Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

What would *you* change?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, you guys are suggesting that there be an official licensed turntable as an accessory, right? Oh! Or maybe an official licensed table that is the perfect size that has a turntable built right in.

(Good) joke aside, the issue with turntable is that you need a lot of room on your table if you play with 6 persons. Especially if you want to have room on the turntable to be able to display a few cards near every locations.

We tried (following your fantastic contest win), was fun and great but ultimately not practical.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

First, thanks for asking the question. Whether or not any of the ideas floated in this discussion come to fruition, it's nice to be solicited for our ideas.

With regard to B, C, and P cards, I concur that they should have an adventure deck level in addition to the set indicator. Both B and C cards would be 0, but this opens up the opportunity to have P cards of varying levels (as has been suggested above). I think that the set indicator are still necessary, especially for those players that organize their cards by those set indicator (and for things like whether or not to include the cards from the character add-on deck, etc.).

At this point, I think that the iconic characters don’t need to be included in the base sets if they’ve already appeared in one or more previous base sets. I’d actually like to see characters themed to the adventure paths replacing them (where appropriate), as we’ve seen with the likes of Drelm, Ahmotep, and Channa Ti. It looks like Paizo/Loneshark are already on this path, so there’s no need to bang the drum further.

Secondary objectives would be interesting. I don’t think much more needs to be said on that, though, as those can be incorporated as appropriate (so not necessarily in every scenario).

I have no problem with the term “invokes” and find it much better than the wordy alternative that we used to have. Yes, it takes some explaining, but perhaps the solution there is simply a better example in the rulebook. Another alternative would be for the rulebook to be expanded to include a glossary of terms in the back.

Mechanically, the size of the cards doesn’t work well for locations, scenarios, adventures, and adventure paths. Those types of cards really require more space, if for no other reason than to give more room for flavor text (player immersion). Increased size might also create room for potential penalties (see below). Of course, increasing card size becomes problematic with regard to the box size, though this might be mitigated (somewhat) by simply having these cards of a size that allows them to be stored sideways in the box (would have to work with both the base set box and the box that the adventure decks come in.

Penalties would be interesting, both for losing and for dying. Penalties should fit within the current minimal bookkeeping construct (i.e., players shouldn’t have to keep track of their starting decks). So penalties should be somewhat generic. For example (and this is just for illustration), losing a scenario might invoke a penalty of every character losing a random (non-cohort) card after rebuilding their deck; they would then be allowed to fill the slot with a card that has the Basic trait from the B and C cards. The penalty for dying might be to lose three cards (same process as losing). Alternately, each scenario might have a penalty for losing/dying (really only possible if the size of scenario cards is increased, as above, or if some sort of booklet is added with (additional?) scenario rules/lore.

As has been mentioned, the rules for rebuilding decks might be adjusted so as not to encourage “strange behavior.” I like the idea of only allowing characters to take B and C cards with the Basic trait when filling empty slots. From a roleplaying perspective, these are commonly available things, though not as effective as other (non-Basic things), so characters shouldn’t benefit as much (without being overly handicapped).

As far as product mixture goes, there has been some interesting discussion. Personally, I think that each adventure path [u]must[/u] stand alone. So yes, you should have all of the basic cards needed to play in each base set. While most serious fans of the game (which includes pretty much all of us that participate in these forums) will be willing to spend money for additional boxes/sets, there are other casual players that reasonably expect to be able to play the game with a single purchase, and that purchase should provide them with some degree of replay value. In that, I think that the current base sets are fairly good. I think that the two things that might improve the replay value of the base sets would be an increase in the number of characters (i.e., include the character add-on deck) and increase the number of scenarios (6x B and 6x 1 total). I’m not sure what that would do to the cost of the base sets, though.

I think that the “modular” concept has significant potential. For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to refer to this as “PACG Chronicles” or just “Chronicles” for the rest of this post. Where the existing base sets cover down on an adventure path, the addition of one or more Chronicles would give an entirely different way to play. This concept would have one or more Chronicles base sets that are fairly generic, though perhaps each would be themed slightly differently. These might be based on regions, as has been suggested, or on some other concepts (I’m sure that creative game designers can trawl through the rich Pathfinder setting for nifty ideas). Having just a single base set for the Chronicles would be nice, but having two or more would be huge, with each of the base sets providing a different setting. Such base sets might, as with the existing base sets, cover down on B and 1 level scenarios, and they would also have the usual range of characters. In addition, a variety of 2-6 level adventures might be released, with multiple adventures for each level (at least one adventure of each level for each of the Chronicles, but ideally two or more released over time). Instead of being a cohesive adventure path, each adventure would be stand-alone. This would allow players to start with the base set and then to choose different adventures each time through, so that each progression from B to 6 would be unique. For example, players might start with the Varisia Chronicles base set (B & 1), move on to Korvosa for adventure 2, shift back to Varisia for 3, roll into the Shackles for 4 and 5, and finish 6 in Tian. Paizo/Loneshark wouldn’t have to prescribe how players combine decks, other than describing that each game should be played with cards for B up through the adventure deck currently being played. This way players would have freedom, whether they have only one deck of each level or mix decks thematically (in the example I just gave, perhaps they only use the Tian base set and adventure decks cards when playing adventure 6, but mix others). Progression would be a little more straightforward/linear, perhaps falling in line with organized play progression (rather than the varying progressions that have been used in different adventure paths).

Something else that the Chronicles idea might allow would be side quests and individual quests. For example, I’ve been developing a solo adventure for Seltyiel. Similar adventures might be developed to allow individual characters to adventure alone in a way that gives them unique progression (my Seltyiel adventure allows a magus character to choose the Bladebound role and have a black blade). Perhaps Sajan embarks upon a side quest to find his sister, or Olenjack has to deal with some backstabbing within his shady underworld contacts, etc. Those examples might be a bit too specific – I’ve made the side quest I’m working on suitable for any magus (though it doesn’t work as well for someone like Ahmotep, who doesn’t use a sword). The point is that such side quests might target specific character types, perhaps based on a specific class, but perhaps some that are more generic (some might be for arcane casters, others might be for warriors, yet others might be nature-oriented).

I’m not a fan of the “generic henchman” card idea. Aesthetically, I’d rather have the card I flip over be the card that I’m encountering, not a proxy.

As far as the discussion about game setup goes, the circular layout that is recommended in the rulebook is sub-optimal for most groups where players have to sit around a table; but anything that doesn’t include either a lazy susan or being able to sit all players on the same side of the table and within a short distance (so maybe up to 3 players) is going to be sub-optimal. Players are going to have to resign themselves to not being able to read all of the cards as they lay on the table, requiring them to pick cards up to read them. A licensed lazy susan would be great. As discussions and pictures here on the Paizo forums and at the Board Game Geek show, lots of players have made their own lazy susans (and all rave about how useful they are). Calthaer’s is fairly representative, so there’s no need to post additional pictures to show why lazy susans are such a great accessory for the PACG.

I’ve already provided my recommendation for temporary closing (“block”/“blocked”), though I’m fine with the idea of “guard” or other similar terms. I think that “permanently close/closed” are fine as is, especially because those terms already appear on the existing location cards. There are only a handful of cards that include the “temporarily close” verbiage, so a change in terminology won’t have a significant impact (especially for those of us that might want to purchase replacement cards).

I think there are a few issues that have come up via the FAQs and errata, and those should be clarified in the rulebooks. For the most part, I think that this has been Paizo’s/Loneshark’s practice all along (hence the addition of “invokes” and similar changes to the rules wording). One area where I’d like to see different wording adopted is in those locations that have some penalty for moving, whether to or from them. The current wording occasionally creates confusion, as this discussion about the Forsaken Cloister demonstrates. Other changes might be gleaned from perusing the Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion forum.

I think that the class/character decks are also an avenue with rich opportunity for enhancing game play, but I’ve provided my input on them in this discussion.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

While working on some homebrew characters, I got reminded of one the more frustrating traits of the game – the overbearing and (perhaps unintuitively) novice-unfriendly verbosity of it all. I guess it dovetails a bit with the “codewords” arguments mentioned above, but given that Vic often maligns the lack of space on cards – I can't believe there hasn't been any middle ground to be found. What I noticed me and my group often use intuitively as a common parlance and/or in writing, without having needed it to be defined in a Rulebook is:

1) non-Attack spell, Ranged weapon, etc. = “a spell without the Attack trait”, “a weapon with the Ranged trait”, etc.

2) AD# (or AD number) = “adventure deck number”: this goes the most into “codeword” territory, but apparently a lot of newbies experience difficulties with the concept “adventure deck number”, so it's probably have to be explained better in the Rulebook anyway; alternatively, as someone suggested above – it should just morph into “scenario tier” or something for scenarios, and “card's tier” for cards, I suppose.

3) “ the skill ” qualifier seems quite redundant. In my experience, a couple of scenarios in, *everyone* grasps the concept of skills, so if they read “You may gain Knowledge: Wisdom+1” or “You may use Survival instead of...”, no one will miss the lack of “the skill” or “your … skill” respectively

4) “instead of any/the listed skill” seems totally extraneous. I admit, I may be missing a detail, but feel free to tell me – if your only read “For your check against a barrier, you may use Knowledge” - does that in any way change your perception and/or the functionality of the power?

And, of course, my favorite waste of word-space, that should totally get a 1-word abbreviation right next to “discard”, “reveal” and “recharge”:

5) Heal = “shuffle X cards from you discard pile into your deck” . I swear to Gods, I've seen people glaze over while they get to the end of that instruction...

So, just food for thought. I know you guys try to be super-exact and air-tight with your definitions, but sometimes less is more, and oddly enough – easier to internalize. You probably won't complain from the extra wording space either. The birds with one stone, and all that...


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Brother Tyler wrote:
One area where I’d like to see different wording adopted is in those locations that have some penalty for moving, whether to or from them. The current wording occasionally creates confusion, as this discussion about the Forsaken Cloister demonstrates.

This reminded me - I'd like to see "move" and "being moved" to be unified as a single "move" effect, as for all intents and purposes they're the same. With the exception of a few boon that help you prevent "being moved" effects - all other cards care that you 'move at all', regardless of the 'source' of the move.

Also, while on the subject - as the discussion in this thread indicates - it would be nice to get some consistency on the "'moving' to the same locations is not moving to or from that location" matter. This one more of those fiddly and arbitrary rules that only add up to the 'exception rules' overhead, for almost zero gameplay impact (let alone benefit).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, you guys are suggesting that there be an official licensed turntable as an accessory, right? Oh! Or maybe an official licensed table that is the perfect size that has a turntable built right in.

(Good) joke aside, the issue with turntable is that you need a lot of room on your table if you play with 6 persons. Especially if you want to have room on the turntable to be able to display a few cards near every locations.

We tried (following your fantastic contest win), was fun and great but ultimately not practical.

That's true. It solves one problem at the cost of another. I'm still committed to determining the exactly perfect table size for PACG, with a turntable.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
Being able to read location text is critical ("at this location" effects, closing requirements, etc.), but location text is easy to miss - or just plain impossible to see - because location cards are small, far away, and difficult to read.

In the games I play, the solution to this is pretty simple: when a character moves, we don't move his token to the new location—we move the location card and deck to the player. (When there are multiple characters at the same location, move the deck based on whose turn it is.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Longshot11 wrote:
This reminded me - I'd like to see "move" and "being moved" to be unified as a single "move" effect, as for all intents and purposes they're the same. With the exception of a few boon that help you prevent "being moved" effects - all other cards care that you 'move at all', regardless of the 'source' of the move.

Already done in Mummy's Mask, and in the Obsidian version of Rise of the Runelords.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Irgy wrote:
Vic's suggestion to take the "dealing damage" rule out of invoke and instead adding those traits to the individual cards seems very sensible.

I'm not saying we're doing that. In fact, I already said we decided against it before MM because the cost—errata for 3 dozen cards that work perfectly fine on their own—is too high.

Irgy wrote:
Longshot11 mentions it would affect locations saying e.g. "All damage dealt is Electricity damage", but you could simply also errata those locations to give the trait to cards as well for no change in actual behaviour.
Adding a sentence to locations is often not feasible due to space reasons. Also, increasing the number of cards that need errata is not a good indicator of a winning solution.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest you had decided to do this, was just giving you credit for what I still see as a good idea.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Irgy wrote:
...my friends still mock the phrase "adventure deck number B".
Cards have set indicators, which may be letters or adventure deck numbers. If a card's set indicator is a letter, you treat its adventure deck number as 0. "Adventure deck number B" does not actually exist as a phrase or even as a concept in the game.

The conversation generally goes like this:

"'...[the card's] adventure deck number'. How do I find the card's adventure deck number?"
"Look at the top right corner of the card"
"I don't see it"
"Show me the card ... there, where it says 'B'"
"So the adventure deck number is 'B'?"
"Yes, which means it's zero"
"Oh"

I know the phrase "adventure deck number B" doesn't really exist in the actual game rules, but it's a phrase every new player says at some point and something that still amuses us.

Don't get me wrong, the existing approach is an elegant solution in its own way, and the alternatives have their own issues, just making sure you understand the situation so you can make an informed decision.


I would love to see a more fluid story progression with more variable paths to choose from and decisions along the way, perhaps with some variation in difficulty. Maybe there are clues hidden in each location (shuffled in) which would give you an optional locations to add to the next scenario.

You don't need it to progress, but you would have to decide if further exploration into the locations is worth the time vs. the blessing deck and your remaining life.

I would love to see lingering consequences for awesome victories or harsh defeats, and a way to dig out of the bad ones and lose the good ones.

I would love to see teamwork move away from blessings. Tests are boring when the best option is to toss blessings at checks. I know this is pretty core to the game, but limiting # of blessing per check would make for more tension. Give us more reason to be at the same location and to interact more without blessings.

I think there are a few things that Arkham Horror: the Card Game is doing well (though I don't prefer it to Pathfinder). I love how you note things that happen in a log, and then those things will matter at some point in future scenarios. This could be awesome in Pathfinder too. Did you make choices or defeat certain enemies in Adv 1 or 2, then you have to now face something in Adv. 5 or add another location, or shuffle in more monsters or henchmen or a villain, or loot. This would also add more replayability within each box. The mystery is cool.

I would also like to see a running gauntlet style quest or side quest. You keep building locations until the party withdraws or is knocked out. Maybe there would be tiered rewards, possible choices in what location you choose to go to. This could be repeatable, and the party could choose when they would attempt it. This could even be a separate product that a party could attempt no matter what box they are playing out of.

Thanks for seeking input. Love the game.

Ryan


I honestly would love to see a better feeling of progression yet I know this would be difficult possibly. I have heard comments from my play group and others who play the game but not with myself, that one consistent issue they have is some of the rewards at the end of scenarios. I will have to agree that I hate HATE when you play a scenario and lets say its a four player game and you have an opportunity to get 5 total allies given the locations, or even more. But at the end of the scenario you get X amount of allies that are in a separate pile that got made or something. These scenarios I feel, and others as well, are HIGHLY underwhelming to complete, especially if the scenario its self has a lame "do this to win" or a not exciting theme to its overall play. Now my group does not want to get OVERPOWERED but would like a sense of progression when we sit down and play a few scenarios. I think the loot's for some scenarios is great though some loots, actually a good amount of them, are very underwhelming.

I know this could be difficult to change for scaling. As an idea of how it could be different or better? I do not really know. That's why I think maybe side quests, which have been mentioned, or objectives would be a great tie in. And they could be generic or specifically underlined from the scenario. Like for example, "during this scenario if you take 0 damage or kill X amount of monsters, etc. get an addition skill feat." I would think these type of things could be spread out and scaled correctly that way certain players can agree that they would like to do said Side quest because they like the reward or something.

I personally do not like how many corrections there are to cards to this game as well. as for someone who owns all sets and half the class decks I am very shocked as to how many times I had to reference the FAQ about mis-printed cards and such. I have never seen so many errors in any other board/card game.

Lastly, and this is a small thing from me personally and not the group. But I feel if you are going to print a card called "Flaming Mace +1" it should have the fire trait automatically. I shouldn't have to discard it to add it. Some weapons have this annoyance and others do not. It makes me thinking im lighting my mace on fire though the card already states FLAMING. To me its just a mace weapon with a +1. SO in general, more uniqueness to weapons and items and such. ESPECIALLY ally's. I feel like a lot of them are very generic and are my least favorite boon type. I will say the turn that boons took a turn in the right direction were blessings from wrath and mummy is a great example. They have special conditions and other little tid bit of helpfulness that made them feel unique. I know I am rambling but to wrap this up, Make weapons, or anything else that applies, have the element that it says in its name. "Generic SHocking Spear +1" should always have the electric trait. I should not have to discard to get the trait added. Also it would be cool if a "Flaming mace +1" would say "if used against a bane with the cold trait add 1D6 or 1DX to it." Same for like any other elemental weakness type of stuff.

None the less, Fantastic Game. Huge Fan, right now it is mine and my buddies go to game for Co-Op. We meet probably once or twice a week to play then our group tries for once a week or every two weeks. Keep up the great work and thanks for being a developer and such that seeks out fan opinions and such!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber

Hi all, I guess some or all of the things I thought of will have been mentioned already. In that case I just support them.

I would like to see a Beginner Base Set with generic cards to teach 1 player to play the game, the scenario's functioning as lessons in a course AP with AD #B/C/P-6).
The generic cards would be generically named: "location #1-8", "Villain", "Henchman #1-7", "Basic Monster", "Elite Monster", "Veteran Monster", "Monster", "Weapon", "Basic Spell", etc. Not very flavorful, but this is a course/pure boardgame. The AP's should come in seperate expansion decks.
The 4 included characters to choose from would be Kyra, Valeros, Merisiel and Ezren (existing or new ones).

-AP expansion decks can be added including the loot, support, villain, henchmen, monster and barrier cards for the whole AP (AD#B/C/P-6). Needed to play the AP expansion deck is a (Beginner) Base Set. Included with the AP expansion deck is a booklet with the storyline and pictures of the story cards and location cards (hence the location cards #1-8) like in the OP Seasons-PDFs. These AP expansion decks can be used with any Base Set, but are designed to complement the Beginner Base Set.
-Module decks can be added with lesser cards and an alternative storyline spanning 1 to 5 adventures, like the modules from the RPG.
-Quest decks would be a bundle of seperate scenario's #1-x, like the quests from the RPG.

-Optional AP/Module/Quest add-on expansion decks can be added to include regional weapon, spell, armor, item, ally and blessing cards. This deck would not be needed to play the AP. (This is like the face decks in the RPG)
-Optional Class Decks can be added to play with different characters and specialized equipment. This deck would not be required to play the Beginner Box, nor an AP/Module/Quest expansion deck.

-Optional weapon/spell/armor/item/ally/blessing expansion decks can be added with random cards in varying rarities.
-Optional monster/barrier expansion decks can be added with random cards in varying rarities.

-Optional difficulty deck/booklet (normal, herioic, legendary like in the pathfinder adventures app) including the restriction to only move to adjacent locations.

This way the Base Set(s) would function as a base set.

Incorporating the tier system into the AP's I think will also be nice, with new veteran cards referring to tier rather than to AD#. The old veteran cards don't need an errata for that. At home you can play tier 7 and up through multiple AP's with the same character using only veteran cards and mythic cards. You can max out the options on your character/role cards, but after that no extra feats are possible.
---
Rules tweaks I'd like to see:
All evil blessings gain the corrupted trait;
All ability +3 display spells (Stength, Speed, etc) gain: You may display this card when a character encounters a card (enables metamagic);
All checks against monsters are also combat checks (not making a wisdom check and then getting combat damage still confuses me (a little));
Not having enough cards of one type after a scenario means you'll start the next scenario with lesser health/cards (no random adding/chosing cards from the box afterwards to prevent stategically banishing cards during play, or playing scenario's that let you banish a lot of cards just to get rid of them).

These are my suggestions. I love the card game and am very excited to see what the Season of Factions' Favor will bring to the card game in the meantime :)


daddlebutt wrote:
I personally do not like how many corrections there are to cards to this game as well. as for someone who owns all sets and half the class decks I am very shocked as to how many times I had to reference the FAQ about mis-printed cards and such. I have never seen so many errors in any other board/card game.

I do sympathize, but:

-- This has improved since RotR. (I think. I did not run the numbers.)
-- At least half the errata are effectively cosmetic (fixing typos, clarifying, adding a non-essential trait -- things that don't affect gameplay).
-- The game has thousands of cards. Comparing to a game that doesn't isn't a fair comparison. An accurate comparison is Magic: The Gathering. As Vic pointed out, Magic has a constant flow of errata as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am season magic vet of 18 years and I highly disagree about the corrections. They are ORACLE changes that are changes LONG down the road. My example is that when I buy a set then see that "x" card needs to have "strength die changef to strength skill" and that's on alot of cards, in a relative sense, thats a little ridiculous. I should not have to pay or go through materials to fix cards or pieces of a product that a company has sold. Accepting that is just being a general consumer sheep. But don't get me wrong I understand typos and a few errors but there are WAY too many. And it's a minor annoyance at that.

For example I bought the rouge class deck, on wu shen, one of her roles has a power to add 2 to there checks against x (cant remember what) and it shows no check box. But in the faq it says to add it. Thats a huge deal since it affects power feat consumption. So instead of seeing it as a free buff it's actually not and my group would have never have known, or the guy playing her. I feel that's a bit unacceptable when you deliver a product. Not trying to be an ass or anything :)


As a casual player who cannot continue to afford every class deck, base set, and the adventure decks, I only own the RotRu Base with AD1-6. I loved it when the OP scenarios came out as I was able to play a new Adventure with the same cards. So I only have a couple of things to add to the conversation.

Also, I did not read everyone else's posts.

1.a. Having an alternative AD1-6 box release, 110 cards with cards ranging from 1-6 (i.e. new villians, henchmen, monsters, boons, locations, scenarios and or paths) to have a varied adventure with an old box set (specific to a particular base set).

or if necessary two 110 card box releases, AD1-3 and AD4-6 for base set (blank)

1.b. Generic AD1-6 box release, 110 cards that can be combined with any base set to have a new adventure... This is more difficult as the locations, henchmen, and villians would have to be in this expansion to make the Path cohesive across any base set.

or two 110 card box release, AD1-3 and AD4-6 for any base set.

2.a. A "booster" pack with all the released character tokens... As I cannot afford all the class decks, I can still download the character sheets for print and play. I understand I am not able to fully utilize these guys as I do not have the optimal cards, but it allows me to vary up a game.

It is like rolling a new character in a video game. It is the same game, but I am playing differently. The only problem is I would like to have a token card for each of the characters so I am not using: pennies, buttons, and the like to denote who is where.

Or if you guys were able to add this to the download section, it would be greatly appreciated.

2.b. A 110 card pack with just new boons to be swapped into another base set. For example, there are no guns in RotRu base, if I could swap some bows out for some guns, then the game FEELS different.

These new boons would be fairly generic and able to be swapped into any base set.

These are just some thoughts. Thank you for your time. I really love this game.


Codcake wrote:
The only problem is I would like to have a token card for each of the characters so I am not using: pennies, buttons, and the like to denote who is where.

You could always use mini's.


daddlebutt wrote:

I am season magic vet of 18 years and I highly disagree about the corrections. They are ORACLE changes that are changes LONG down the road. My example is that when I buy a set then see that "x" card needs to have "strength die changef to strength skill" and that's on alot of cards, in a relative sense, thats a little ridiculous. I should not have to pay or go through materials to fix cards or pieces of a product that a company has sold. Accepting that is just being a general consumer sheep. But don't get me wrong I understand typos and a few errors but there are WAY too many. And it's a minor annoyance at that.

For example I bought the rouge class deck, on wu shen, one of her roles has a power to add 2 to there checks against x (cant remember what) and it shows no check box. But in the faq it says to add it. Thats a huge deal since it affects power feat consumption. So instead of seeing it as a free buff it's actually not and my group would have never have known, or the guy playing her. I feel that's a bit unacceptable when you deliver a product. Not trying to be an ass or anything :)

I'm not following you.

I don't play Magic, but if I google Magic the Gathering Bulletins, I find many that say "this card used to say x. Now it says y" and so on. That is exactly like a huge set of PACG errata.

Other huge set of PACG errata are just clarifications, that many experienced players already understood.

A relatively small set are proofreading errors. (It's not clear if the Wu Shen change is a proofreading error, or a design change. Also not clear about the die/skill change -- I'm assuming you know that changed between RotR and S&S; there's been very few such die/skill confusions since.)


Jim Landon wrote:
Codcake wrote:
The only problem is I would like to have a token card for each of the characters so I am not using: pennies, buttons, and the like to denote who is where.
You could always use mini's.

I cannot, as I do not own mini's nor could I afford them.

Although, if the tokens were added to Drivethru as a pack for $10 or so, I could do that.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
daddlebutt wrote:

I am season magic vet of 18 years and I highly disagree about the corrections. They are ORACLE changes that are changes LONG down the road. My example is that when I buy a set then see that "x" card needs to have "strength die changef to strength skill" and that's on alot of cards, in a relative sense, thats a little ridiculous. I should not have to pay or go through materials to fix cards or pieces of a product that a company has sold. Accepting that is just being a general consumer sheep. But don't get me wrong I understand typos and a few errors but there are WAY too many. And it's a minor annoyance at that.

For example I bought the rouge class deck, on wu shen, one of her roles has a power to add 2 to there checks against x (cant remember what) and it shows no check box. But in the faq it says to add it. Thats a huge deal since it affects power feat consumption. So instead of seeing it as a free buff it's actually not and my group would have never have known, or the guy playing her. I feel that's a bit unacceptable when you deliver a product. Not trying to be an ass or anything :)

This doesn't follow. MtG does exactly the same thing. Sometimes a card is misprinted and needs errata (like the Wu Shen example). Sometimes terminology changes years down the road (comes into play -> enters the battlefield, interrupt -> instant, summon X to Creature - X, etc. are all analogous to roll your X die -> use your X skill).

Most of the errata is to clear up confusion. The philosophy here is if that something is unclear, the wording needs to be changed to make it more clear. So instead of rulings saying "treat it this way" we have rulings that say "treat is this way and change the wording so the question doesn't come up again in the future."

All the FAQ is available for free online, much like how oracle text is free online. You need not to pay anything else to view and use the updated text.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Codcake wrote:
Jim Landon wrote:
Codcake wrote:
The only problem is I would like to have a token card for each of the characters so I am not using: pennies, buttons, and the like to denote who is where.
You could always use mini's.

I cannot, as I do not own mini's nor could I afford them.

Although, if the tokens were added to Drivethru as a pack for $10 or so, I could do that.

There are the official character pawns: Society Pawns

They cover most of the characters and are even cheaper if you buy them as pdf and print them yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To skizzerz. My point is I bought rise of the rune lords and off release it had a generous helping of typoes and misprints. Tons. Alot of my friends who play magic who are part of my group wwre shocked as well. Like I had to write two handed on some weapons or give it.the magic trait. Mtg does not do that early when something is released. They do it when things change like when enters play got changed to enter the.battlefield. Im strictly talking MISTAKES, TYPOS, AND PRINTING ERROS. Not mechanic adjustments. Yes no game will be without them. My point is pacg has way too many as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel there is a lot of "die hard defense" about this subject. Even though I have had multiple players complain about this and even some of the employees.who work the.booth at gencon talk how.It's a problem


Hunga munga in mm still uses the die terminology even though its skill. Thats explained in the faq. But if it's not checked no one would know. So paizo is creating a reliance on a gaq for me every time a new set comes out. Magic does not do this. Only to explain how certain rules work. We also attuned to use skill as well so we got lucky.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't buy the comparison with MtG at all in quality control. MtG's quality control is worlds ahead of Pathfinder ACG. The sorts of errors that are quite regular in PACG are almost unheard of in MtG.

Oracle is misleading, because they've chosen to change the rules a few times and updated some cards to match, but that doesn't mean the cards weren't correct and functional when they were printed. And the difference is generally obscure corner cases not the basic function of the card. Also Oracle has a lot of helpful but not strictly necessary clarifications, whereas most PACG FAQ entries tells you to actually change the text of the card.

But MtG's budget and staffing is also an order of magnitude larger than PACG. It's not a fair comparison at all in that respect.

As far as the future goes (since that's the point of this thread), I think they've learned a lot along the way already, and as annoyed as I get about errors I'm most interested in new and interesting designs than process improvements to quality control (I have a different opinion with regards to the app but that's a story for elsewhere).

The sorts of things I think they should focus more testing on is not typos and the like particularly, but on avoiding issues like the WotR 6-player experience, and majorly dysfunctional scenarios like "Bizarre Love Triangle" (as originally printed, though even after fixed it's a nightmare for 6 players) and "Elven Entaglements" (again as originally printed, fixing Vinst goes a long way).


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I realized it when playing today.

The table on the scenario cards that gives locations should say "Characters" instead of "Players" for clarity. As it is, I could solo play 6 characters and simply use the number of locations for 1 character. But that would be cheating. Rules lawyers might argue that it wouldn't be cheating, though, since the card clearly says "players." ;)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I realized it when playing today.

The table on the scenario cards that gives locations should say "Characters" instead of "Players" for clarity. As it is, I could solo play 6 characters and simply use the number of locations for 1 character. But that would be cheating. Rules lawyers might argue that it wouldn't be cheating, though, since the card clearly says "players." ;)

We've been aware of this for a very long time, but since we can't actually *fit* the word "Characters" in that space, and we don't want to change the card's layout, we're leaving it as is.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's important to realize that there is a big philosophical difference between our approach and the M:TG approach when it comes to issuing errata.

In addition to making official wording changes, Wizards also issues "rulings" to tell you how to use a card; for an example chosen at random, see the bottom of this page. (Just for kicks, I clicked the "random card" button ten times. Five of the ten cards I looked at had at least one ruling, and one of the cards had 11 rulings.)

Our approach is that we would prefer that the cards speak for themselves as much as possible, so where they would provide a ruling, we would rather provide a resolution that changes the text.

Which is to say that if you want to properly account for the volume of clarifications Wizards has issued, you need to count their 225-page comprehensive rules document*, the current wordings of each card, and the current rulings for each card. (I am assuming that the "update bulletins" get incorporated into those three things; if I'm wrong about that, you also need the update bulletins. Assuming they still do those.) I can't speak definitively here, but I would guess that the percentage of cards they have where the current text exactly matches the original printed text, with no rulings, is going to be lower then our percentage of FAQd cards. And that's not knocking them at all—that's just the cost of maintaining complex games like these.

*The Alpha rulebook was 32 playing-card-sized pages—and that included a 2-page short story.

Lone Shark Games

4 people marked this as a favorite.

*idly eyes Vic's information from clicking on him*
'worked as Director of Computing Resources and Manager of Project Coordination; coordinated Magic: The Gathering releases from Alpha to The Dark; suggested name "Magic: The Gathering"'

I guess I'm going to have to trust you on MtG, Vic! ;)


Longshot11, a question for you. You say you want sidequests:

Longshot11 wrote:

- Side Quests: Yes, please! In the sense of, "additional objectives, that yield additional rewards" - and these, it must be stressed, should be *clearly communicated and "plannable-around" at the start of scenario*. Good Example: Wardstone Fragment (you see the Location from the get-go) and Trove of Tef-Naju (only learn about it when you meet the villain, but if you feel unprepared - you then are faced with a choice - should you *intentionally* fail the villain to get a better chance at getting the Trader?). Bad Example: that Henchman that gives Natron Fang - he's mixed up with another henchman in the location, and if you meet Henchman 2 first and close the location - buy-buy Natron Fang forever (obviously, this is for groups that don't look at Henchmen/Villains ahead of the game, so they couldn't even know there *IS* a Loot to gain before they lost it - but I have the impression a lot of groups play like that).

Also, somewhat relevant to the above Difficulties point - the 'Side Quests' are an exceelent way to let the players self-regulate their scenario difficulty, without feeling arbitrarily punished/patronized by the game.

Yet in a thread in the rules section about Muminofrah's Amusement, which sounds to me like the perfect example of a scenario with a side-quest, and one which is certainly not hidden, you express a strong dislike:

Longshot11 wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
The rules don't actually provide for replaying scenarios you won—only the ones you lose. For me, that actually sets the bar higher than usual in my book: You have as many opportunities as you need to do most everything else in the game, but you have exactly one chance to earn Muminofrah's Favor.

That's actually exactly the reason why I hated this scenario (similar to the Dragon Trader). To each their own, I guess, but in my mind, players should not be penalized for winning scenarios - it creates a very unpleasant disconnect between the main goal of the game and the short-term goal of obtaining an unique upgrade, counterpointed by a feeling of 'missing out'.

(A suiting analogy for me is a computer game that auto-saves after you complete the main objective, but then doesn't allow you to replay the mission - sticking you forever with less than 100% on the progress screen. Granted, I'm probably in the minority that would be bothered by such a thing...)

I'm not trying to "catch you out" or something here, but I do think this conflict is a good way to draw out the difference between side-quests that get a positive reaction and side-quests that get a negative reaction.

Side-quests definitely make things difficult for completionists. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing though, depending on whether they like a challenge! Personally I love the existing side-quests. Having multiple objectives add richness to a game. Even just the constant "side-quest" of deck development is a large part of what makes this game fun.

On that topic I also see "avoiding character death" (and similarly avoiding cohort death) as another constant "side-quest", and there's richness in that too which would be lost if it was removed. Of course, that's only fun up until it actually happens to someone, at which point it's just a big nuisance. Which leads people to just ignore it, or shortcut the consequences, after which the richness is lost anyway. Some penalty that's significant to avoid but which people would still be willing to accept when it happened might get the best of both worlds. For example, if you lost all of your cards and had to rebuild from basics, but kept your feat progressions, people would still strongly avoid it but might also accept it when it happens.

Some thoughts on different side-quests:
* If you're trying to recover something you've lost (like your allies getting kidnapped in one S&S scenario), you avoid giving people the option to fail the scenario in order to try again, since doing so only makes it worse. This also gives a "consequence of failure", which people have asked for (though I have my reservations about that). Another similar example is banes with a deck-damaging consequence of failure, since avoiding that consequence is like a side-quest as well.
* Hidden side-quests are disappointing to miss, but also great fun to discover. It's hard to have one without the other.
* Side-quests that depend on finding a particular henchman, (whether a hidden quest or not), are frustrating in that you have no control over which location they're shuffled into, and it's ultimately just random chance whether they're one of the henchman you find before the scenario ends or not.
* I think they work the best when the reward is not so big that you'd restart the scenario to get it. Of course it depends on how OCD/completionist you are, but you can cater to ordinary people at least.
* I think there's a lot more possibilities than what's been done so far. I'd also suggest looking at the various "legacy" games for ideas. I'm not a fan of the whole non-replayability aspect (I've enjoyed getting a lot of replay value from my pathfinder boxes), but there's lots of opportunities for things that impact future adventures which aren't just having or not having certain cards.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Irgy wrote:
Longshot11, a question for you. You say you want sidequests...Yet in a thread in the rules section about Muminofrah's Amusement, which sounds to me like the perfect example of a scenario with a side-quest, and one which is certainly not hidden, you express a strong dislike...I'm not trying to "catch you out" or something here, but I do think this conflict is a good way to draw out the difference between side-quests that get a positive reaction and side-quests that get a negative reaction.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the question? :)

If you just mean I'm contradicting myself - I'll just say "being visible" is not the only thing I want from my side-quests (and pretty much every person would probably have their own likes/dislikes, so I don't particularly envy Lone Shark's position). My specific gripe with the Charioteers was that you could 'accidentally win' (flipping Finish Line while being in a losing position), therefore permanently locking yourself out of Muminophrah's Favor. (I realize you could just throw the scenario when there are 5 cards left in the location deck - but that's ONLY if you actually read the Villain beforehand! - which, in my admittedly limited pool of observation, is rather the exception then the rule).

I believe it all boils down to the 'no replay' rule. It's one of those 'policing' rules I have a particular dislike for, in the sense that I think it could just be left as a suggestion ("Hey, the game is balanced around no replays, but if that's your speed - just go ahead and do it, whatever"), or even structured as an alternative/permissive rule ("If you win a scenario, you may chose not to gain its reward; then you have to replay the scenario instead of advancing to the next one") - or something of the sort.
Let's face it - given most play groups need to appoint a game night, to gather all the people, and then to setup and play the game - replaying a whole scenario is usually a drawback enough. If some players *want* to replay just to grind boons - let them, I say, who cares? I'm sure most of the people on this forum would NOT do it, even if permitted, because they like a challenge and that's how they have fun. Now, if there's another group of people that would have their fun by more lax rules - that's a win in my book.

It my personal philosophy (and it's not shared by all, I realize) that a game's rules should be player-inclusive rather than exclusive when possible, and accommodate as many play styles as they can, without sacrificing the game integrity (here lies the tricky balance, I suppose). Think, for example, of a computer game, where depending on your level of proficiency you may customize a ton of Gameplay Options - No HUD, No Sights, different Pause options in the old-school RPS, no random HP on level up... The opposite side of the spectrum to me feels like buying a LEGO set that says "You're ONLY allowed to build castles!"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

OK, just as a reaction to that thread (initiated as usual by the very good remarks of Elcoderdude, Longshoot, Hawk...)

Differentiating what is and what isn't a power on a card should be made obvious.

I know Hawk advocates for the return of the "recharge box" type of separation but I feel it takes up too many space on the card and may force Mike and Vic to discard future good ideas for lack of text room (we've crossed that path before).

So...

Why not just put some kind of tiny "this is a power" icon before any power paragraph. And thus any paragraph without an icon would clearly be recognized as an instruction rather than a power.

Also it would make it obvious at a glance how many powers (=icons) that card can let you select from when playing it.

So I see multiple benefits. IMHO.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I agree with you frencois, but Vic already told us icons won't become a thing.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
The fact is Vic/Mike have expressly stated they don't want to go the Magic way of "codewords" - I believe the argument was they don't want novice player interrupting their game by constantly having to check with the Rulebook what each 'codeword' means (and also incurring an ever-growing learning overhead when each set introduces new 'codewords'). For me, as an experienced player, that's not ideal, but I can see their point.
This is still true. Same with icons. And regarding color-coding, given that a significant number of people have some form of color-blindness, it's really quite difficult to distinctly color-code 13 different things; realistically, it maxes out around 7.

Given that icons are out of the question, I'd say a box as suggested by hawkmoon would be the best solution. I don't think it takes actually space away - without a box, they'd use a clear line between paragraphs, so the separating line is gone anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bit late to the party, but here goes.

bit of background: picked up RotR in Mar/Apr time 2014. loved it - played it a lot - had probably been all the way through Runelords 3 or 4 times by the end of the year, and was up to date with Skull & Shackles (don't have precise numbers).
2015 - played 265 games of Pathfinder: finished Skull &Shackles, re-played Runelords, did a complete Season of the Shackles, and took 2 groups through Wrath, although the 6-character group gave up without ever attempting Adv 6.
2016 - played 81 games of Pathfinder (includes the digital version). Haven't even thought about going back to Wrath, but played bits of Runelords and Skull again.
Up until the release of Mummy's Mask, we had every non-promo card made for the game. Only got Mummy's Mask belatedly, and are only an adventure or 2 in. (18 sessions so far in 2017). We plan on playing the whole thing eventually, and will doubtless have caught up by the time of AP5.
So, speaking as a big fan of the game and a heavily invested customer whose enthusiasm has been waning, I'd want to say...
[edit - this got very long, so i've tried to divide it into distribution and game-based thoughts.

1 - boxes
Story Yes! Please! more story! - something like the fan-made guides we've had up until now, but included in the box.

Generic cards It's so depressing to open a new box and discover i own 80-90% of what's in it. I don't need more daggers or short-swords. I get why they have to be included in every class deck, but a system that prevents that for the future is needed.

I'd love to see a Generic box that provided all those cards and could be combined with AP-specific boxes that provided the adventure guide booklet, the non-generic locations/henchmen/characters, and every needed just for that AP. It would be even better if you could make a guide for people who already own a few APs to assemble this base from their existing cards / a drive-thru pack to top up what they'd be missing, but I realise that this may be over-optimistic.

I can see why other people weren't fans, but I'd definitely be in favour of 8 "summon the Henchman" cards in the base box, and 1 copy of each actual henchman card in the AP box.

I liked the idea on an earlier page of a theme-y box - not needed to play an AP, but could be combined with base box+AP box to give a stronger feeler of a particular environment.

If the Afghanistan principle is an issue for this 2-box approach, they could always be bundled - Buy a core box with an AP box inside it (like how Adv 1 comes inside an AP), but also sold separately for people who don't need both. Based on exactly zero game-publishing experience, it feels like this would be doable with no change in card-contents and only minimal change in packaging [an AP box has the same packaging whether it's loose on a shelf, or inside a Core box, Core box just has a big green banner saying "requires an AP" or "AP inside" etc].

Linked to all of these - please, please re-design the box insert. I sleeve my cards, and the insert is worse than useless past about AP 3 or 4 - the spaces aren't big enough, and there's loads of other space wasted. Outside of North America, things like a broken token organiser aren't always options, and i no longer have the time to hand-make my own custom foam-board inserts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And more from the mechanic-y side.

I’ll say it again – more story please If I think about one of the reasons I’m more likely to pick up Arkham LCG these days than Pathfinder, the quality of the narrative has a lot to do with it. As someone has already said, the version of the story we get is probably a nice reminder for people who’ve played the AP, but for anyone else, all it’ll really do is to spoil the twists.
Tide in to this, I’ve always found the flavour text on the Adventure cards a bit odd, as it feels like it ought to be read at the start of the Adventure, but sometimes contains spoilers for things that happen in the middle.

I think a scenario booklet is probably the way forward. Aside from allowing better immersion in the theme, it would mean that scenarios could be a bit more involved, without turning into walls of tiny text.

Secondary goals people have talked about this a lot, and it really seems like a good idea – I’m not sure how it would be best handled, but something that allows for variation on the standard “just keep exploring until you get the villain” structure, without feeling contrived, game-y, and dependant on sheer dumb luck like Bizarre Love Triangle or Toll of the Bell.
+1 to the comments people have made about encouraging greater levels of interaction. Unless you’re Lem or Valeros, it feels like everyone just ignores each other until they get damaged and start shouting for a healer. Things to alter that would be good.

Keep going with refinements to terminology. Yes, invokes feels a little odd after 3 APs without it, but is probably the best option – I’ve had players try to argue that an Enchanter can’t damage them after the encounter, because after the encounter the enchanter is gone. I know that’s not right, but having “after you act” instead of “after the encounter” just makes life easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A final thought
Part of me wonders what the ultimate shelf-life of Pathfinder is. Pathfinder RPG can churn out AP after AP with basically the same mechanics, because the rules are there to facilitate a story. Pathfinder ACG leans so much more heavily on the mechanic that the similarities stand out that bit more. Even if it’s the start of a new AP, and I’m still making the point of reading the flavour text on each location before each game (this invariably fades as we re-play scenarios/encounter the same places again), it really doesn’t take long to get into “right, this location needs wisdom to close, so let’s send the cleric there” “this one’s full of monsters, let’s send the fighter” “this one seems fairly inoffensive, let’s send the support character who looked cool, but can’t handle combat until she has at least 3 feats” – ready, set, explore.

I don’t want to be all doom and gloom, but I wonder, if Mike, Vic et al. are trying to come up with a solution that will appeal to people who own 4 APs, appeal to people who own 1 or 2, AND draw in brand-new customers, I wonder whether there really is a solution that fits everyone.
I hope there is. I’d really like it if this game could re-capture my imagination, and I want to still be around for a Far-East-style AP (Jade Regent?) or when somebody finally figures out how to do the Russian AP that wanders off into the World War, but I think we probably need to be mindful that the best solution for Paizo may not be the best solution for the people on these boards.


Done. I'll be quiet for a while now. I promise.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
MightyJim wrote:
although the 6-character group gave up without ever attempting Adv 6.

For whatever reason - this reminded me: find a way to make Constitution and Fortitude skill useful in any way at all. I would guess maybe S&S had a few more Const barriers (can't remember really), but other than that - "being good at getting armors" is not the best ghero's claim to fame. So, we know a binch of banes want a BYA Dex/Acro checks, and a few out there go for Wis/Perseption, to make you prevent damage or other nasty stuff; maybe you could diversify a bit with COn checks (I know they'd be supposed to reflect an RPG's Fortitude save; oddly enough, these seem to be almost completely lacking)(And yeah, I realized - the quote above reminded of this because I remembered how cheap unavoidable BYA damage feels...)

MightyJim wrote:
Generic cards It's so depressing to open a new box and discover i own 80-90% of what's in it.

TBH, Lone Shark seem to have gotten a similar idea - there's only a handful of cards in the base MM that are copies (Flame Strike, Fiery Glare, Viper Strike, Crowbar, Trapped Locker, Ghoul, Blasphemous Priest... could that be it?). Of course, a lot of new cards turned out to be crappy, even compared to RotR (Basic spells that hit for 1d6 instead of 2d4, Ranged weapons that hit for 1d4...), but credit where it's due - items like Compass and History Manual really made me want to have more item slots.

At any rate, I do see the merit of the Generic Box idea - I can actually imagine that future AP boxes (if sold separately) could just have a leaflet that lists:
"Before you start the first scenario, mix into the box:
20 Basic items
32 Basic allies
28 Basic monsters
12 Elite monsters..."
So basically, the "AP box" would only have Elite or better cards to relate the AP flavor, while all those Basic copies would be left to the player to fill in to his heart's content (so maybe they only have WotR and pull basics from there, or they buy the Generic box).

(Of course, this still heavily damages the flavor of the game for me, so it doesn't really make me want the 'modular approach')

MightyJim wrote:
Secondary goals

I've alway found it odd that the game doesn't care how many locations you managed to close permanently before winning. So, I'd like to see something that remedies that, ether as occasional bonus goal, or as a permanent rule.

Also, maybe something like the Pathfinder Adventures "wildcards", but actually given a positive spin - like "Defeat at least half the Henchmen", or "Acquire X boons", or "Close at least 80% of locations"...

MightyJim wrote:
+1 to the comments people have made about encouraging greater levels of interaction.

Along those lines, I've been thinking that maybe all characters should have some party-assist powers, at least on Role level, but I realize this may not be thematically sound for some of them (hi, Merisiel!)

I guess what most people imagine is more along the lines of new Rulebook-level rules, like "You may bury 2 random cards from your hand, to allow another character to recharge a card from their discard", or "During an encounter, you may discard any 1 card to ad 1d4 to another character's check"...?
Personally, I'm mostly fine with current level of interaction, but I can see how something interesting could be created in that space, that would actually make even Blessing-less players pay attention what happens in other players' turns.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The things that I would love to see is a different selling strategy. Luke having a base game that actually is a base game for the whole line. Instead of having each adventure deck come out to enhance and expand the set you can do a much smaller set that is only pertaining to the current adventure path. So think 1 big box for all the common and regular equipment you'd find lying around and then another 1, 2 or more smaller boxes that would enhance the base to make it adventure path specific.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Doppelschwert wrote:
I agree with you frencois, but Vic already told us icons won't become a thing.

I shouldn't have used the word icon but rather bullet.

I don't want to introduce a set of icons or codenames for the exact reason you gave (not having to go back to rules to get what it means).
Just a single unique non meaningful bullet tagging powers.

I don't think the "no icon" rule applies.


Frencois wrote:
Doppelschwert wrote:
I agree with you frencois, but Vic already told us icons won't become a thing.

I shouldn't have used the word icon but rather bullet.

I don't want to introduce a set of icons or codenames for the exact reason you gave (not having to go back to rules to get what it means).
Just a single unique non meaningful bullet tagging powers.

I don't think the "no icon" rule applies.

I think that idea is worth considering. In other words, put some kind of indicator on the card to designate that this <here> is a power. Anything without the indicator, isn't a power.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If 95% of the paragraphs on cards are powers, wouldn't it make more sense to indicate which things are *not* powers?

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Vic Wertz wrote:
If 95% of the paragraphs on cards are powers, wouldn't it make more sense to indicate which things are *not* powers?

Agreed.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
If 95% of the paragraphs on cards are powers, wouldn't it make more sense to indicate which things are *not* powers?

Works too.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I browse these forums maybe once a quarter so hopefully I’m not too late to the party. Background info on our PACG group:
1) There are 5 of us
2) We are all in our 40’s
3) We have all been friends since middle school
4) We are all experienced RPGers (both as a PC and DM)

I mention the above because it provides some context as to what issues we might (or might not) see. First I’ll start with some ideas that I’ve seen thus far and would like to endorse.

Penalties for Failure – Yes yes please yes! I believe I posted an idea about this maybe 2 ago. In an RPG or story, if you have objective A and you do not accomplish it, this significantly alters objective B (in route, difficulty, both, etc.). Currently, it seems as the only cost of failure is the time spent playing the scenario and even then, we got some cool stuff so no big deal. Failing a scenario is more of a meh rather than instill a sense of urgency or impending doom for what lies ahead now that you screwed this up.

More Story – The only exposure to Pathfinder our group has is from this card game. Sometimes we will dig around online to try and find a PDF or additional material during a campaign because it offers so much insight as to some of the cards we’re playing with. Not only characters but locations, weapons, items, etc… I posted a while back complaining that a MM “key” card didn’t have the correct power but it was pointed out that in the story, the “key” was not actually a key but a holy symbol, the power made much more sense after knowing this. Including additional story content in the box, or as a printable / downloadable section of the website, would be fantastic.

Side Quests / Secondary Objectives – We’ve always tossed around ideas on how to make the game a little less linear (penalties for failure mentioned above works into this as well). This could be a great area for those lost loot cards and could even be for temporary rewards (Using MM as an example, if a side-quest was completed, then all merchants have +1 cards of their type after this scenario only).

Merchants / Vendors – from the MM set, this is a fantastic mechanic. We actually had a house version of this for all of the previous box sets. We didn’t like having access to so many cards when rebuilding a deck so we had a trade value to get basics, and later elites, only (much like a particular merchant in MM, one of the markets I believe). I hope this mechanic will continue throughout future sets.

Some things I’d like to see improved or disagree with:

1) Temporary closing has been mentioned before but our group has always temporary “blocked” a location when someone encounters the villain first. Long ago we never really knew the correct order but just figured that made the most sense. Experimenting with the order can ultimately change the strategy either way but we thought by handling locations first it was less prone to manipulation (if this is now a clear rule then apologies).

2) Maybe a better QA/QC process for cards. Hopefully this won’t come across as being too OCD or nit-picky but there have been errors on cards (like a weapon not having a certain damage type) that are really significant errors which should have been noticed before printing (more leniency in RotR, but not by now). New players may never know there is an FAQ with card rulings/updates for each box set and sometimes we even forget to look.

3) Removing Locations Once Closed – I would not like to see this happen in PACG. Having closed locations are great to generate lasting effects for a scenario, offer a place of reprieve or regroup yet still pose some risk (monsters or barriers that affect all locations for example). A closed location is generally safe, however nothing is for certain …this is a great thing in my opinion.

I’ll try and come up with a few more thoughts as the weekend progresses…


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Micronian wrote:
1) Temporary closing has been mentioned before but our group has always temporary “blocked” a location when someone encounters the villain first. Long ago we never really knew the correct order but just figured that made the most sense. Experimenting with the order can ultimately change the strategy either way but we thought by handling locations first it was less prone to manipulation (if this is now a clear rule then apologies).

See page 16 for the villain encounter sequence. In order, it is:

1. Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations
2. Encounter the Villain
3. If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain's Location
4. Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes
5. If the Villain Has Nowhere to Escape, You Win!

Temp closes always happen before encountering the villain, so it happens before any "when you encounter" effects, before you can evade it, etc.

Micronian wrote:
3) Removing Locations Once Closed – I would not like to see this happen in PACG. Having closed locations are great to generate lasting effects for a scenario, offer a place of reprieve or regroup yet still pose some risk (monsters or barriers that affect all locations for example). A closed location is generally safe, however nothing is for certain …this is a great thing in my opinion.

One scenario in organized play (perhaps more, but I've only played one that I recall) banish locations once closed and only had one location that the party could be at (moving wasn't allowed and everyone started at the same place). It was a slog but also an interesting twist. Not something I'd want to see become standard though.


+1 to the use of the term "blocking" to describe temporarily closing.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:

See page 16 for the villain encounter sequence. In order, it is:
1. Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations
2. Encounter the Villain
3. If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain's Location
4. Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes
5. If the Villain Has Nowhere to Escape, You Win!

Glad to know we've been doing it right, thanks for the clarification.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Class Deck, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The whole closing section could do with some pretty serious rewriting.

I've only recently had the opportunity to play the ACG on a regular basis; most of the time since season 0 the best I could manage was the occasional table at a convention, or demo/AD1 adventures in our game stores explaining the whole concept to people who'd never played the card game before.

Lately I've been able to play more regularly (and even to play with some experienced players), and had to look a little more closely at situations where I feel as though I've stepped into some looking glass reality.

The first impossible fact we're asked to believe is that although the rulebook talks about temporarily closing a location, and goes so far as to explain that the location re-opens after the encounter, the location is not, in fact, actually closed during the encounter!

As if that isn't enough, we also have sections of the rules which describe what is to happen "Before closing", but which only come into play after the events in the "When closing" section have taken place.

It's almost as if Humpty Dumpty was writing the rules, and the single term "Closing" is used to mean three different things - players have to know just which is intended each time the word is used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only person who opposes penalties for failing a scenario? I'd argue against it, for a number of different reasons.

- Avoiding penalties would be an interesting challenge for experienced players, but would be a complete downer for new players. It might even turn some new players off from the game.

- Certain scenarios just don't scale well. Some are almost mathematically unwinnable with 5-6 players, for example, and (to me) it doesn't makes sense that larger groups would be more likely to be penalized than others.

Interesting fact: I'm the only experienced player in a new 5p Mummy's Mask campaign, and the only reason that we've won any of the scenarios (we've played 6-7 so far) is that I've added one extra blessing per player to the Blessings deck - for a total of 35. Each scenario has been won in the final five blessings, in other words. New players just aren't very efficient, for lots of different reasons. They don't understand the subtleties of their character powers, they don't cooperate very well, they haven't developed effective closing strategies, they don't pay close attention to location effects, they don't always make optimal deck-building decisions, etc.

- We've lost games due to unavoidable bad luck (e.g., the villain and every henchmen near the bottom of every location deck). Should I be penalized when this occurs?

- We've lost games due to rules issues with certain scenarios. I.e., we neglected to consult the FAQ before certain scenarios and learned - after the fact - that we made a common rules assumption that hurt our chances at winning.

What this all boils down to is that - unless the scenarios are crystal clear, well-balanced for all player counts, and fair for both new and experienced players - adding penalties for scenario failures isn't necessarily a good idea. But it depends on the nature of the penalties, I suppose.


You raise an interesting point re: difficulty; I agree that increased difficulty as a penalty for failure is problematic as you don't want new players repeatedly failing, thereby making what follows even more difficult until the whole thing becomes unplayable; that said, it would be nice if there was *some* mechanism for making the game more challenging.

When my group first started we failed a number of missions, some more than once, and had a party member die and need to be replaced over the first dozen or so missions - and while partly that's because it was Wrath (which is notoriously challenging in the early decks), its mostly because we didn't know what we were doing. Whereas now that we've been playing for ~2 years, we very rarely fail, and we *never* die. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time we failed a mission. So while I think the initial difficulty level is appropriate, it would be nice if there was a harder difficulty level for more experienced players.

I can think of a couple of ways this could be implemented.
* Scenario setup can have options for multiple difficulty levels - i.e., there's an extra scenario effect, or alternate henchmen, or an extra location, or whatever that can optionally be played with to make the adventure harder.
* Optional objectives. Ideally these would have at least some reward, but one that's insufficient to offset the extra challenge of obtaining them, even over the long run.
* Non-linear adventure paths. i.e., to move forward you need to complete a dungeon, but you can choose between the easy dungeon and the hard dungeon - two different scenarios with different parameters, one of which is much harder than the other.

Not sure how this would all fit together from a narrative perspective, but it would be interesting to have the option of tuning the game such that even experienced players need to pay attention and play carefully if they want to win (or even survive).


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

In Arkham horro Lcg the situation in handled so that you normally get more XP if you fail to compensate other handicaps that you may get by losing. Some scenarios Are even easier if you did poorly earlier and harder if you have been storming perfectly. But that requires that each scenario has multible endings and none of them stop the game. Just make the characters more insane or something similar.
This is just an example that it is possible to maintain some balance even if you punish from losing the scenario. It just have to be taken in the consideration when making scenarios and adventures.

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / What would *you* change? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.