Wrath of the Righteous - First Thoughts


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

101 to 150 of 262 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Sure you can armor the damage. If you have two armor in your hand (one for each). That's pretty uncommon, and many characters likely won't even have one. Then, if you fail against the extra henchman it potentially summons at the end, there's a good chance someone at your location is going to lose their hand.


Andrew L Klein wrote:
Sure you can armor the damage. If you have two armor in your hand (one for each). That's pretty uncommon, and many characters likely won't even have one. Then, if you fail against the extra henchman it potentially summons at the end, there's a good chance someone at your location is going to lose their hand.

Keep in mind there are also shields and helms which could be used on both before and after combat damage (as long as it's combat damage).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Yeah, maybe it's just coming in off the end of S&S that this doesn't seem so bad - now that I've weathered things like "bury a card at the beginning and end of your turn unless you make a 10 on a d6+2" two damage just doesn't have the same fear level it used to. :)


Mechalibur wrote:

Ugh, I'm starting to regret dropping my sub after S&S.

Any Siren equivalents?

Not in the sense of a monster with a non-combat check to defeat. In fact, in the B & C decks, all monsters can be defeated with combat, though some offer other alternatives as well.

I will note this though, the highest difficulty to defeat a monster in B & C is on the one that also this lovely set of powers:

Potentially Worst Monster in B Deck wrote:

You may not play spells that have the Attack trait.

Before you act, discard the top card of your deck.
If undefeated, discard the top 2 cards of your deck.

So yeah, that won't be fun. Especially for full on casters.

There is also the Mongrel Wizard though, that carries on the tradition of the Enchanter, by dealing you Acid damage before you act and Poison damage after.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
There is also the Mongrel Wizard though, that carries on the tradition of the Enchanter, by dealing you Acid damage before you act and Poison damage after.

Boooooo


There are a lot of unforgiving banes in the B set that are making things much harder than they should. Me and my GF, running two characters each, have played 3 scenarios and so far, there has been at least 1 character in each game that had to sit out half the game because they were down to 1 or 2 cards in their deck.

For banes included in the B set, there are way too many that hand out damage like candy.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Potentially Worst Monster in B Deck wrote:

You may not play spells that have the Attack trait.

Before you act, discard the top card of your deck.
If undefeated, discard the top 2 cards of your deck.

So yeah, that won't be fun. Especially for full on casters.

There is also the Mongrel Wizard though, that carries on the tradition of the Enchanter, by dealing you Acid damage before you act and Poison damage after.

So, in my first attempt at the first scenario the other day, Enora (Arcanist) encountered the Villain on her first exploration. The villain who summons a monster for you to fight first. She summoned that monster. So, no spells. Deck discards. Combat damage.

Yeah, that was MAJOR stinkage. MAJOR. She had no deck left after her first encounter.


Now that I have encountered the barrier, I hate the barrier too.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Raynair wrote:

There are a lot of unforgiving banes in the B set that are making things much harder than they should. Me and my GF, running two characters each, have played 3 scenarios and so far, there has been at least 1 character in each game that had to sit out half the game because they were down to 1 or 2 cards in their deck.

For banes included in the B set, there are way too many that hand out damage like candy.

I'm not sure that I would be that risk-averse during the starter scenarios. I've also done the first three solo and finished two of them with three or less cards in deck.

I guess I'm not really worried about dying during the intro scenario - this is the time to "hard-test" my character. Later on I'll get more careful about when to push and when to back off.

Scarab Sages

I think I agree that Arboreal Blight is more painful than Demonic Horde, but Demonic Horde is more random and less controllable. At the very least, Arboreal Blight only has a character fight one battle.

I gave up on my Adowyn / Seelah / Enora combo, and am going to try to replace Seelah with Tarlin. Enora died, and I'm playing such that every time a character dies I'm restarting the adventure with all three. Enora's really just too weak and vulnerable at the outset to be traipsing around even with three Cure spells on two half-casters. Kyra's also not a good option, since she doesn't have an "on-demand" Cure.

Not only is Tarlin able to use the Iomedae blessings in the set, but he can take care of himself with weapons and can cure on-demand. His Divine is weak, and will need help from support cards, but he'll be able to help himself and others get out of the danger zone whenever they need it, which seems key. My goal at this point is simply to figure out a strategy to keep Enora alive in a smaller group of three; she may simply be a character that needs to be in a larger group where less is asked of her.

Also considered bringing Alahazra into the mix for her scouting ability, but she's also squishy. Sometime I might try to get a group together that uses her, though - she seems like she actually might be pretty useful in Wrath.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I play solo. 4 characters. My current group consists of Enora, Adowyn, Seelah and Kyra.

I have finished the first 2 base scenarios. So far, Enora and Kyra seem to end each session with like 3 or 4 cards in their decks. I miss Kyra's "on demand" cures. There are so many bane immunities in this set that Enora always seems to have the wrong spell in hand when exploring. And, it's amazing how much a difference it makes in checks only having a +1 Arcane instead of a +3. Fewer successful combat checks, fewer successful recharges. All which lead to a large discard pile and smaller draw deck.

I do like Adowyn's scouting ability with her wolf. I plan on taking her scout role later on (assuming she lives that long).


ryric wrote:
Ok, I'm curious - what's so bad about the tree barrier? I'm not seeing it. Sure, everyone fights a slightly obnoxious tree with 1 before and 1 after combat damage, but the damage can be armored - am I missing something?

Anything that causes you to have to fight something out of turn, and anything that causes you to take damage out of turn, reduces your ability to take your turn.

It's Zombie Horde, with each character also taking up to two damage just because.

Quote:
I've been playing solo Alain so I pretty easily get d10+2d8+2 for combat checks - is it that the 13 is tough to make for the whole group? I can see how things will get nasty later with the whole double veteran thing, but as of set 0-1 it doesn't seem too bad.

Perhaps not tough... but say you have Enora. You'll have to throw a spell and take two damage because you don't have armour; that's three cards out of your hand for your turn. If you don't have a spell to throw, you'll pro'ly have an empty hand on your turn.


I am really enjoying this set. I chose to do my solo play through with two characters. If one dies then I replace that character per the normal rules of allowing the use of the dead characters cards for initial construction, and no feats or powers.

I started with Alain and Imrijka. The first scenario yielded some excellent upgrades including a Composite Bow for Imrijka and a Quarterstaff of Vaulting for Alain. Imrijka was low on hit points by the end, but overall they never seemed to be in real danger.

That all changed in the second scenario. I figured I was in good shape with both their opening hands including above said weapons, so I sent them off solo. Turn 3 Alain gets got caught in a tangle trap after failing a 2d10 check against a 7. Without any blessings to help, he struggled in it for 4 more turns. But that was just a distraction, fretting over his failure to escape, I didn't take notice of Imrijka's excessive exploring and dwindling hp. She closes Dark Forest which forces her to recharge her hand, losing the Composite Bow. On her next turn moves and encounters a Spiked Pit Trap, which required a blessing to pass. Couldn't pass up the free explore after the Spiked Pit Trap and ran into a Carrion Golem. Immediately has to discard the top card of the deck, then I notice how low it is, five left. No blessings, she uses her Corrosive Dagger +1 for a d10+d4+2 combat roll, discards it for an addition d4 and her skill to recharge her Shortbow to add a d6. I roll, 2, 1, 2, 1. Well, I think that at least there are enought cards to draw, then I read the after effect if undefeated... Discard the top 2 cards of your deck...

Fortunately Alain was able to finish the scenario due to a lucky break that the villain was the second from the top in the last location. I chose to replace Imrijka with Adowyn, though the Composite Bow is just a fancy Shortbow with her. If Leryn proves anywhere near as useful as Donahan, they should pair together very well. Adowyn also gets to carry two cures instead of one.

At least the lesson was learned before a major set back in character progression. Can't wait to see what the next scenario brings.

Edit* Almost forgot about Temptation of Arms, evil... pure evil


I'm going to agree with Raynair on this one. Our gaming group of 4 has been through RotR and SS multiple times with a wide variety of parties and so I feel we have a pretty good grasp of the game. We tried the first Wrath adventure tonight and just got blown away. Had someone die after taking their second turn (I'm sure turning up 2 Demon Hordes before it got back around to him didn't help.)

We chalked it up to bad luck and tried some new characters and just barely made it through. I didn't feel that rush of accomplishment I usually feel when squeezing a win by a narrow margin. I just felt glad it was over. First time I've played this game and realized I was actually not having fun.

I've laughed off bad luck, bad rolls, bad location/bane combos in the other sets but wrath just keeps kicking you while you are down.

I'm going to shelf the game for the weekend and come back to it next time our group gets together but our first impression was that the difficulty got cranked up a little too much right out of the gate. I'm guessing the epic powers will help combat the epic face-stomping your average delivers to you, but we haven't got there yet!

Our group are fairly hardcore gamers but so far, wrath has been a little much for us. I'm sad because pathfinder is pretty much the reason we all get together to game.


Just wait until you get into adventure 1, the second scenario of which forces you to bury 1d4+1 cards from the top of your deck at the beginning. That would be nasty enough with five card feats... but you will have earned only one (or perhaps not, as it's from clearing the B adventure.)

1d4+1 removed from a 16 card deck means that Enora and Seoni are both subject to possible one-hit kills from Carrion Golem.

6 in hand, 5-8 in deck, 2-5 buried: 16.
Carrion Golem tosses 3 from deck if undefeated, leaving 2-5. Good night sweet princess.


Quote:
I didn't feel that rush of accomplishment I usually feel when squeezing a win by a narrow margin. I just felt glad it was over. First time I've played this game and realized I was actually not having fun..

I found this with Skull and Shackles, hence I just dropped the game for good. RotR was great fun. Sadly, too many people complained it was 'easy' (I would have used the term 'balanced'). S&S felt a bit of a mess when it came to balance - and I fully suspected things to only get worse with WotR.

This was never a game imo that should be 'punishing' - there is nothing more soul-destroying or annoying than to replay a scenario multiple times. Yes, it should be challenging - yes it should come down to the wire on a few occasions, and RNG is always going to play a role here too, but when it just feels poorly tested and trying too hard to be 'hard' then that isn't fun anymore. If I want that kind of experience, I can go play Dark Souls...

I'm a sucker for anything Egyptian themed, so Mummy's Mask might draw me back to this franchise - but if they keep upping the difficulty and introducing more and more faffy mechanics to keep track off... hmm, maybe my PACG days are over.


Klandestine wrote:


This was never a game imo that should be 'punishing' - there is nothing more soul-destroying or annoying than to replay a scenario multiple times. Yes, it should be challenging - yes it should come down to the wire on a few occasions, and RNG is always going to play a role here too, but when it just feels poorly tested and trying too hard to be 'hard' then that isn't fun anymore. If I want that kind of experience, I can go play Dark Souls...

It's funny because I feel the exact opposite. I want a difficult experience because that's the only thing that feels rewarding. When your characters were Demigods in RotR destroying everything in their path without a concern and we were finishing scenarios with almost half the blessings deck left (in a 5 player group no less) that's extremely boring.

I found S&S to be the almost perfect difficulty and if Wrath is even harder, bring it on. We have had to replay 3 scenarios in S&S and that was fine. You don't want to pass every scenario with flying colours and you don't want to fail every scenario. If you fail one scenario per adventure due to difficulty, that feels fair to me.


It was fun but it was too easy. It's not fun because it's too hard. You can't win 'em all, I guess.

Maybe there should be a difficulty mechanic, to separate the up-for-a-challenge from the casuals. But then again, any group having the fun taken out of the game because of difficulty or the lack of it should just homebrew it (which a lot of people did with RotR).

Pathfinder ACG Developer

I love difficulty sliders, but they can cause their own problems as well. Among other things, it's tricky to playtest multiple at once and get good results and some people hate being classed into one set or another or resent the implications.

I'll say, it's something that a group already does when they select characters and feats. I'd hope any group that looks at the game and goes "It's a _great_ concept, except it's too frustrating or not dangerous enough" would change things slightly.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just played it this weekend and it was a FREAKING blast! and I picked up my copy during paizocon


Sandslice wrote:

Just wait until you get into adventure 1, the second scenario of which forces you to bury 1d4+1 cards from the top of your deck at the beginning. That would be nasty enough with five card feats... but you will have earned only one (or perhaps not, as it's from clearing the B adventure.)

1d4+1 removed from a 16 card deck means that Enora and Seoni are both subject to possible one-hit kills from Carrion Golem.

6 in hand, 5-8 in deck, 2-5 buried: 16.
Carrion Golem tosses 3 from deck if undefeated, leaving 2-5. Good night sweet princess.

You think that's bad, check out Bilious Bottle. A barrier that, once drawn, sits next to the location deck -- this cannot be prevented -- and does d4+1 damage (not combat damage, so armor won't help) 50% of the time you explore there. And you can't do anything to make it go away except hope someone rolls a natural 4 on d4.

This isn't "difficult", it's just a kick in the teeth. A 100% random game-ruiner that you can't do anything about. No skill check, no blessing, no die bonuses.


This is in the Base Set, I assume? Sounds reminiscent of Storm, which in Skull & Shackles was a deck 2 barrier*. This seems harsh for the Base Set.

*I hate Storm, but so far it hasn't done us too much harm.


elcoderdude wrote:

This is in the Base Set, I assume? Sounds reminiscent of Storm, which in Skull & Shackles was a deck 2 barrier*. This seems harsh for the Base Set.

*I hate Storm, but so far it hasn't done us too much harm.

Bilious Bottle is in AD1. It affects everyone at the location when each person does their first exploration at the location... and either deals Poison or Fire damage, buries one from the top of your deck, or discards a card from hand (the last result banishing the Bottle.)

Silver Crusade

We played this weekend, and the fun was definitely threatened by the difficulty. You hit a tree when you're at the torture chamber, and you just lose your hand. We ended up implementing an "If you die, you're out for the scenario, but at the end you get back and carry on" just because that seemed the least disruptive of everyone's good time. But, then, I prefer things not too hard.


For those finding it more difficult, do you feel that you could have been more successful if you'd made different decisions, or did it feel like the results were just due to luck. I like a difficult challenge and don't mind losing a lot if I feel like I have control over the outcome and need to learn to make better decisions. However, if it feels like I just need to roll better or get luckier card flips than that becomes frustrating.

Grand Lodge

What are the promo cards for the WoR set?
I am torn because I cancelled my subscription with S&S because a few of the mechanics and theme completely killed the gameplay for my wife and I. I'm thinking about going back in, but I can't say I'm too excited about a more challenging game.

Scarab Sages

There are some instances (thinking of one scenario in particular) where it seems to come down largely to luck.

One of the unfortunate things is that the "different decisions" can sometimes be what happened at character selection. I had Enora die twice...until I pulled in Tarlin from a class deck to heal her nearly at-will. You really have to make good decisions from the outset, which can be tough when you don't know what's going to be in the rest of the set. Now she's surviving. It's a bit of a buzzkill if one finds out in deck 4 they should have made different character-building choices in decks B-3.

I'm unsure whether strategy & tactics can ultimately mitigate many of the challenges in Wrath. Maybe; maybe not. Many of the cards that might have helped with some strategies (e.g., heavy scouting with Spyglass, Augury, etc.) aren't in the set. I have a feeling the jury might be out on whether completing the AP without dying is a matter of luck or skill until the very end of deck 6.

Silver Crusade

Gandalf73 wrote:
For those finding it more difficult, do you feel that you could have been more successful if you'd made different decisions, or did it feel like the results were just due to luck. I like a difficult challenge and don't mind losing a lot if I feel like I have control over the outcome and need to learn to make better decisions. However, if it feels like I just need to roll better or get luckier card flips than that becomes frustrating.

I think part of it is just getting used to playing a new character and remembering what her powers are, and some of it is being used to playing more powerful characters in Shackles and now having weaker ones, so it feels like I'm rolling fewer dice. But we don't have blessing of the gods to duplicate the top card of the blessing deck anymore, and with the fiendish tree and the demonic horde, characters started with one or no cards in their hand a non-zero amount of the time.


My group just played through the base set adventure. No deaths, but most scenarios weren't won until there were 5 or so blessings left. Some thoughts I have:

1. At least with my group, some of the 'difficulty' of the set is due to people not re-adjusting their playstyle having gone from advanced characters to starting characters.

2. Maybe it's just because it's the base set, but boons seem really weak. It seemed there were hardly any upgrades over the basic cards people started with.

3. Things are more extreme than in previous sets. For example, of the 25 barriers that come in the base set, 9 don't do any harm at all, while the remaining 16 tend to be very vicious. Also compare locations such as the Manor House and Armory to places like the Abbatior and Torture Chamber.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Ugh, I'm starting to regret dropping my sub after S&S.
You'll find we have the solution for that problem here.

That fixed the issue, thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ilpalazo wrote:
When your characters were Demigods in RotR destroying everything in their path without a concern and we were finishing scenarios with almost half the blessings deck left (in a 5 player group no less) that's extremely boring.

Yeah, I'll agree, by the end of RotR heroes did get very OP but that was fun and rewarding in itself, feeling like you had built these characters up over time and felt attached to them.

I always sort of saw PACG as a 'role-playing' adventure with the cards becoming the GM. So in that context RotR was perfect because you always felt matched and able to take on the challenges ahead. But there was always the time factor and bad card draws which could still catch you out if you weren't planning ahead. Even with OP heroes, games still felt tense and exciting - and the search for new loot felt like much more of the focus. To that end, it was the perfect 'role-playing' adventure.

S&S felt like I was playing against a bad GM who was sniggering behind his game screen, with the sole motivation not to provide a great gaming experience for the group, but to frustrate and kill them off as soon as possible. If that was a real role-playing group, then imagine how long that campaign would last...

I dunno. Maybe I'll go back to S&S one of these days. I felt it had bigger issues than just the annoying barrier checks and difficulty - the ship mechanics were cumbersome and annoying. Just didn't float my boat. (Excuse the pun.) But I understand that people who prefer a harder challenge and don't mind replaying scenarios would probably love it more than I did.

I'm by no means a casual gamer (so don't put me in that category). I just feel the PACG started out being fun - but somewhere along the line, for me anyway, it just became frustrating instead.


Some unlucky combos are devastating. I just finished the base adventure and in the last scenario hit an Arboreal Blight in the Abattoir on turn 2, and then another in the Torture Chamber on turn 4, wiping both characters hands each time. If it wasn't so early I don't think the characters would have recovered. I was certain that I would either run out of time or both characters would die, but finished on turn 30.

I like the challenge, the risk of losing is what makes it exciting, and winning all the sweeter. I have not played S&S, it is sitting in the closet mostly due to time constraints but partially due to the seafaring theme.

Resetting your expectations for the power level of cards is important, it is easy to pass up on relatively good cards when you look at everything with a b/c on it as crap.

The aspect of having many cards deal before and after acting makes armor useful. In RotR, they filled up Seelah's hand and literally weighed her down.

Cohorts are amazingly useful. Donahan is handy, but Leryn is a game changer. And they scale with the adventure. I will certainly be sad if the character ever has to lose theirs.


I think that some increase in difficulty after RotR was needed. The problem (for me) that how it was implemented.

It seems there are more and more effects which are unavoidable or unpreventable, so tactics won't really help. Unavoidable damage, discards and 2-3 monsters pileing randomly on a full-caster etc. are simply not fun if happens more than once.

It reminds me when I played a crpg (maybe M&M X ?), and the first real boss-fight wasn't hard because the enemy tactics used or sheer power, but because it was immune or ignored 90% of all the abilities my characters had.

My opinion in short :
- if players have to use their resources better, combine powers etc. it's a good dfficulty increase
- if difficulty increse because players are denied to oppose and/or evade the dangers it's generally bad

Scarab Sages

Xexyz wrote:
2. Maybe it's just because it's the base set, but boons seem really weak. It seemed there were hardly any upgrades over the basic cards people started with.

I think this is definitely true. Certainly, it's weaker than Runelords - there's no Holy Candle, Augury, and / or Deathbane Light Crossbow +1. There are also no "stat gems" like there were in S&S. There are still upgrades (e.g., Flaming Pick +1), but they're few and far between. Certainly with spells there aren't any breakout winners (Fiery Gaze is OK, but no Augury). Some of the upgrades - like Demonhunter's Handbook - are Veteran, and therefore won't be more powerful until later on. If they're more powerful at all (if the veteran banes are more difficult at 2x the adv. deck # and your boons are all 1x ad# better).

The upgraded boons are also hard to get. One of the things I did, given the erratic nature of win conditions in Elven Entanglement (after playing it through 2-3x), was to then "play to win" in the first ten turns. If I didn't hit the villain or Vescavor Swarm within that time, I farmed it for loot and burned blessings and whatnot on loot collection. That helped improve characters' decks for the upcoming scenarios.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My group was really really really struggling through the slog of the intro scenarios, and we just decided to start the first adventure path. While we had a really close call with the first scenario, the second one felt like a breath of air.

I really just did not enjoy the intro scenario (esp since I replayed Elven Entanglement 3 times with 3 different groups) and I'm glad that I just moved on from it.

Edit: Also, did anyone else have their card deck backs printed in noticably different colors? All of my class add-on deck cards are lighter in color than my base set cards. I'm strongly considering buying sleeves because of the issue.


Mechalibur wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Ugh, I'm starting to regret dropping my sub after S&S.
You'll find we have the solution for that problem here.
That fixed the issue, thanks.

Welcome back.


Slothsy wrote:
Edit: Also, did anyone else have their card deck backs printed in noticably different colors? All of my class add-on deck cards are lighter in color than my base set cards. I'm strongly considering buying sleeves because of the issue.

I hadn't noticed, but I haven't yet gotten to play with my own set, though I've played with Calthaer's. His is sleeved. I'm contemplating not sleeving my cards this time.


Friends of mine and I have started this one tonight, and so far it was a lot of fun - we currently play as Adowyn, Alain, and Seoni.

Though we did have one death so far with a couple of very unlucky rolls made by Adowyn's player in the second scenario which caused the loss of a couple of hands in the first few turns, coupled with that player's propensity to burn through his stock of discard to explore. He plans to resurrect Adowyn again, since no-one has any feats at this point and he enjoyed the character.

We might be getting a 4th player (my partner) in for next week who's interested in taking over Seoni - would Shardra or Kyra be the best option for the make up we have?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Got to play the first five B scenarios over the weekend. We had a 4-character party consiting of Enora, Harsk, Imrijka and Kyra. We had very good success. It seemed like a very good mix.

I played Kyra and found her to be quite effective. She kept 2 Cure, 2 Offensive and 1 utility spell in her deck.Her first ability can up frequently. It was nice to be able to recharge a utility spell (one from my deck or another acquired during exploration) to make an attack that was just about equal to the currently available offensive spells. It was also nice when this situation came up to be able to use her second power too.

1st ability:

For your check to defeat a bane that has the Demon or Undead trait, you may recharge a spell (□ or
blessing) to use your Divine skill + 1d8 and add the Attack, Divine, and Magic traits.

Her second ability was super handy. It allowed her to keep using blessings to help the party without having to fear about running out of resources.

2nd ability:

When you use the above power or play a blessing that does not have the Corrupted trait on another character’s (□ or your) check to defeat, a character at your location may shuffle 1 random card from his discard pile into his deck after the check.

While not yet an exploration powerhouse, she never seemed to get more that one or two, she was vital to the party's success. She could handle most fights on her own. Her cure spells kept the party going when things got rough.


Klandestine wrote:
Ilpalazo wrote:
When your characters were Demigods in RotR destroying everything in their path without a concern and we were finishing scenarios with almost half the blessings deck left (in a 5 player group no less) that's extremely boring.

Yeah, I'll agree, by the end of RotR heroes did get very OP but that was fun and rewarding in itself, feeling like you had built these characters up over time and felt attached to them.

I always sort of saw PACG as a 'role-playing' adventure with the cards becoming the GM. So in that context RotR was perfect because you always felt matched and able to take on the challenges ahead. But there was always the time factor and bad card draws which could still catch you out if you weren't planning ahead. Even with OP heroes, games still felt tense and exciting - and the search for new loot felt like much more of the focus. To that end, it was the perfect 'role-playing' adventure.

S&S felt like I was playing against a bad GM who was sniggering behind his game screen, with the sole motivation not to provide a great gaming experience for the group, but to frustrate and kill them off as soon as possible. If that was a real role-playing group, then imagine how long that campaign would last...

I actually have the opposite feel.

The bad GM is like a piñata, handing out magic candy every time you hit his minions. To me this was RotR

Whereas S&S was a well run exciting campaign that wasn't a one trick pony (just maximize combat and you'll be fine)


Hawkmoon269 wrote:


Potentially Worst Monster in B Deck wrote:

You may not play spells that have the Attack trait.

Before you act, discard the top card of your deck.
If undefeated, discard the top 2 cards of your deck.

That doesn't sound fun. Discarding as part of the encounter is what kills characters. 1 card... OK, but not 3.

I was hoping Wrath would be more challenging in terms of failing scenarios, but nothing kills fun like a dead character. Will reserve judgment until next week.

Sovereign Court

Sure it can kill your character, but that just means your strategy needs to change, as it probably will with every adventure path. Runelords strategy (punch everything in the face) didn't work in Shackles (more secondary skills). What worked in Shackles isn't going to work here.

Requiring a different playstyle isn't a bad thing, it's what keeps every adventure path from playing the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keith Richmond wrote:

I love difficulty sliders, but they can cause their own problems as well. Among other things, it's tricky to playtest multiple at once and get good results and some people hate being classed into one set or another or resent the implications.

I'll say, it's something that a group already does when they select characters and feats. I'd hope any group that looks at the game and goes "It's a _great_ concept, except it's too frustrating or not dangerous enough" would change things slightly.

I feel like this is backwards thinking. If someone finds a game too hard, they are probably a more casual player, and are more likely to find another game. If they find the game harder, they are more hardcore, and it seems more likely they'd be the ones investing time in making changes. There's also the issue of human nature, where making something easier feels like cheating, and is generally frowned upon, whereas making something harder just shows how powerful you are.

While it's just anecdotal, you can look at the homebrew forums for evidence here. In RotR, there were at least a half-dozen threads discussing making the game more challenging. I'm not sure I saw one like that in S&S discussing reduced challenge.

I still do enjoy the game. However, I feel that if there were another game like it on the market, but with a more RotR level challenge, my group would have switched to that already.

Edit: Also, your point about difficulty sliders applies double to this. If a group resents the implication they're on 'easy mode,' how do you think they'll feel about the implication of 'I have to make this game even easier all by myself'?


I'd be interested in seeing a poll as to the general consensus of this game. I pick up my copy today, and I was extremely excited. Then I stumbled across this thread, and now I'm a bit concerned that this game is going to end up on my shelf.

I'm not a fan of games where "luck" is the deciding factor in a game's difficulty. It's as if RotR was simply a game of rolling a d6. If you rolled a 1-5 you win. Most people would say the game is far too easy. So then with S&S they changed the game so that only a 1-3 would be a win. Half the people would still think the game was easy, while half thought it was pretty difficult. Then with WotR, they decided you can only win if you roll a 1. Now most people think this game is far too difficult to be any fun.

Also, character perma-death is not a fun way to increase a game's difficulty. We might have to implement a house rule where characters can be resurrected after each scenario given how it sounds like character death has become increasingly common with this set.

I sure hope I still have fun with the game. My group plans to play tomorrow evening. We've had fun with the prior two games. Even the easiness of RotR didn't keep us from having a good time. At least in our group, having fun together is far more important than the difficulty level.


Keep in mind that, at least for me anyway, failing in the B scenarios is probably to be expected. I know that every group I played in Skull and Shackles failed a few times in the B scenario. Part of that is probably learning new characters and part of it is forgetting that, unlike the characters that just finished the previous adventure path, you don't have all those skill feats to help you out. So, I won't be surprised to fail a few times in the B scenarios while I'm discovering whether a character plays the way I think they play.


I'm picking up my copy today, so we'll see soon how my group feels about the difficulty curve. That said, since RotR, we've always had a latent expectation that if we play well, we should be able to win a scenario first play. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way, but most of the choices we make are based on that assumption-we should be able to win. It seems like that expectation may be what needs to change in WotR; maybe we should be playing to survive first, and to succeed second. Of course, whether players like that or not is a whole other matter.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

So far the only B scenario that's really kicked my behind is the one with

Spoiler:
the ghost minotaur villain. Stupid villain who needs Magic to defeat in set B! And he banishes you to a new location when you fail to defeat him. And does before combat damage if he happens to be your first explore. Yes, I know you get the loot that can grant the Magic trait to a check, but that doesn't help if it's already been used and isn't in hand. Say, the second time you meet the villain.

And the reward for that one is pretty darn lackluster - get some cards you may have put aside, or replay the scenario - I'll take the cards, thanks, even if there aren't any.


We were all set to defeat minotaur villain, had him set up in the Torture Room after closing it via the henchman. Adowyn perched on the other open location, closed it easily.

What's that? He deals combat damage if it's your first exploration? And combat damage is combat damage+d4 at this location and Kyra's hand is now wiped?

We rolled the divine check just for the fun of it, and I think she actually took him out, but lack of magic left him undefeated. We packed it in for the day, didn't even bother creating the Maze location with only like 4 turns left.


I will say that I haven't yet played WotR as my girlfriend and I are still finishing up S&S but from experience with S&S, the scenarios we found the most fun were the ones where it came down to the wire and it all hinged on a couple checks. However, there have been some scenarios where pure luck is the only way to win and that is NEVER an enjoyable experience, at least for us. A great example of this is the Free Captains Regatta. We had to play 3-4 times to finally win and it wasn't a "wow that was intense!" it was a "we finally got lucky enough to win" That scenario with 2 people is nearly 100% luck which just isn't a good time. No matter what we did and how efficient we were with turns and blessings, it was just pure luck. "Hope the ship is near the top" or "hope we shuffle it near the top" which just isn't fun.

We will be going into WotR hopeful that it isn't luck based difficulty but if it ends up that this is the case we may house rule something to help mitigate this or shelf it if it is really bad. We did have to play a lot of the B scenarios in S&S at least twice but have had relatively few failures since then. A couple close calls but not many failures (other than Free Captains Regatta). So fingers firmly crossed for a fun Adventure Path that isn't too "lucky"


Dulcee wrote:
Also, character perma-death is not a fun way to increase a game's difficulty. We might have to implement a house rule where characters can be resurrected after each scenario given how it sounds like character death has become increasingly common with this set.

My general rule is to assume a "save point" before each scenario. If the scenario goes badly, you have the option of loading the save, undoing any deaths but also resetting everyone's decks to the cards they had before the scenario.

Because yeah, if I get midway through the adventure path and lose a character, I'm /not/ starting over from the beginning. No way. And in a set as rough as this one? You'd be crazy.

101 to 150 of 262 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Wrath of the Righteous - First Thoughts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.