with the class deck (and probably with the base set as well). Two slots for weapons and 2 slots for armor are wasted on him, with no chance to gain proficiency in either. To add insult to injury he has bad Str and Dex. I'm not sure what the designers were thinking, but the only reason to play him is to nerf the table if you think OP is too easy. :)
Agree, some of the card choices for the class decks are really odd (and poor) at times. You'd think with such a limited choice of cards that they'd be more custom for the characters in the deck. Sigh.
Having said that, as Ezren, I often trade my weapon to a character that needs it in turn 1. Non-spells ruin my cycle. So for me it's not a factor.
Someone mentioned Darago. Darago is just bad with the class deck (and probably with the base set as well). Two slots for weapons and 2 slots for armor are wasted on him, with no chance to gain proficiency in either. To add insult to injury he has bad Str and Dex. I'm not sure what the designers were thinking, but the only reason to play him is to nerf the table if you think OP is too easy. :)
I wish there were more weapons like the Sap in both the main game and the Class Decks. Weapons (for wizards) wouldn't be so bad if they were more flexible. We've beaten the armor dead horse to a red goo, so I'll not delve into that.
If you don't remember, Sap is discard to evade a monster of difficulty 9 or less, or something very similar.
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.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
My fiancé is playing Darago, and so far we're really unsure of his effectiveness. Usually she ends up banishing both his armors and just rebuilding them back in after the scenario. She just got the "put undead in your hand" power so we'll see how that plays out.
It has been nice to have a wizard with Fortitude in these scenarios.
If you don't remember, Sap is discard to evade a monster of difficulty 9 or less, or something very similar.
9 difficulty is very low. Luckily Sap isn't 9. It's 12. (For comparison, Merfolk is one of the lowest difficulty monsters and it's an 8. Ruffians are a 7 Veteran IIRC. Zombies are a 9.)
Caltrops banish to defeat are a 9. Holy Water is a banish to defeat 10, but only for Undead.
I do like utility a lot.
ryric, I hate the whole "you must have terrible options to appreciate the good ones". I don't think every choice has to be optimal. I do think every choice should be non-detrimental. After all, it's a NPE (negative play experience) for people who pick something like that and wonder why they feel so terrible.
So, utility weapons: I think having combat maneuver style weapons from the RPG would help (A weapon that trips, for example, though my guess is that it would likely be a power feat). Or exotic weapons like the Battle Aspergillum. Some of the interesting weapon enchantments would be too (Agile - Use your Strength, Melee or Dexterity skill. Defiant - you may display this card. Until the end of turn. When resetting your hand, you don't have to draw back up to your hand size). Or exotic material weapons (Cold Iron - add 1d8 to combat checks with the Fey trait or the Demon trait.)
9 difficulty is very low. Luckily Sap isn't 9. It's 12. (For comparison, Merfolk is one of the lowest difficulty monsters and it's an 8. Ruffians are a 7 Veteran IIRC. Zombies are a 9.)
Caltrops banish to defeat are a 9. Holy Water is a banish to defeat 10, but only for Undead.
I do like utility a lot.
Ah, yes. Caltrops. Got it mixed up (although I knew it was still pretty low).
So, utility weapons: I think having combat maneuver style weapons from the RPG would help (A weapon that trips, for example, though my guess is that it would likely be a power feat). Or exotic weapons like the Battle Aspergillum. Some of the interesting weapon enchantments would be too (Agile - Use your Strength, Melee or Dexterity skill. Defiant - you may display this card. Until the end of turn. When resetting your hand, you don't have to draw back up to your hand size). Or exotic material weapons (Cold Iron - add 1d8 to combat checks with the Fey trait or the Demon trait.)
I think there's a lot of room for cards that do something outside the typical for their card type. Some weapon ideas, since that's the topic:
What about a staff with spells in it, not unlike a wand?
For your combat check, bury this card to use your Arcane skill +2d4 with the force trait.
Succeed at an Arcane 6 check to search your deck for a Force Missile Spell and add it to your hand.
This would try to imitate casting the spell more than once for free due to the weapon having the spell, like in the RPG. It would be in a later AP than whatever spell it represents, perhaps two above.
A trap, perhaps? Although it might just make a better item.
Display this card next to your location. The next time a non-Villain monster is encountered at that location by a player, that player can discard this card. If she does, she can automatically defeat the monster before she acts if its highest difficulty to defeat is not greater than d6+10.
Another idea, perhaps a spell that lets you roll your arcane skill in place of another skill when using a weapon for a turn? Perhaps it searches for that weapon, like Call weapon, to make it less situational, and buries on use, to make it less overpowered.
|
|
Staves would be cool, but not for me as suggested. It'd be more that you use it as a spell to do the same as Force Missile, or make a Strength/Melee check for combat. Or maybe give it charges for the spell. Reveal for melee, display for the spell power. While displayed, discard to use the spell again or you can use it infinitely as a melee weapon, but it still counts towards your hand size while displayed (which in game terms, would probably be to the effect of lowering your hand size by one while displayed).
Need to fight? Use magic. Can't? When in doubt, smack it in the face.
Perhaps both weapon and spell? Reveal to smacketh, and discard (with recharge check perhaps) to blasteth.
They'd still have to be higher AP or something, though, to make up for being straight up better than the cards they combine.
I think it'd really interesting generally to see a blog article from the designers about the class decks - what they wanted to do with them, what was caused by having to cover multiple characters, what was designed to prevent characters becoming over-powered, etc.
If they do a second wave of class decks in the spring, it could go with them, to show any changes.
Obviously, it'd be nice to get an answer to the specific wizard weapons issue, but I'd just be generally curious to know more about the design process.
Yeah, the thing that got me the most was the only 1 item in the cleric deck is the conch shell when none of the clerics even have perception as a trained skill. Pretty much all of the perception checks are wisdom, so it's almost always better for the cleric to just use wisdom, especially if you get blessing involved (which the cleric has a lot of). Not sure why that item was chosen for them.
Little known fact: All the clerics in the class deck have extensive sea shell collections. So thematically, it was very appropriate.
Also, the Conch Shell has another power besides just adding to your Perception check. So even though they can't use the Perception check bonus, they can use that power.
Yeah, and that's all I ever use it for, but having perception for that recharge check sure is nice.
BTW, what on earth do conch shells and perception/scouting have to do with each other?
Conchs have famously good eye sight.
No, my real guess is that the idea is you are putting it to your ear and hearing better, since perception covers all 5 senses. But we all know that for real it would make your hearing worse since you'd hear the ocean and get distracted by the beautiful sounds and totally forget to pay attention to that pirate ship coming up on your starboard bow.