Think Different: A Look at Some Changes to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Apologies in advance, as this blog entry is going to get a bit arcane. No, I don't mean it's not rechargeable by a Divine spellcaster—I mean this article is meant for Pathfinder Adventure Card Game rules enthusiasts. I'm going to define the differences between the PACG rules a year ago and the ones we have now, possibly in excruciating detail. You've been warned.

When we set out to design the new Skull & Shackles sets and the Class Decks, we had heard many players pointing out ways our game could improve. We were faced with a fork in the road. Choosing Path One meant leaving everything alone and forging ahead with what we had created as is. That was the path of least resistance, requiring very little explanation, but keeping in place some things that were confusing about our game. Choosing Path Two required us to change those things and explain them in a blog like this one. I think you folks are good enough pathfinders that you know which one we picked.

So, yeah, some things are going to look a little different from now on. These are not the kinds of things we're going to issue errata for; everything works pretty much the same as it did in Rise of the Runelords. But the new cards will look just a bit different. Here are some of the highlights.

To start out, let's look at two versions of the weapon Longbow: the first one is from Rise of the Runelords, and the second is from the Ranger Class Deck.

There are some minor differences here. The first is the replacement of the phrase "roll your Dexterity or Ranged die" with "use your Dexterity or Ranged skill." In Skull & Shackles, "skill" always refers to your base die (say, a d8) plus any skill feats or bonuses you might have. If Harsk is using the Longbow with Ranged: Dexterity d8+2, and he has two +1 skill feats in Dexterity, his Ranged skill is d8+4. The concept of the "unmodified" die is also gone: when we say "die" now, we always mean just the die. So if Harsk is using the Longbow, and he has Strength: d6 and one +1 skill feat in Strength, adding the Strength die to his Ranged skill means he adds the d6 and ignores the feat, just as before. The wording is more specific, but the math hasn't changed at all.

A subtler change on the card is replacing the word "a" with "any" in the last power. This makes it a bit more clear that it applies to checks other than your own.

Okay, now for a couple of spells. Here's the Runelords version of Force Missile and the new one from the Wizard Class Deck.

There are two big changes here. Most visibly, the recharge box is gone. Players seemed to get confused by the recharge box, including figuring out when to apply that power, so we built the recharge power into the powers box. With luck, people won't be baffled by that any more.

Reading the text, you'll note that the power no longer tells you to apply the Force trait. That's because this rule is clearly stated in the rulebook:

Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one. As part of this action, you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use. When you play a card that does this, add that card's traits to the check.

So Force Missile still adds the Force trait to your combat check (along with the Magic, Arcane, Attack, and Basic traits)—it just doesn't spell it out in a way that suggests it's somehow different from those other traits.

Now let's compare two scary ladies: the Hook Mountain Hag from "The Hook Mountain Massacre" and the Sea Hag from the Skull & Shackles Base Set.

In Runelords, things that happened "before the encounter" really happened during the encounter, after you had a chance to evade the card. In Skull & Shackles, there’s a new step called "acting," which includes everything that happens after you choose not to evade a card up until the encounter is resolved. Things can happen before you act, while you act, and after you act. Here’s the rulebook text on the "before you act" step.

Apply Any Effects That Happen Before You Act. If any powers on the card you're encountering happen before you act, they take effect at this time. You may also use powers or cards that state they can be used before you act.

Another change here is replacing the phrase "spells with the Attack trait" with "spells that have the Attack trait." The meaning of "with" was not clear enough: did it mean you couldn't play a spell that itself had the Attack trait, or did it mean you couldn't play a spell in conjunction with any card that gave the Attack trait to the check? The new wording makes it clear that the intent is the former.

A side note on henchman cards: The rule about henchmen automatically allowing you to close a location after you defeat one is gone from the rulebook. If a henchman allows you to close the location when it's defeated, it says so in its power; if not, it doesn't. (I expect you won't like the ones that don't. They're called Curses, and we'll leave them for another day.)

Here are two boons: the ally Jakardros Sovark from "The Hook Mountain Massacre" and the item Ring of the Beasts from "The Wormwood Mutiny".

In Runelords, you'd occasionally see a card that helped a combat check "against" a monster. That term "against" was never defined, but it benefited from some definition, because it could also apply to checks of other sorts. Now, the new phrase "check against a card" applies to any check the card mandates. The rule is:

If a card refers to a check against another card, that refers to any check required by that card, whether it's a check to defeat, a check to acquire, a check to recharge, or any other check.

Here's the Collapsed Ceiling, a card I kinda wish we didn't put in Runelords, because it needed rules support that the game did not provide. That's been solved, so you'll see a lot of cards like Goose in the Rigging from "The Wormwood Mutiny".

It was frustrating not to be able to answer all the questions associated with Collapsed Ceiling. For example, it wasn't clear what happened when you had two faceup cards on the deck or when something suggested you shuffle one of them into the deck. The Skull & Shackles rules now tell you how to handle cards like this.

Faceup Cards: Sometimes a card is left faceup on the top of the location deck (for example, most barriers with the Task trait work this way). The card is still in the deck, but it can only be shuffled into the deck when the condition that caused it to be left faceup on the deck has been resolved. If such a card tells you that you must encounter it on your first exploration on a turn, then after that exploration, ignore it for the purpose of additional explorations that turn; however, it still counts as the top card of the deck for any other purpose. If multiple cards are left faceup on the same deck, you may place them in any order and encounter them in that order.

Finally, let's look at one of the most bizarre cards in Runelords: the Runeforged Weapons loot card from "Sins of the Saviors".

You see that word SPECIAL? You see it twice on the card? Protip: That's a sign that a game designer hasn't made up his mind what he's doing. This card quite honestly had no idea what it was. That's because we designed it before we had the rules tech to make it work. But now we do. If Skull & Shackles had existed before Runelords, Runeforged Weapons would certainly have been a support card. Support cards are a new type of card that's neither bane nor boon. We talked about them in our last Skull & Shackles preview; basically, their job is to sit on the table and affect the game. This is what Runeforged Weapons might look like if it was issued today.

We've also made a number of less obvious changes to the rulebook—reorganizing things and rewriting things—that make it clearer and easier to use than the Rise of the Runelords rulebook. We recommend that you use it as your main rules reference even if you're still playing Rise of the Runelords—just ignore all that stuff about ships.

Download the Skull & Shackles Rulebook PDF here!(6.2 MB zip/PDF)

Mike Selinker
Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Adventure Card Guild Class Decks Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Skull & Shackles
51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Casey Weston wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Check out spell Magic Weapon on page 24 of the rulebook. Now there is a way to get the Magic trait to some combat checks. Pretty cool. And it is in some suggested deck lists so it must be basic as well.
I was under the impression Rise of the Runelords had several ways to give combat checks the Magic trait, apart from Magic weapons.
Sure. But I believe it was very rare to add the Magic trait to a check using a non-magical weapon; which is what I believe Hawkmoon is referring to. Off the top of my head, Kyra could do it against undead, and I think there may have been a late-deck ally that did that. The Magic Weapon spell is basic, though.

Other than Kyra, Seelah, Elven Archer, and technically Amulet of Mighty/Fiery Fists*, I don't think there were any other ways to add the Magic trait to the check other than the card you played to determine which skill you were using.

Fiery Weapon, for comparison with Magic Weapon, adds the Fire trait, but not the Magic trait.

*In practice, I think most people treat the Amulet of Mighty/Fiery Fists as as card that determines the skill, even though it doesn't. But obviously it can't give the Magic trait to a combat check when a weapon determines the skill.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

Scarab Sages

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Casey Weston wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Check out spell Magic Weapon on page 24 of the rulebook. Now there is a way to get the Magic trait to some combat checks. Pretty cool. And it is in some suggested deck lists so it must be basic as well.
I was under the impression Rise of the Runelords had several ways to give combat checks the Magic trait, apart from Magic weapons.
Sure. But I believe it was very rare to add the Magic trait to a check using a non-magical weapon; which is what I believe Hawkmoon is referring to. Off the top of my head, Kyra could do it against undead, and I think there may have been a late-deck ally that did that. The Magic Weapon spell is basic, though.

Other than Kyra, Seelah, Elven Archer, and technically Amulet of Mighty/Fiery Fists*, I don't think there were any other ways to add the Magic trait to the check other than the card you played to determine which skill you were using.

Fiery Weapon, for comparison with Magic Weapon, adds the Fire trait, but not the Magic trait.

*In practice, I think most people treat the Amulet of Mighty/Fiery Fists as as card that determines the skill, even though it doesn't. But obviously it can't give the Magic trait to a combat check when a weapon determines the skill.

You forgot about Deathbane Shield which can confer the Magic trait to any combat, weapon or otherwise.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Casey Weston wrote:
You forgot about Deathbane Shield which can confer the Magic trait to any combat, weapon or otherwise.

Ah yes, I did. And there might be a few others. But still, Magic Weapon being Basic, giving you 1d4 and the Magic trait is awesome. That means that bringing along an Arcane caster has a huge benefit for "Spectre" like monsters. In RotR Kyra is the only one that, out of the box, can defeat a Spectre without using a spell to determine the skill (or not playing a weapon and using Amulet of Mighty Fists) . Now there will be a way to an Arcane caster to help anyone do it.

Scarab Sages

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Casey Weston wrote:
You forgot about Deathbane Shield which can confer the Magic trait to any combat, weapon or otherwise.
Ah yes, I did. And there might be a few others. But still, Magic Weapon being Basic, giving you 1d4 and the Magic trait is awesome. That means that bringing along an Arcane caster has a huge benefit for "Spectre" like monsters. In RotR Kyra is the only one that, out of the box, can defeat a Spectre without using a spell to determine the skill (or not playing a weapon and using Amulet of Mighty Fists) . Now there will be a way to an Arcane caster to help anyone do it.

Yes, I agree it is awesome. On the other hand, with the pirate and ship theme, I fear we will be fighting a lot more spirits and ghosts that will require this sort of thing.


Rulebook wrote:
At last, it’s time to fight Jemma. Alahazra unloads an Inflict spell that adds 1d6 to her Divine skill of d12+2, and one of her character powers adds +2 because Inflict has the Attack trait. Lily decides to use one of Lirianne’s character powers as well, so she shuffles her Light Crossbow into her deck to add 1d4 to Alahazra’s combat check. Alahazra discards the Blessing of the Gods she got from Seltyiel to give herself another d12. Now she’s rolling 2d12+4 + 1d4. Alahazra gets a 21, vastly more than Jemma’s difficulty of 11.

I think I spotted a little mistake in the play example. Looks like Amber/Alahazra forgot the d6 the inflict spell gave her. I think it should be 2d12+4 + 1d4 + 1d6 :P. Otherwise, the rulebook look pretty sweet, I'm really looking forward to the new set.


I have to say, I like the new Merisiel WAAAAAAYYY better than the old one. Hard to see myself ever going back to RotR version.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

The point here is that the current wording is off.

I would suggest that the text should read "otherwise, succeed at an Arcane 6 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
xris wrote:
... Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

They might have printed a couple of 'em by now. :-P


xris wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

The point here is that the current wording is off.

I would suggest that the text should read "otherwise, succeed at an Arcane 6 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

The language is perfectly fine as is. You need the "you may" in there to indicate the check is optional. And the use of "succeed at a [Skill] [Difficulty] check" is perfectly consistent across all of their cards, see Goose in the Rigging or Sea Hag.


Dice. Does the d10 in Skull & Shackles now have 1 to 10 printed on the sides instead of 0 to 9?

Unless I've missed it, I can't find any mention of this in the rulebook, which leads me to suspect that the d10 is now correctly labelled. Yay!

Page 6 of the rules has the added text concerning the d4, "When you roll the 4-sider, use the number that's upright." Since there is no additional text concerning the d10 I hope that means it has a "10" instead of a "0".


Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
xris wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

The point here is that the current wording is off.

I would suggest that the text should read "otherwise, succeed at an Arcane 6 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

The language is perfectly fine as is. You need the "you may" in there to indicate the check is optional. And the use of "succeed at a [Skill] [Difficulty] check" is perfectly consistent across all of their cards, see Goose in the Rigging of Sea Hag.

I think the wording is fine, too.

"You may open the door in order to let me in" does not imply that no effort on your part is required. It is clear that you must open the door. Permission to make the attempt does not mean automatic success.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

agraham2410 wrote:

If you summon and build a location it says you build the location as normal. Does that include adding a hechman to the location deck?

If so what do you do if you already have all the henchmen for that senario in play?

The scenario card will tell you what to do.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

csouth154 wrote:
Will the link to download the S&S rules be placed on the PACG homepage, where the link for the RotRL rules is?

Yep. It should show up there now :)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
csouth154 wrote:
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
xris wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

The point here is that the current wording is off.

I would suggest that the text should read "otherwise, succeed at an Arcane 6 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

The language is perfectly fine as is. You need the "you may" in there to indicate the check is optional. And the use of "succeed at a [Skill] [Difficulty] check" is perfectly consistent across all of their cards, see Goose in the Rigging of Sea Hag.

I think the wording is fine, too.

"You may open the door in order to let me in" does not imply that no effort on your part is required. It is clear that you must open the door. Permission to make the attempt does not mean automatic success.

This. If you want to argue that "otherwise, you may succeed at a Divine 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it" has the same meaning as "otherwise, you may recharge this card instead of discarding it", that's beyond pedantic.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
xris wrote:

Dice. Does the d10 in Skull & Shackles now have 1 to 10 printed on the sides instead of 0 to 9?

Unless I've missed it, I can't find any mention of this in the rulebook, which leads me to suspect that the d10 is now correctly labelled. Yay!

Page 6 of the rules has the added text concerning the d4, "When you roll the 4-sider, use the number that's upright." Since there is no additional text concerning the d10 I hope that means it has a "10" instead of a "0".

Silly question, why would you consider the d10 printed incorrectly?

As an RPG player, you know that the d10 has always been 0-9 where 0 is 10. And that it is the companion to the percentile die to get 0-99 and the pair is known as d100.

So as far as your comment about the d10 now correctly labelled, hmmm ... it always has been.


Theryon Stormrune wrote:
xris wrote:

Dice. Does the d10 in Skull & Shackles now have 1 to 10 printed on the sides instead of 0 to 9?

Unless I've missed it, I can't find any mention of this in the rulebook, which leads me to suspect that the d10 is now correctly labelled. Yay!

Page 6 of the rules has the added text concerning the d4, "When you roll the 4-sider, use the number that's upright." Since there is no additional text concerning the d10 I hope that means it has a "10" instead of a "0".

Silly question, why would you consider the d10 printed incorrectly?

Because Paizo thought that it was incorrectly labelled, enough that they added the following to the RotR FAQ.

Quote:

How do I read the d4? And can I really roll a 0 on the d10?

On the d4, read the number that’s upright when you look at the die. And the 0 on the d10 should be treated as a 10.

Resolution: In the "Rules: Rolling Dice" sidebar on page 6 of the rulebook, add the following as a new paragraph at the beginning: “The game comes with five dice: a 4-sider, 6-sider, 8-sider, 10-sider, and 12-sider. When you roll the 4-sider, use the number that is upright. The 0 on the 10-sider should be treated as a 10.”

That last sentence isn't in the current S&S rulebook, the reason I hope is because they now will supply a d10 with 1-10.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

With RotR, our first card printer was not able to manufacture dice, so we purchased them from another supplier. We did not have the luxury of creating our own die mold; they supplied the standard polyhedral die molds that everyone in China seems to use—it uses 3 different fonts across the five dice and has a 0 on the d10.

Our US printer does make dice (or, at least, subcontracts them), though they weren't able to spool up production on that in time for the RotR 2nd printing, so we just bought more of the same dice for that.

But since we *did* have time with S&S, and they needed to create a new mold anyway, I asked for that mold to be made with a 10 on the d10. (And with the same font on all the dice!)

I have not actually seen these dice yet. I'm only a little bit nervous about that.


Vic Wertz wrote:
But since we *did* have time with S&S, and they needed to create a new mold anyway, I asked for that mold to be made with a 10 on the d10. (And with the same font on all the dice!)

Excellent! That was what I hoped for. Kudos for asking for the same font to be used on all the dice as well.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
I have to say, I like the new Merisiel WAAAAAAYYY better than the old one. Hard to see myself ever going back to RotR version.

Great! She's a little more about the swashbuckling combat, and a little less about dealing with traps and barriers. The Rogue Class Deck Merisiel is different yet again.

It's my fervent hope that some people believe that the S&S Merisiel is obviously better than the RotR Merisiel, while others are sure that the RotR Merisiel is clearly superior, and still others know that the Rogue Deck Merisiel is the only true Merisiel.


Vic Wertz wrote:
xris wrote:
The point here is that the current wording is off.
If you want to argue that "otherwise, you may succeed at a Divine 8 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it" has the same meaning as "otherwise, you may recharge this card instead of discarding it", that's beyond pedantic.

My comment wasn't that it had the same meaning as "auto-recharge", it was that the sentence didn't scan well, that the wording was off.

It's fine if you know what the intent was (e.g. that you know the game and the mechanic) but for new players to the game, it may well well be confusing because the sentence just doesn't read well.

By saving a few printed words, the sentence can be confusing to those new to the game or the mechanic. It would seem sensible to have it say what it means. For example.

"otherwise, you may attempt to recharge this card instead of discarding it by succeeding at an Arcane 6 check."

If that's not good enough, then I'm sure there's some way to word it so it's not so confusing for new players.

But as I mentioned, this is more than likely just water under the bridge, the cards have been printed and we have what we have. It's not that it's a big deal, just offering some (I hope) constructive criticism.


I do look forward to this version of game. I hope to be able to subscribe to it shortly after launch *crosses fingers*

I like the use of Act and the clarification of Encounter. I think it'll make it a lot easier to differentiate when things can be used and pre-answer a lot of questions for new cards that would have come up going by the old text.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

xris wrote:

By saving a few printed words, the sentence can be confusing to those new to the game or the mechanic. It would seem sensible to have it say what it means. For example.

"otherwise, you may attempt to recharge this card instead of discarding it by succeeding at an Arcane 6 check."

Well, I might read your version as "you may [attempt to recharge this card] instead of [discarding it by succeeding at an Arcane 6 check]."

The English language completely supports that interpretation, but if you think about it in the context of the game, reading it that way doesn't make much sense. And that's equally true of your interpretation of what's printed on the cards.

The PACG Editorial team refers to these things* as "unreasonable interpretations." Ideally, we want players to have one reasonable interpretation and no unreasonable interpretations, but sometimes we know that just isn't going to happen given the complexity of some of the ideas and the constraints of space and time. In these cases, as long as we can manage to avoid having multiple reasonable interpretations, we just need to move along.

*Seriously, we talk about them a lot.

Sovereign Court

I look forward to the role cards, because only seeing the character, I really feel like Valeros got screwed. Yea, his skills were tweaked a little, but his base powers are basically the same. The Gunslinger is very similar to Harsk as well in non-role powers.


Vic Wertz wrote:
xris wrote:

By saving a few printed words, the sentence can be confusing to those new to the game or the mechanic. It would seem sensible to have it say what it means. For example.

"otherwise, you may attempt to recharge this card instead of discarding it by succeeding at an Arcane 6 check."

Well, I might read your version as "you may [attempt to recharge this card] instead of [discarding it by succeeding at an Arcane 6 check]."

As I said, "If that's not good enough, then I'm sure there's some way to word it so it's not so confusing for new players."

"After playing this card, if you do not have the
Arcane skill, banish it; otherwise, you may attempt
to recharge this card instead of discarding it, to
do this you must succeed at an Arcane 6 check."

Still fits in the same four lines as the original.

The original text "you may succeed", for me at least, leads me down the "you may succeed to be King of England" route or "you may succeed, you may fail", not the intended "you may attempt ... to do something". It can just put the reader into the wrong mindset when trying to understand what it means.


Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Now, English isn't my first language and I had no problem with the phrasing. But this discussion is making me confused :)


Andrew K wrote:
I look forward to the role cards, because only seeing the character, I really feel like Valeros got screwed. Yea, his skills were tweaked a little, but his base powers are basically the same.

Afraid I rather fail to see how he's been 'screwed' - they always said the new versions of old characters would be very similar though not exactly the same. Unless you're saying you think his base powers are not strong enough already?


The recharge discussion is what I was getting at earlier. Its wordy at set in with the rest of the text. I would rather "Recharge" be defined in the rulebook an only the pertinent info be on the card.

Recharge: Wisdom/Divine 12

Saves space and no english language issues. I know how to play the game already so no big deal to me.

Most of the time though all you have to do with PACG is say what actually makes sense for the game. Our guesses are correct most of the time. I've been very impressed so far with the design.


Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The changes of Valeros (pre-roles)
Skills:
Strength/Melee is the same
d6 in DEX instead of d8 and only one check box
Constitution is the same, but Gains Fortitude skill +1
He is getting less intelligent with a d4 against a d6
But also getting wiser with a d6 against a d4
And even more charismatic d8 aganst d6 +1 more checkbox but a little bit less diplomatic with only Diplomacy: Charisma +1 (against his former +2)

Powers:
Hand Size - the same
Proficiency - the same
Add 1d4 (+1) only, not possible +2
Recharge instead of discarding weapon - the same BUT with the possibility
of shuffling.

Cards:
Weapons the same
Spells the same (NONE)
Starts with one less Armor (2) and it goes up to 4. against the old 3 up to 5
Items the same
Starts with one mor Ally (3) and it goes up to 5. against the old 2 up to 4.
Blessings the same.


Honestly speaking, the new pre-role Valeros seems better to me than the RotR version. He got a new skill, his diplomacy is about the same but easier to boost, and he get's earlier access to the weapon-reshuffle power.

And in the starting deck composition I think more ally is superior to more armor. (but you can pick armor for your first card feat, if you need it)

Overall, I don't really feel that the second coming of Valeros really added me new options to play. Of course, his roles could be completely diferent.

About Merisiel, I think her two versions are much more different.

I don't think that her S&S version is much better overall, but she is obviously better in S&S. There seems to be an abundance of finesse weapons and opportunities to use the craft skill. Still, her weaker backstabbing power could be a limitation in some cases.

For RotR I may consider the S&S version for "flavor" reasons, as the character is more about light blades in her RPG/comic apperances than about bows.

I'm really interested to see how much different is her Class Deck version from the other two.

Based on her suggested starting deck, I suspect that Lini may have the most changes from all the remade characters. Weapon, armor, a non-animal ally ? Wow.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gary Johns wrote:

The recharge discussion is what I was getting at earlier. Its wordy at set in with the rest of the text. I would rather "Recharge" be defined in the rulebook an only the pertinent info be on the card.

Recharge: Wisdom/Divine 12

Saves space and no english language issues. I know how to play the game already so no big deal to me.

Most of the time though all you have to do with PACG is say what actually makes sense for the game. Our guesses are correct most of the time. I've been very impressed so far with the design.

I think one of the cards that highlights the problem they faced is Brodert Quink. He is bury/discard instead of discard/recharge. Likewise Necklace of Fireballs which is banish/recharge. So you have to signal both the action being replaced and the action that is replacing it.

And I agree, usually my first instinct has been correct when I read the cards.

Sovereign Court

The_Napier wrote:
Andrew K wrote:
I look forward to the role cards, because only seeing the character, I really feel like Valeros got screwed. Yea, his skills were tweaked a little, but his base powers are basically the same.
Afraid I rather fail to see how he's been 'screwed' - they always said the new versions of old characters would be very similar though not exactly the same. Unless you're saying you think his base powers are not strong enough already?

I'm not saying he's screwed in how powerful he is,but in how unique he is versus his Runelords counterpart. I can understand having similarities, but his powers have barely been changed at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Andrew K wrote:
The_Napier wrote:
Andrew K wrote:
I look forward to the role cards, because only seeing the character, I really feel like Valeros got screwed. Yea, his skills were tweaked a little, but his base powers are basically the same.
Afraid I rather fail to see how he's been 'screwed' - they always said the new versions of old characters would be very similar though not exactly the same. Unless you're saying you think his base powers are not strong enough already?
I'm not saying he's screwed in how powerful he is,but in how unique he is versus his Runelords counterpart. I can understand having similarities, but his powers have barely been changed at all.

12 changes in his pre-role character. How could they have changed him more? I can understand the want of completely new Powers, but then he's not Valeros anymore is he? :)

I like the differences, and I can't wait to see how his roles look.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think to really judge the changes, you'll have to see the game to see how useful they are. For example, if Fortitude comes up a lot, the Fortitude +1 skill might be huge.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think to really judge the changes, you'll have to see the game to see how useful they are. For example, if Fortitude comes up a lot, the Fortitude +1 skill might be huge.

Mike has said fortitude is how one avoids drowning


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gary Johns wrote:
The recharge discussion is what I was getting at earlier. Its wordy at set in with the rest of the text. I would rather "Recharge" be defined in the rulebook an only the pertinent info be on the card.

This is more aesthetics than playability, but I really like having recharge blocked off. It looks nice on the card, and it makes it clear what cards are rechargeable at a glance. I see how setting things up that way have caused confusion (non-casters banishing spells), but I like small chunks of text in distinct places more than big hunks that tell you every rule on the card at once. I know it sounds a little silly, but having that much text in on paragraph on something small like a playing card makes it feel like a boor to parse all of it, even though it's only like 20 words.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think one of the cards that highlights the problem they faced is Brodert Quink. He is bury/discard instead of discard/recharge. Likewise Necklace of Fireballs which is banish/recharge. So you have to signal both the action being replaced and the action that is replacing it.

Maybe this sort of really explicit wording is necessary to prevent edge cases, but the rules could be (and probably already are) formed so the Recharge check doesn't care how the card is being used otherwise. Most things are recharged instead of discarded, but if recharges are phrased as something you do "instead of" and not "instead of discarding" then the problem is already solved (and less words on the card).

Sovereign Court

Jorsalheim wrote:
Andrew K wrote:
The_Napier wrote:
Andrew K wrote:
I look forward to the role cards, because only seeing the character, I really feel like Valeros got screwed. Yea, his skills were tweaked a little, but his base powers are basically the same.
Afraid I rather fail to see how he's been 'screwed' - they always said the new versions of old characters would be very similar though not exactly the same. Unless you're saying you think his base powers are not strong enough already?
I'm not saying he's screwed in how powerful he is,but in how unique he is versus his Runelords counterpart. I can understand having similarities, but his powers have barely been changed at all.

12 changes in his pre-role character. How could they have changed him more? I can understand the want of completely new Powers, but then he's not Valeros anymore is he? :)

I like the differences, and I can't wait to see how his roles look.

I'm talking about his powers only, so definitely not 12. Still the same local help in combat, and the weapon recharging (sure, they gave him a power he already gets, but earlier). To me, the powers make the character, not the skills. Those are a major part of the characters, and are something I really expected to be unique. I'm at least waiting to get the Fighter class deck now. I was going to pre-order it, because I wanted all 3 Valeros, but now I'm going to wait and see if he has anything powerwise that really separates him from the other two.

Of course he could have new powers. The powers don't make him Valeros, having a fighter theme to them would. They could give him new powers that still fit a fighter. Being Valeros doesn't mean you have those powers, it means you're a fighter.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dave Riley wrote:
Gary Johns wrote:
The recharge discussion is what I was getting at earlier. Its wordy at set in with the rest of the text. I would rather "Recharge" be defined in the rulebook an only the pertinent info be on the card.

This is more aesthetics than playability, but I really like having recharge blocked off. It looks nice on the card, and it makes it clear what cards are rechargeable at a glance. I see how setting things up that way have caused confusion (non-casters banishing spells), but I like small chunks of text in distinct places more than big hunks that tell you every rule on the card at once. I know it sounds a little silly, but having that much text in on paragraph on something small like a playing card makes it feel like a boor to parse all of it, even though it's only like 20 words.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think one of the cards that highlights the problem they faced is Brodert Quink. He is bury/discard instead of discard/recharge. Likewise Necklace of Fireballs which is banish/recharge. So you have to signal both the action being replaced and the action that is replacing it.
Maybe this sort of really explicit wording is necessary to prevent edge cases, but the rules could be (and probably already are) formed so the Recharge check doesn't care how the card is being used otherwise. Most things are recharged instead of discarded, but if recharges are phrased as something you do "instead of" and not "instead of discarding" then the problem is already solved (and less words on the card).

I personally liked the box too, for looks like you.

If you look at Brodert, I'll illustrate the issue a bit more clearly than I did last time. Brodert can be buried to examine the bottom cards of a location deck, or discarded to explore. The option to discard him instead of recharge him only applied if you buried him.

Now imagine that Brodert had a "recharge instead of bury" power. Somehow it has to be highlighted that you only get to attempt to recharge him if you buried him, not if you discarded him.

That is what I was trying to get at (and didn't say too well). My guess would be that the designers would say "Not having a recharge box gives us more design space". They can do Bury/Discard, Discard/Recharge, Banish/Discard, Banish/Bury. In fact, they already do that last one with armor. But instead of having a check to recharge it has a condition based on your proficiency.

One option would have been to have a box called simply "When Played" and put all the things in it that would affect how the card was played. But you are sacrificing a whole "row" in the overall text box for the sake of two words. (Though like I said, aesthetically, I'd rather have the box calling that fact out to me.) But even that limits design space, because it is tied to "playing" the card. Maybe one day they'll want to have a card that says "If you would ever have to discard this card, succeed at a Fortitude 10 check to recharge it instead." Which would be the first time you could recharge something without playing it.

But now I'm just wildly speculating.

Scarab Sages

For the visually-inclined (like me) and because I am bored, here are the starting mix of card types for each character. For each returning character I also made note of any changes from the original:
_
_
_

Alahazra the Oracle
- Weapon
5 Spell
- Armor
2 Item
3 Ally
5 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Blessing

Jirelle the Swashbuckler
4 Weapon
- Spell
1 Armor
2 Item
3 Ally
5 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Weapon (my guess)

Lem the Bard
2 Weapon (+1 Weapon)
3 Spell (-1 Spell)
- Armor
2 Item
4 Ally (+1 Ally)
4 Blessing (-1 Blessing)
Favored Card Type: Your Choice

Lirianne the Gunslinger
4 Weapon
- Spell
2 Armor
2 Item
3 Ally
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Weapon (my guess)

Merisiel the Rogue
3 Weapon (+1 Weapon)
- Spell
1 Armor
5 Item (-1 Item)
2 Ally
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Item (my guess)

Seltyiel the Magus
4 Weapon
4 Spell
1 Armor
1 Item
1 Ally
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Weapon or Spell (my guess)

Valeros the Fighter
5 Weapon
- Spell
2 Armor (-1 Armor)
2 Item
3 Ally (+1 Ally)
3 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Weapon (my guess)

Damiel the Alchemist
1 Weapon
2 Spell
1 Armor
6 Item
1 Ally
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Item (my guess)

Feiya the Witch
- Weapon
6 Spell
- Armor
2 Item
3 Ally
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Spell (my guess)

Lini the Druid
1 Weapon (+1 Weapon)
4 Spell (-2 Spell)
1 Armor (+1 Armor)
1 Item (-1 Item)
4 Ally (+1 Ally)
4 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Ally (my guess)

Oloch the Warpriest
4 Weapon
2 Spell
3 Armor
1 Item
- Ally
5 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Armor (my guess)

My analysis:

Last time we had only 1 character that could use all card types: Kyra the Cleric. This time we have Lini the Druid, Damiel the Alchemist, and Seltyiel the Magus. We also have the first character that can have no allies in Oloch the Warpriest, previously we had Seelah who had no items and Ezren who had no blessings and of course Sajan who had no spells, weapons, or armor. We have two strict (no weapons/armor) magic users in Alahazra the Oracle and Feiya the Witch, where previously it was just Seoni the Sorcerer and Lini the Druid.


Casey Weston wrote:

Lirianne the Gunslinger

Favored Card Type: Weapon (my guess)

Seltyiel the Magus
Favored Card Type: Weapon or Spell (my guess)

both correct, as per the example of play in the rulebook. Seltyiel gets to choose which each scenario (pre-drawing his hand)


The_Napier wrote:
I adore the 'summon and build a location' mechanic. that's going to be great fun

We're going to R'Lyeh!

So here's sunken R'lyeh where the angles are all wrong.
You'll lose your soul, and go insane if you stay there too long.
We're slimey, we're squishy, we're all a little fishy,
Our feast of human flesh and souls is about to start.
And now we'll eat your heart.


Casey Weston wrote:

Jirelle the Swashbuckler

4 Weapon
- Spell
1 Armor
2 Item
3 Ally
5 Blessing
Favored Card Type: Weapon (my guess)

From what I saw in the Origins' videos over at BGG, Jirelle favored card type is Ally. Other then that, you pretty much have the same guesses as I do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Andrew K wrote:


I'm talking about his powers only, so definitely not 12. Still the same local help in combat, and the weapon recharging (sure, they gave him a power he already gets, but earlier). To me, the powers make the character, not the skills. Those are a major part of the characters, and are something I really expected to be unique. I'm at least waiting to get the Fighter class deck now. I was going to pre-order it, because I wanted all 3 Valeros, but now I'm going to wait and see if he has anything powerwise that really separates him from the other two.

Of course he could have new powers. The powers don't make him Valeros, having a fighter theme to them would. They could give him new powers that still fit a fighter. Being Valeros doesn't mean you have those powers, it means you're a fighter.

I'm not going to convince you but here's my point of view on this.

1. Ok, there is two changes in his pre-role powers. The same is with Merisiel, but she looses her sneak attack to some new finesse power. The other two returning friends I don't know much about. And we haven't seen anything from the roles yet.

2. I think character is more than just powers. Skills and cards is pretty important. It's the combination of fun powers, skills and cards that makes a character the character for me.

3.I understand that you would wait with the deck. We don't know much about any of the decks, so I would wait with them all. What we know is probably that the 7 iconics will look somewhat as the previous versions, but not a exact copy. And there is three other characters in those decks that will be different.

4. And here is probably the point where we disagree the most :)
I see Valeros as the iconic character Valeros and understands that he, just as Merisiel, will look somewhat like his former self. Not an exact copy, but he's still the charmer that can swing the blade, and now probably keep from drowning. So when I bring out the S&S version of Valeros, I will feel like it's a character I know. Some differences, but it's my old buddy. He's just not a generic fighter that have a brand new power set. Now. We still don't know how his roles will work. And the other fighters from the Class decks aren't revealed (other than picture and some naming). But I think you will find what you're looking for there. These are named characters. I think that having Valeros powers is much being Valeros. Having one of the three versions of Valeros or the other three characters from the Fighter Deck, that is having a fighter.

But hey, I understand your point of view. I just like how they are treating the iconics. I play a lot of Nintendo. Mario is still Mario with some tweaks in the first couple of levels. But every game gives him new/different upgrades/powers later in the game.


Are we going to see downloadable character sheets soon?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Vic has said he hopes to have them before GenCon ... the clock is ticking. I think I saw Erik over there in the corner in a fetal position.


Huh. I never noticed in the first ruleset that if there are sequential checks they can be shared... Helps a lot that it isn't smack in the middle of a bloated paragraph.


xris wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Firedale2002 wrote:

It's already been brought up over at BGG, but the recharge text on the spells is a bit off.

It says "You may succeed..." instead of "You may make an attempt..."

Normally when the game says "You may succeed" it means you succeed automatically if you so desire, not you attempt to succeed. So it may cause some issues.

Wouldn't "you may attempt" indicate that as long as you attempted it you can recharge, even if you didn't succeed?

The point here is that the current wording is off.

I would suggest that the text should read "otherwise, succeed at an Arcane 6 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Unfortunately, I suspect the cards have already been printed so we are stuck with the existing version.

I'm please to note that in the latest Paizo Blog, The Usual Suspects: Class Decks Preview, the spell cards Paralyse and Divine Blaze say

"otherwise, succeed at a XXX check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."
instead of
"otherwise, you may succeed at a XXX check to recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

With RotR, our first card printer was not able to manufacture dice, so we purchased them from another supplier. We did not have the luxury of creating our own die mold; they supplied the standard polyhedral die molds that everyone in China seems to use—it uses 3 different fonts across the five dice and has a 0 on the d10.

Our US printer does make dice (or, at least, subcontracts them), though they weren't able to spool up production on that in time for the RotR 2nd printing, so we just bought more of the same dice for that.

But since we *did* have time with S&S, and they needed to create a new mold anyway, I asked for that mold to be made with a 10 on the d10. (And with the same font on all the dice!)

I have not actually seen these dice yet. I'm only a little bit nervous about that.

The Base Set arrived in our warehouse today (it has already been shipping to distributors, and to Gen Con). And I've finally seen the dice. The good news: there is a "10" on the d10 instead of a 0. The not-so-good news: they did not change the font on the other dice, and indeed introduced a brand-new one for the d10. So, 5 dice, 4 fonts. (Yeah, I know 98% of people won't notice, and I should just shut my yap about it...)

And the really good news: everything else looks fabulous.

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Think Different: A Look at Some Changes to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.