How Hard Should it Be? Adventure Card Game Power Curves

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Now that Wrath of the Righteous is finally in players' hands, I'd like to talk with you all about the thematic and mechanical motivations behind the different difficulty of each Adventure Path. In order to do this, I'm going to talk about each set while trying not to spoil anything, just in case some of you haven't started one of the sets.

Let's talk about what it's like to work on a game that's always changing and yet always somewhat the same. We explicitly design each PACG Adventure Path to be compatible with all of the others. This means that once you know how to play the game, you can easily jump into any set... and if you really like a particular character from a particular set, you can bring it into a different AP. Our default example of this is Lirianne, the iconic Gunslinger character in Skull & Shackles. If you decide that you'd really like to play Lirianne in Rise of the Runelords, Wrath of the Righteous, or in our upcoming release, Mummy's Mask, you can do so, and she'll work just fine. For Lirianne, we recommend that you also bring along some of the firearms from S&S, but that's up to you—she works either way.

At the same time, we also spend a lot of time, effort, and brainpower to make each Aventure Path a new and interesting experience. We use a wide variety of techniques to do this, including new characters, new mechanics, and of course, a brand-new story with each one. One important technique we use that might not be obvious to everyone is the power curve. This is a technical term we use to roughly mean, "How hard is it to get through the adventure at different points along the path?" If you've ever studied writing and film—and especially if you've ever GM'd a long campaign—you've gone through at least some of this process yourself. How strong are the characters at the start? When things get tough (as they usually do), when does it happen, and how often? Do the characters have the resources they need to protect themselves? Do they use them wisely, or do they have to scramble to get where they need to be? As the plot unfolds, are they ahead of the game, behind the eight ball, or both... and do they know it?

In our first AP, Rise of the Runelords, the adventurers start out in the small coastal city of Sandpoint. As the adventure begins, the town is attacked! A few minutes later, the typical adventuring party is moving from location to location, finding goblins with torches and kicking them in their oh-so-many teeth.

Mechanically speaking, the characters start off in a position of relative strength, but also ignorance. Unless they are risky or get unlucky, the typical character can go toe-to-toe with the typical goblin and expect to come out on top most of the time, especially if there's some help available. In the story, though, it's unclear why these torch-toting goblins would trouble the town. Figuring out that secret is the step that takes Rise of the Runelords from a one-shot "defend the town" session to an epic campaign against an ancient evil of the first order. As the story progresses, the characters grow in both knowledge and power, facing and overcoming increasingly dangerous threats on their way (both figuratively and literally) to the top.

In Rise of the Runelords, the character power progression is more or less linear over time, while the difficulty of challenges is a curve that dips and then rises. Character power starts very slightly behind the power curve in Adventure B. Then the difficulty curve dips beneath the power curve through the middle of the Adventure Path, rising over time until, very near the end, the two lines approach.

In story terms, this represents the change in difficulty as...

Rise of the Runelords spoilers
... you discover the stone giants behind the ogres, the rune giants behind the stone giants, and eventually the ancient Azlanti behind it all.

In Skull & Shackles, the doughty adventurers are press-ganged into service on a vessel most piratical. You start off by learning to handle life at sea, including learning to crew a vessel (and learning to hate geese) and learning how to get along with the rest of the crew, be they friendly or otherwise.

Here the characters start the campaign off-kilter—they're quickly tossed into a situation that's unlike what they're used to facing. Whether you played Rise of the Runelords or not, you probably recognized at some gut level that Valeros could fight his way free of his captors, but he would be alone on a boat in the middle of an unfamiliar sea. From both a narrative and a mechanical perspective, Skull & Shackles was a bit more difficult than Rise of the Runelords because we forced you to learn to do new things. You could still focus on being the strongest fighter, awesomest bard, or stabbiest rogue, but unless you could also handle yourself underwater, navigate a ship, and manage a crew, you were very likely to run into serious trouble. In game terms, we forced you to spread out your resources. Most characters can't afford to dedicate every card and feat to a single, focused goal.

In Skull & Shackles, the difficulty is much closer to linear—the difficulty increases mostly steadily over time—but the character power progression follows a parabolic curve. In the very beginning scenarios, character power is somewhat above the difficulty line, but it dips down below the line quickly in AD1, and then rises above the line for much of the AP. Near the end, the character power curve levels out, and it comes very close to the difficulty line by the end.

In story terms, this...

Skull & Shackles spoilers
... represents the narrative progression of the characters as they start out as "fish out of water" and then come to master their new environment, as they escape from captivity, gain their own ship, then make their mark in the Shackles as part of the Pirate Council. Eventually, they discover an invasion plot and move from freebooting around the islands to confronting the Chelish fleet and taking the fight directly to the Hurricane King.

In our current Adventure Path, Wrath of the Righteous, you're in the city of Kenabres to celebrate a famous past battle against the demonic invasion into the Worldwound. Just when the festivities are about to officially start, something very bad happens. This time, though, it's not goblins with torches or pirates with whips. It's demons... lots of demons. Again, I don't want to spoil too much, but the title of the first scenario in Adventure 1 is "The Fall of Kenabres." (I can assure you that it's not the follow-up to "The Summer of Kenabres.")

This is our third set, and we have once again changed things while keeping the game the same. In this case, the characters start out "behind the curve," both in knowledge and in raw power level. The demons you face right from the get-go are tougher, more numerous, and just meaner than you've seen before. On the other hand, you have a bunch of new tools to even the score. In particular, Wrath of the Righteous adds both cohorts and mythic power. Cohorts are a new card type in this Adventure Path, representing important, named characters that will help you in your struggles against the demonic hordes.

Cohorts are bonus cards given to the party at the start of scenarios. They make you a little bit tougher, and in the right hands, they have some potent powers. Additionally, we've brought you mythic path cards, representing the unlocked potential for mythic power possessed by each of the characters in this set. Paul talked about these already, but the way they're added to the AP is important here: mythic paths are unlocked by a specific event that happens in the story. When you're playing Wrath of the Righteous, you get a chance to play a number of scenarios before you pick a mythic path card, which helps with your understanding of the card and the narrative arc of the story. On the one hand, you now have some experience with the character, and you can make a better choice of which path will be the most fun. On the other hand, it lets us level up the characters in a new way. This helps us create the feeling of being slightly overwhelmed and in trouble at the start of the AP, but it then gives you a dramatic moment where you start climbing out of the pit, bringing yourself up to the level of—and even potentially ahead of—the mass of terrible, evil banes we've assembled for you.

In Wrath of the Righteous, both the character power level and the difficulties they face are curved. Difficulty starts high, but dips quickly below the character power level before rising again. At the same time, character power level starts off relatively linear, rising as the characters recover their footing.

In story terms...

Wrath of the Righteous spoilers
... the characters start off behind the curve as the initial troubles with the Worldwound are overbearing. You don't start with the feeling that you can solve the problems of the Worldwound so much as you hope that you can withstand them. As those that survive the initial onslaught unlock their mythic potential, the character power curve catches up and exceeds the difficulty curve. These things are tricky, though, and only time (and more Adventure Deck releases!) will reveal what the future holds for your valiant crusaders!

The use of the d20 in mythic paths is the final piece in the puzzle here. While it increases the top end of your checks, it doesn't help with everything. It also doesn't change the bottom end at all. As many discovered while demoing and playing WotR at the recent Origins Game Fair, d20s roll 1s just like every other die. In a set like Skull & Shackles, the d20 would be "too swingy" to use often, but in Wrath of the Righteous, it's a great fit. You each have within you the potential to do truly amazing things, but so do your opponents. The results are far from certain... which is kinda what we were going for.

Since we released Wrath of the Righteous, we've heard from some people that the start of the Adventure Path— especially the scenarios in Adventure B—are tougher than they expected. Hopefully, you now have a better idea what we were trying to accomplish with this set and how did it. On the other hand, if you are finding that the start of WotR is so hard that you're not having enough fun, there are a number of options available.

First and foremost, remember that the B Adventure is optional for the Adventure Path. It's recommended, but it's not required. If you would prefer to start with Adventure Deck 1: The Worldwound Incursion, that's perfectly fine. Also, if you'd like to play a little bit of AD1 and then go back and complete the B Adventure, you should feel free to do so. In a more extreme variation, you might even choose to finish all of AD1 before completing the B scenarios, but be aware that you will be significantly stronger at that point. In the end, any way that you find to have fun is a great way to play.

Chad Brown
Adventure Card Game Lead Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Adventure Card Game
1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Very cool. Thank you for letting us peak into the minds of the design for the games. My wife and I have been discussing the difficulty and how if you were to translate that into a "real life" situation and you were to encounter demons our first response would be "Oh crap, how the heck are we going to deal with this?"

Thanks for all of your work!


Chad, thanks for this insight on how you approach the difficulty level in this set. I would love to hear a discussion of your thoughts group size at some point. Wrath seems to press large groups far more severely than either of the previous sets. A small group and a larger groups will have wildly different assessments on the challenge posed by a scenario like AP2-3.


While more difficult cards certainly contribute to the overall difficulty of a scenario, I feel that the difficulty of Wrath is also a result of some generally underwhelming boons, and some banes that seem unnecessarily punishing. Take the Carrion Golem for example... if you go against that as Enora, it basically reads "discard your hand and the top 3 cards of your deck." Unless you happened to get lucky enough to pick up a javelin earlier, there's pretty much no chance for counterplay or even evasion (immune to the mental trait). Bilious Bile is another bane I find to be a bit unfun, similar to how Storm was in S&S; you roll a die to see how bad the effect is without even being given an initial roll to defeat.

I'm all for higher difficulty scenarios, but some of these banes are just downright cruel. Yeah, I get that it's thematic for the AP, but it doesn't end up being particularly fun for the players, in my experience.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mechalibur wrote:

While more difficult cards certainly contribute to the overall difficulty of a scenario, I feel that the difficulty of Wrath is also a result of some generally underwhelming boons, and some banes that seem unnecessarily punishing. Take the Carrion Golem for example... if you go against that as Enora, it basically reads "discard your hand and the top 3 cards of your deck." Unless you happened to get lucky enough to pick up a javelin earlier, there's pretty much no chance for counterplay or even evasion (immune to the mental trait). Bilious Bile is another bane I find to be a bit unfun, similar to how Storm was in S&S; you roll a die to see how bad the effect is without even being given an initial roll to defeat.

I'm all for higher difficulty scenarios, but some of these banes are just downright cruel. Yeah, I get that it's thematic for the AP, but it doesn't end up being particularly fun for the players, in my experience.

Yeah, our Enora got killed in the first scenario by a Carrion Golem.

While I agree with dialing up the difficulty, perhaps it could be eased off a bit in the Base adventure.


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

Being one of the first that raised the issue of the base adventure being too frustrating to be fun, especially for newbees and large groups, I appreciate the effort to regnognize that there was an issue.
Playing with different power curves is a nice idea to bring some changes. I did that often as a DM. But the lack of tuning here IMHO was that the scenarii are not just harder, which could be fine and fun, needing to replay them for example, they are frustrating (forbidding you to play by kiling you early or stealing your cards before you get a chance to play) and not fun.
Anyway Thanks for at least mentioning the issue in an official blog.
We will deal with it this time - but if we could avoid next time... May not be too late for the mummies...
Challenge for you guys: harder and funnier at the same time... Can you do it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the caveat of power curves and lessons learned (both by us as well as the designers), I hope that there will APs in the future that shake things up as well (ie not just being harder than the last set). I like the idea of the power curve representing what's going on thematically; I thought it fit well with both RotR and S&S, but I can't speak for WotR since I haven't started playing yet.


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

This.. This explains so much.
A newly well-done blog: Tip of the hat, Paizo.


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

Thank you for this explanation. It definitely does help to understand where you were coming from. I do wonder if this may be (and forgive me if this comes off as rude, it's late) a case of being too smart for your own good. I feel in some ways that the power curve is so hard to represent, and in as small a sample as the five scenarios per adventure it can be obfuscated a lot by luck. Further, the fact that the base set doesn't follow the story of the adventure is a big issue here.
If WotR is supposed to represent how scary s first encounter with a demon is, then why is the hardest part the one before the big demon outbreak? Frankly, I feel the Wrath power curve makes the demons actually feel far less scary than they otherwise would. You might consider judging the power curve starting in the first adventure , rather than the base set, so it's all done as part of the story


Nice words but still comes down to bad game design. When people are being forced into playing certain characters and dying multiple times in the base set, you can call it 'thematic' if you like. A lot of others would simply call it poor playtesting and design.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Klandestine wrote:
Nice words but still comes down to bad game design. When people are being forced into playing certain characters and dying multiple times in the base set, you can call it 'thematic' if you like. A lot of others would simply call it poor playtesting and design.

So you rather have an easy game where everybody can take a Melee Swordsman and have a go at every monster and feel like they're a God than a to take a tactical point of view and consider that you might need to play a bit different than you did before?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
So you rather have an easy game where everybody can take a Melee Swordsman and have a go at every monster and feel like they're a God

Well I think you need to consider a few things:

1. I imagine most players of PACG are not ‘hardcore’ gamers. Therefore they will come to the game with a certain set of expectations – that they will enjoy the game and have fun, and get chance to learn the game mechanics while they get to grips with the system. Not all will be veterans who have played through ROTRL or S&S. Some may be picking up this game as their introduction to PACG and perhaps the theme appealed to them.

2.It stands to reason that the ‘base’ level missions of ‘any’ game should facilitate a learning curve, so people can get to grips with the new character they have chosen, get used to the game mechanics, and understand how to work together to overcome goals. Whether “thematic” or not, having card wipes and even party wipes in the first few scenarios is not conducive to helping people to get ‘into’ the game. In many ways, it presents the entirely opposite situation of making people wanting to give up. You can make things challenging without making them feel 'impossible'. That's called balance.

3. Most gaming groups do not necessarily have the time to replay every scenario multiple times. If the difficulty is too hard – and from what people are saying – based more on luck than any type of skill, then groups will want to spend their time playing something else.

4. Not everyone reads forums. They might play the base adventure path (as one would always do) and think ‘oh hell, if this is just the start…’. They won’t naturally assume that AD1 is easier.

5. It is stated in the blog post that any character can play any scenario. Swapping and changing is all part of the system. From what I have read repeatedly on these forums, people are finding that party composition is vital to even surviving in WoTR. People have already stated that they’ve often had to drop a favourite character to choose one that better helps the party. Spellcasters are having a particularly rough time – with Adowyn suggested multiple times as a ‘must have’. Whether such things are true or not, again it puts a barrier up between casuals and new players, and getting into the game.

6.People need incentive to buy the further adventure packs. Paizo relies on players getting invested in the game to buy those future packs. If you are losing a lot of players just on the core set, then that is not a great business model.

The ‘hardcore’ brigade might turn on ROTR and its low difficulty threshold, but that game was hugely successful. It was accessible to everyone and fun. If that had been released with this type of difficulty setting, I wonder if we would even have future adventures.


Well said, Klandestine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I will not address point 6 because it's not a marketing issue.

That said I fully agree with points 1 to 5 above. Especially, I will support Klandestine on the fact that in previous games, you could select you character independently from the rest of the team and everyone had fun. With WotR I also - from what I have read (from non official Paizo answers I admit due to the lack of) - have the feeling that "I shouldn't have taken that character". Not totally cool as a feeling.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree on most of your points as well. I'm just saying that people tend to 'bash' on WotR for being hard compared to other sets. But if you were to take other cooperative boardgames, then you would also need to think before you act. (I could name examples, but not sure if I'm allowed to mention non-paizo products on their forums.)

My basic point is: Just because a game got harder, doesn't mean it's a worse game than its predecessors, it just requires a new angle of playing.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Klandestine wrote:
The ‘hardcore’ brigade might turn on ROTR and its low difficulty threshold, but that game was hugely successful. It was accessible to everyone and fun. If that had been released with this type of difficulty setting, I wonder if we would even have future adventures.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that if RotR had the difficulty of WotR at the start, and possibly even of S&S, I would not be playing it today. My GF would have been turned off of that, and I don't have the time to play a game like this on my own.

I think that's why I come down so hard on difficulty. I see how close I would be to missing out on possibly my favorite game ever, and I don't want that to happen to someone else.


I'm glad to see a blog addressed this issue. My group has been in love with PACG since day 1 of Rise of the Runelords, and we've always had a blast. Wrath of the Righteous marked the end of that era, and after trying the B scenarios 3 times, we all unanimously agreed the game was no longer fun and shelved it.

The first problem I noticed while reflecting upon everything is that the game seems to be designed more around 4 players, not the 6 we usually play with. With 80 potential cards to explore in 30 turns as opposed to 60 with 4 players, there's too much forced multiple exploration which really kills arcane classes who don't always have offensive spells available. There's also no significant advantage that 6 players have over 4 players, so I did some quick calculations and figured we needed a blessing deck size of 42 for the 6 of us. This eliminated the time problem forced upon us.

The bigger problems are the new barriers and monsters that are immune to arcane. Most people are aware of the problems Enora and Seoni have with Carrion Golems. But the even bigger problem that killed the game for us is the Demonic Horde. With 6 players, that one card slows the game down to a crawl as we have to go through six battles to successfully defeat that barrier. And all six battles need to be won or the barrier isn't defeated.

I was considering simply removing that card from the game after our 3rd failed attempt at having any fun, but at this point, everyone was just tired of it and didn't want to bother with PACG anymore. Maybe after a few weeks, they'll be willing to give it another shot but I want to make sure I remove any other problem cards from the game.

It's a real shame because for weeks, all we could talk about was the anticipation of this game coming out and how we couldn't wait. We were giddy with excitement every time there was a new preview blog. And now, there are some of us that absolutely hate this game and want nothing to do with PACG again. Hopefully the feeling is just temporary. Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles topped our favorite games to play every Saturday. I'd love to see WotR work its way back up there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Klandestine wrote:
2.It stands to reason that the ‘base’ level missions of ‘any’ game should facilitate a learning curve, so people can get to grips with the new character they have chosen, get used to the game mechanics, and understand how to work together to overcome goals. Whether “thematic” or not, having card wipes and even party wipes in the first few scenarios is not conducive to helping people to get ‘into’ the game. In many ways, it presents the entirely opposite situation of making people wanting to give up. You can make things challenging without making them feel 'impossible'. That's called balance.

I think this is the most important fact that the game designers seem to have forgotten with Wrath of the Righteous. This game is going to be the introduction for many new players into the world of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. The B scenarios are supposed to represent a sort of tutorial to acclimate players to the game mechanics and strategies. To have them be the HARDEST scenarios through all 6 Adventure Paths is ludicrous and not conducive to player retention.


I really think that the people struggling with difficulty should just give themselves a free card feat and jump to AP1. You will find the game much more fun.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Disclaimer: I have not yet received WotR so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Compared to other Co-op games, PACG is quite easy and simple in terms of difficulty. Compared to my other favorite game (since I don't want to name non-Paizo-products I won't tell names, but you might know it. It's themed on this certain little guy that carries a certain ring to a certain mountain and must avoid certain 9 wraiths and their ceertain dark lord...). That game kicks your butt, and teeth, and whatever else you have. And when it's done with you it starts all over again. And that's the point, you are challenged over and over again and that's why the players are coming back for it, again and again. That game is now running since IIRC Q4/2011 and it's still quite succesful. It works in a different way than PACG I know. And I don't neccesarily disagree with the points Klandestine brought up, they are all valid. But some players have different expactations about a game than others.
With that being said, I hope to recieve WotR in a couple of days and look forward to get my arse handed on a silver plate :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
I really think that the people struggling with difficulty should just give themselves a free card feat and jump to AP1. You will find the game much more fun.

This doesn't really help the overall situation. What are you going to tell the people who don't visit the forums if they get discouraged by the difficulty in the base scenarios?

The demonic horde barrier should not have been in the base set. Neither should Carrion Golem.

A barrier that, for the most part, requires EVERY character spend resources to defeat is not a good thing to have when players' decks are at their weakest. It would have been much better off to move that barrier to set 2 or 3. After the players have added a few cards to their deck.

And to have a monster in the base set that COMPLETELY negates 2 characters was not a good idea either. Again, this monster would have been better off in pack 2 or later.

In one of my first Wrath games, I encountered the Carrion Golem with Enora on her FIRST exploration. 1 turn in and she has 9 cards in her discard pile and no more deck to draw from. This should NEVER be possible in the first scenario.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In two fairly short sessions, my group of four players (Kyra, Enora, Alain and Imrijka) have completed three of the base set scenarios, having failed Elven Entanglement once. We've had no deaths but a couple of close calls (Enora ran out of cards once, but Kyra got her back on her feet with no permanent harm done). I definitely feel more tension and danger in this set than I have in the previous two box sets, but so far it hasn't been more than we could handle, and I find I'm enjoying not feeling quite so godlike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Mogloth wrote:
Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
I really think that the people struggling with difficulty should just give themselves a free card feat and jump to AP1. You will find the game much more fun.

This doesn't really help the overall situation. What are you going to tell the people who don't visit the forums if they get discouraged by the difficulty in the base scenarios?

The demonic horde barrier should not have been in the base set. Neither should Carrion Golem.

A barrier that, for the most part, requires EVERY character spend resources to defeat is not a good thing to have when players' decks are at their weakest. It would have been much better off to move that barrier to set 2 or 3. After the players have added a few cards to their deck.

And to have a monster in the base set that COMPLETELY negates 2 characters was not a good idea either. Again, this monster would have been better off in pack 2 or later.

In one of my first Wrath games, I encountered the Carrion Golem with Enora on her FIRST exploration. 1 turn in and she has 9 cards in her discard pile and no more deck to draw from. This should NEVER be possible in the first scenario.

The 'you can always make the game easier' mindset is really the biggest problem I have with this situation. Yes, you can make it easier. My play group has already done several things to make the game easier. You know who isn't going to try to make the game easier? New players who don't know about the forums. The same ones who are just starting the game and therefore are most likely to be absolutely DESTROYED in the first few scenarios.

Games should be designed so that it's easy for new players to get invested, and experienced players get a bonus for knowing more. PACG plays into that SO WELL, too, since it has a built-in aging curve, so you know exactly where the new players are coming in. And as others have said, things like Elven Entanglement and Demonic Horde aren't the fun kind of hard, they're the frustrating kind of hard. (Examples of fun-hard: Death zone in RotR6, S&S Scenario 6-5. In both cases, they were scenarios that you looked at and said 'oh gosh, this is going to be rough,' steeled yourselves, and persevered through.)
Since Demonic Horde is a random barrier, you don't steel yourself for it. It's just, 'darn, we flipped the bad barrier, let's roll the dice 30 times and if we fail once hopefully it gets shuffled below the henchman.' As was pointed out in another thread, as you get more characters, you also have more points of failure. Even if we give every character a 90% chance, there's only barely better than a 50% chance everyone will win. The end result is that you don't feel like you win, and you don't even feel like you survived. You feel like you got lucky.

Also, an interesting Carrion Golem point. Every base set has had a 14 DC monster, which I kind of like, since it shows that you can sometimes be surprised, and you need to be prepared for something nasty. But let's compare the 14 DC monsters: RotR: Hill Giant, a big strong thing with an annoying fail effect, but the big number was all there was to it. S&S: Sea Drake, a big scary monster that also could deal a decent bit of damage if you failed a moderate DC check, much tougher than Hill Giant, but not insurmountable. WotR: Carrion Golem, a monster that completely shuts down a class of characters, and has a tremendously punishing effect if undefeated. The difference from Sea Drake to Carrion Golem isn't so much in how tough they are, but rather how they feel. Sea Drake is a really tough thing that you really have to put an effort into overcoming. Carrion Golem just shuts down casters, which makes it feel much more cheap and luck-based. Sea Drake makes you mad at it. Golem makes you mad at the designers. I think that's actually a good summation of why WotR difficulty feels off. It's too blunt. S&S was much more subtle in the ways it screwed you over, so it was much easier to blame the game rather than the designers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Even the new Season of the Righteous is starting out rough. No deaths but two failures off the start with two groups. Demonic Hordes was nasty. Failed it the first time but were ready the second. Enora hit the golem and it was nasty.

I can see one player will be having issues with playing the WotR Kyra rather than Class Deck Kyra. Not as independent now. (Two of us switched over to the WotR character/role cards to change up things from the CD iconics.)

Honestly, I wouldn't recommend it (WotR) to people that hadn't played PACG before. I'd recommend the previous two. This one if they felt RotR was too easy. But I'd warn them. That said, this is the third base set. I expected changes. If you've been playing in the previous two, and you're now complaining, I don't feel sorry for you. If this is your first set of PACG, then I feel bad. It's not going to be easy. I don't think any of the sets that follow will be easy.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Listening to the different opinions, I'd like to know how many players each group has, and if that is related to their opinions on difficulty. In previous AP's, I think that difficulty had a roughly U shaped curve, with 1 player having the hardest time, and 2, 5, and 6 player groups also being harder than 3-4 player groups. WotR seems to have a lot of effects that punish larger groups, so 3-4 player groups are probably closer to 1-2 player groups, and 5-6 player groups get hosed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
I don't think any of the sets that follow will be easy.

I'd expect the Mummy's Mask 'B' scenarios to be... not easy necessarily, but definitely present a more new-player-friendly experience than what I've heard here about the WotR 'B' scenarios.


First World Bard wrote:
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
I don't think any of the sets that follow will be easy.
I'd expect the Mummy's Mask 'B' scenarios to be... not easy necessarily, but definitely present a more new-player-friendly experience than what I've heard here about the WotR 'B' scenarios.

Because of something you know about that AP? or because we've all said how much we dislike the difficulty of WotR base adventure?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
I don't think any of the sets that follow will be easy.
I'd expect the Mummy's Mask 'B' scenarios to be... not easy necessarily, but definitely present a more new-player-friendly experience than what I've heard here about the WotR 'B' scenarios.

I vote for that. It's not about difficulty, it's about fun. Having 5 cards when you turn comes with a lot of options but facing a terrible challenge is fun. Having 0 cards and someone else encountering a card that translate for you as "bury your deck, ooops your dead" is not.

To answer isaic16 : we are 5-6 in our group with somehow 2 tanks and 6 casters. Verdict is : not cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think viewing the "B" sets as introductory is essential. Any base set has the potential to be someone's first introduction to the game, and it needs to provide that slow build of concepts and difficulty. To me, this is the whole point of having the B scenarios.

If the design philosophy is that the B scenarios are some sort of "bonus" starting scenarios for advanced players, then there should be some sort of warning to new players to consider starting with AD1 instead.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I am glad this discussion is happening. The difficulty level in Skull & Shackles had, IMO, already started to lean in this direction. Example: that siren monster somewhere in AD5 or AD6 that required triple-Wisdom checks of something around 16 - better just to take the damage and shuffle / hope for the henchman on top, because you'll spend the same amount or fewer resources to beat the siren as you'd take in damage. And that's with Lirianne, who had a Wisdom of 12...forget about it if your wisdom was a d6. That particular monster made the low fun-level of compounding multiple requisite checks-to-defeat really apparent to me. I could see it for a villain or something - might make things epic, and besides you get a free location close for that.

But...people have been asking for this for a while. All the complaining about how easy the game is (including from some people who aren't even commenting on these boards any more, e.g., the Frenchman who was not Frencois)...these guys finally got what they wanted. I guess? Interesting that a bunch of these "give-me-hardcore-difficulty" guys haven't stayed around to see it - I'm not sure they even tried S&S.


Pathfinder Card Game, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MightyJim wrote:


Because of something you know about that AP? or because we've all said how much we dislike the difficulty of WotR base adventure?

At the "Future of the PACG" panel at Paizocon, I asked a question. (Actually, I phrased it as a request, which got an amusing reaction from Mike, but that's not relevant to your question.)

I said something like "If you're going to base the B adventures on Risen from the Sands, could you please tone it down a bit; that module was brutal." If you've played the RPG module in question, you know what I mean.

Liz's response indicated that this was on her mind, and she aimed for the B adventures to introduce the new rules/mechanics/feel of Mummy's Mask a little at a time. So, while not necessarily commenting on the difficulty, it did sound like she wanted the 'B' adventure to be an introduction to the new AP.


Wait, is that the Sandpoint Devil in the "Attack on Sandpoint" card? If so, I didn't realize it participated in the goblin's attack on the town.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Calthaer wrote:
But...people have been asking for this for a while. All the complaining about how easy the game is (including from some people who aren't even commenting on these boards any more, e.g., the Frenchman who was not Frencois)...these guys finally got what they wanted. I guess? Interesting that a bunch of these "give-me-hardcore-difficulty" guys haven't stayed around to see it - I'm not sure they even tried S&S.

I would like to know if people that stated RotR and S&S was too easy if WotR is a better fit.

Also, our groups are 4 people and it was still pretty tough.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I would say that Runelords is not terribly difficult, once players get used to the concepts of the game. S&S definitely had a higher difficulty curve.

I, too, would love to know if the very vocal minority who complained about the difficulty of RotR / S&S think that Wrath is "just right." Most of them don't seem to have remained, however, either indicating that the lower difficulty left them bored (and they didn't continue with the product), or that they were never really inclined to stick with it to begin with - perhaps because they also are in the vocal minority that seems to want each base set to completely re-invent the wheel (e.g., "it just added ships; it's not different enough"). Not sure.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Berselius wrote:
Wait, is that the Sandpoint Devil in the "Attack on Sandpoint" card? If so, I didn't realize it participated in the goblin's attack on the town.

Just a horse.


Calthaer wrote:

I would say that Runelords is not terribly difficult, once players get used to the concepts of the game. S&S definitely had a higher difficulty curve.

I, too, would love to know if the very vocal minority who complained about the difficulty of RotR / S&S think that Wrath is "just right." Most of them don't seem to have remained, however, either indicating that the lower difficulty left them bored (and they didn't continue with the product), or that they were never really inclined to stick with it to begin with - perhaps because they also are in the vocal minority that seems to want each base set to completely re-invent the wheel (e.g., "it just added ships; it's not different enough"). Not sure.

As a player who found RotR to easy, I will chime in. I love the difficulty of Wrath in general, but it comes with two big 'buts'.

1) The difficulty of the base scenarios is ridiculous. I've written about this extensively, but I don't think AP1 should be objectively easier than the base scenarios.

2) The way the difficulty scales for five and six player games seems off to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Calthaer wrote:
I, too, would love to know if the very vocal minority who complained about the difficulty of RotR / S&S think that Wrath is "just right." Most of them don't seem to have remained, however, either indicating that the lower difficulty left them bored (and they didn't continue with the product), or that they were never really inclined to stick with it to begin with - perhaps because they also are in the vocal minority that seems to want each base set to completely re-invent the wheel (e.g., "it just added ships; it's not different enough"). Not sure.

Count me on the list of those who found RotR too easy but that find WotR just about right so far. To be fair, I also found S&S to be just about right, but in a fairly different way...

In RotR, the world revolves around combat checks, but combat power is very easy to accumulate, just about regardless of your class/character. Once you realize that the world revolves around combat checks and your team starts accumulating combat power, they begin to crush. Of course, there are specific monsters and locations that don't use combat, but since you eventually don't really need many blessings/allies to succeed at combat, those resources can generally take care of the non-combat issues. (By the way, this translates to blessings/allies being used for more 'extra' explorations, none of which are every really punishing for a group that has reached this level. This means more looting and more snowballing of power.)

In S&S, there is quite a mix of skills demanded, and there is some need for variety in the party. Of course, there is still combat, but there are many other skills to consider when building a team and a deck for each character in the team. As you realize what mix is needed and where your team's weaknesses lie, you can accumulate resources that will fine-tune each deck to accentuate each character's strengths and shore up any overall team weaknesses. If you don't do this, things get punishing pretty quickly.

In WotR, we are back to a more combat-oriented world (at least through AD1 -- haven't messed with AD2 yet). BUT...especially at the beginning, the resources aren't there to crush on combat checks. Combat is genuinely punishing in a way that it rarely was in RotR, and it must be entered much more sparingly, Combat checks demand that resources be used on them, and in some cases evading them is a best choice (which was almost never true in RotR). There aren't really many extra explorations to be had (and there's a potential that an extra exploration, if not scouted out, is big trouble). There are also new and different types of resources (cohorts, new card combinations, etc.) that need to be used judiciously to raise a team's chances of success.

This is purely conjecture on my part, but I believe that if anything, the B scenarios of WotR are more punishing to groups that have played RotR than they are to groups that have played only S&S or no PACG at all. A group that has played RotR sees the prevalence of combat challenges, says 'Oh I know how this goes,' and then often has to wipe up a corpse or two before the scenario is over because the strategies of RotR don't fly in WotR, and the snowballing of power from RotR just hasn't happened yet in WotR.

I'm not sure if I'm just lucky, but I've been a part of 4 different parties (a 3-char solo, a 5-char solo, a 3-char multiplayer, and a 4-char multiplayer) that have each played through all of the B scenarios and are at various points in AD1 right now. Between the four parties, all but Alain have been used at least once, and the only repeats are a total of 3x Imrijka, 2x Enora, 2x Seelah, and 2x Shardra. There have been no scenario failures, and the only character death came in the 3-char multiplayer where a friend who completed RotR with us but never played S&S with us came in, grabbed Enora, and got her killed about 2/3 of the way through Scenario #1. After we broke down with him what happened and why WotR was different, he played her much more cautiously and watched his resource use, and hasn't died (or really been threatened with death) again yet.

I share my results so far neither to be boastful nor to proclaim great fortune or some secret knowledge about starting out in WotR that the masses have missed. I share them to say that my groups and I have thoroughly enjoyed the beginning of WotR, and have relished the challenge of trying to piece together how to accomplish scenario goals while keeping folks safe and alive. We'll enjoy AD1 and beyond as our powers grow and the threat to a character's survival diminish, but we'll remember our careful start to overcome our humble beginnings in this world as well.


Theryon Stormrune wrote:
I would like to know if people that stated RotR and S&S was too easy if WotR is a better fit.

I'm in that category, Runelords is definitely too easy, my 6 player group is just walking through the scenarios now, often with 15 blessings left. We're at AD 3. We're not even playing well IMO.

The important thing is not challenge however, it's that Wrath makes creatures and locations much more interesting and thematic. By thematic, I mean that creatures have special powers beyond their combat rating (that have an impact).

Wrath's challenge level is much better for me, and even with the increased challenge I've been 13/13, finished AD 2. In 2-4 player games, Wrath has been completely fine.

I've also seen a wide variety of characters be successful in Wrath, including spellcasters and characters that use poison. This entire "I have to use character X" argument isn't true.

Honestly not a fan of the Wrath characters (except Adowyn). There are a lot of spellcasters which is probably not helping in B. Also many of the martials are using D8s for combat (Seelah, Harsk), which doesn't help. It's possible that people playing OP might have an easier time merely because we're using better characters.

Anyway, I'm liking it.

Adventure Card Game Designer

Again, not trying to take a side or anything, but I would say Hooloovoo's description is very close to the design team's experience when we played through Wrath the first time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Mike Selinker wrote:
Again, not trying to take a side or anything, but I would say Hooloovoo's description is very close to the design team's experience when we played through Wrath the first time.

First, Mike, being the one who certainly knows and tested that more than anyone else and certainly with the strong desire to make it right, you are totally allowed to give your vision and it will be read will a lot of interest and fully respected.

Second, don't get us wrong, we love that game and WotR seems like it's gonna be very fun by the time we get to higher AP.

But I just can't help noticing that it seems that people playing small groups or people playing large groups but solo (meaning that - willingly or not - they do greatly optimize the combination of characters or the exchanges between decks, or the who gets the cure, and so on) feel the game is hard but manageable and somehow fun (which I have no reason to contest); but that groups of 5-6 friends wanting each to play whatever they like (so you may be a little off from the optimum) quickly fall behind the pure fun line.

As I said earlier, we'll deal with it and when we finally get rid of AP0 I'm sure the grass will be greener (*), but that was just my $0.02 for mummies and beyond : maybe ensure during testing that it's not only "solo testing" or "min max testing" if you see what I mean. Sorry Old DM chat :-)

Keep the good work going... Kudos to all.

(*) For that persistent failure I recognize we are the only ones to blame. It's just us : we refuse to make the game simpler or just skip the scenario or bend the rules. You told us we can do it, so we'll get back to it until we succeed or die - again - trying. Pb is that some of us are now so afraid of dying, they tend to hold on their blessings and we usually are running out of time. But someday Iomedae will help us I guess. :-)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks for the insight into the design process. I can understand the design intent you have outlayed and agreed with the general approach. Two specific concerns I want to voice
1. Cards that affect ALL players at ALL locations are distinctly demoralising as you have no way to play around them e.g. if it was only at open locations or other limitation, there is some strategy choices available. This is particularly bad if the card is only defeated based on ALL players succeding their check. the Players are left with the thought that it all comes down to luck
2. The intro path difficulty should always be aimed at new players, not returning players. If our play group hit the WoTR begining difficulty as first exposure to PFACG, we would have abandonded the game. New player onboarding is crucial to keep growing the game.

I love PFACG and want to see it grow and thrive and hope that these discussion will inform future sets

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Hooloovoo wrote:
This is purely conjecture on my part, but I believe that if anything, the B scenarios of WotR are more punishing to groups that have played RotR than they are to groups that have played only S&S or no PACG at all. A group that has played RotR sees the prevalence of combat challenges, says 'Oh I know how this goes,' and then often has to wipe up a corpse or two before the scenario is over because the strategies of RotR don't fly in WotR, and the snowballing of power from RotR just hasn't happened yet in WotR.

This is my experience as well - I see a lot of comments about "but what about the new players!" and while I think that's a valid concern, I think the B scenarios are actually easier on new players than they are on us vets. We have a lot of habits, that were good habits before, that happen to be bad habits now. I think a fresh group untainted by previous experience will actually have an easier time with it.

I don't think you have to play a perfectly balanced group, or pick different characters you don't like. I do think you have to adjust your play style, the little mental rules about when to use cards and when to explore and so forth. I think we have to adjust our valuations about which cards are good and which bad as well.

I'm tempted to try a solo Enora or Seoni playthrough of B, possibly starting with the example deck, just to show it can be done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Adding my 2c

I enjoyed the B scenarios as I found most of them quite challenging for my erstwhile heroes. All but one of the B scenarios had to be played 3-4 times to get through and the one scenario I did get past first try, I felt was more luck based than deserving.

However I recognize that I am an outlier in your customer base. I've been played conflict sims (wargames to most of you) since I was 8. I revel in complexity and challenge.

To most players, such abject failure to progress would be highly discouraging.

Further, I call to question the blog post above. If AD1 was meant to be overwhelming for your characters, why were the B scenarios that much harder than them?

With a sense of relief I found that the ultra scary demons of the Fall of Kenebrae needed to only be faced, not defeated. I thanked all the gods whom would listen that the AD1 cards had lessened the chance of pulling Arboreal Blight, or that the servitor Demon summoned by Demonic Hordes for this set was easier to deal with for most of my characters than what we had faced earlier.

I don't believe for an instant that this was the design intent. A sense of relief while playing scenarios representing infernal hordes overrunning the world?

So as an avid gamer and someone whom has helped design and play test a myriad of systems some constructive comments to soften my negativity

There is nothing wrong with banes that will push the party to the edge. But the frequency of such challenges must be carefully considered. Something you can consider for the future is a phased deployment of such banes. If Arboreal Blight (for example) had one copy in each of sets 1, 2, & 3 I don't believe you would be seeing such a level of dismay.

Carrion Golems 3 appearances in the base set + add on also makes life 'interesting' for spell casters. My party may well be less effected than most, with only Kyra and Seoni vulnerable to such depredations, while Balazar fares quite well against it. But when it does come up for them it's either a hand wipe or a bunch of party blessings used up. I think the latter is the intent, the former not so much. The trouble with such a bane is that the immunities are so arbitrary that there is no feeling of challenge. If force for example worked, canny casters might be able to hold something back for this guy. But there is nothing in their arsenal to take this thing on. So while Alain charges this thing down with gleeful abandon, other 'equal' characters are quaking in their boots (or sandals)

I realize that the design space is limited by the RPG's adventure path material, But simple "Got Ya"s such as this seem arbitrary and forced. The escape route would seemingly be to evade such a bane, but Got Ya! Create Pit is specifically designed to not be able to deal with this bane. While the designers may have cackled gleefully at such a moment, I believe that was a poor decision, as this would have at least given game theory decisions to those playing vulnerable casters. As it is, I am maxing out on attack spells, why evade monsters I can deal with if the only ones I fear cannot be evaded?

The next problem to be addressed is balancing large groups versus those whom play a character solo. A hard task for sure, but there have been murmurs that this set punishes groups of six mercilessly.

Having played another cooperative fantasy card game that forgot to balance for large groups in its third iteration I hope this is not the case! I really haven't went back to that game since then as such a glaring design error really leaves a bad taste. ( Much worse than anything we are speaking about here. There was one scenario in particular that your game would be over with death by turn 2-4 no matter what you did if you played with max characters)

So, to excuse my wall of text, I really do like this game. I have been a vocal proponent locally and have hosted many new players into this game. I hope you take my criticisms as they are intended, constructively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
I'm tempted to try a solo Enora or Seoni playthrough of B, possibly starting with the example deck, just to show it can be done.

I'm sure there are few who doubt it can be done. I can invent a game where you roll a d6 once every hour, and if you a roll a 6 you're allowed to advance to the next stage. That game can also be done. But the odds are stacked against it, and it's not fun for those who fail to advance.

Given it seems to be the majority opinion that this game is best balanced around a party of 4, I think I'm going to retry with that instead of 6. Also I'll encourage everyone to play non-casters. It's a shame players can't play the type of character they enjoy to have fun in this game - since it's apparent this game was designed to cater to the "power gamers" we'll do our best to try doing that and see if it's enjoyable.


Mogloth wrote:


In one of my first Wrath games, I encountered the Carrion Golem with Enora on her FIRST exploration. 1 turn in and she has 9 cards in her discard pile and no more deck to draw from. This should NEVER be possible in the first scenario.

I 100% agree. When I scraped Bash Betchem and Chickenchu, I really wanted to pick an arcane caster because our group lacked one. But after reading all of the horror stories regarding the Carrion Golems, I opted for an Inquisitor. I certainly didn't feel I had the freedom to just any character I wanted and have fun with it like I did in the past. I had to think about what character could merely survive long enough to be useful to my group.

I also agree with the ridiculously punishing banes in the basic deck. I am greatly annoyed by all the cards that force you take unavoidable damage, especially the barriers. My most hated example is the Arboreal Blight. My group encountered it 3 times during the Elven Entanglement (admittedly, the tree monster theme came through great). So 5 players were dealt 3 before combat damage + 3 after combat damage + damage from the tree fiends + the potential to have to fight a villain on a failed d20 roll. With no way to mitigate damage, that absurd barrier rendered 2/5 players impotent and we were crushed. I get that most barriers difficult to overcome but when you take two damage no matter what, it comes across as a cheap. My group now groans loudly when we come across the barrier and just starts pulling out what cards they are going to discard.

I don't mind the difficulty of the game too much (despite failing the 2nd scenario twice and the 5th three times due to really bad luck) and and understand why it is more difficult but I agree basic adventure shouldn't be a beat-down but an introduction to the campaign.


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

I do think that people are blaming Carrion Golem on totally wrong reasons.

First of all: The Monsters you encounter are pure random and have nothing to do with the Scenario they actually show up in. This is about the power curve of the Scenarions/Adventures, not a random card in a random deck.

Second: Every, YES EVERY, character who would fail a roll against a Carrion Golem is able to lose his starting hand + 3 from his/her deck. This would be a pain for all characters, not just characters. Trust me, if I play Alain or Seelah, and in the first exploration I'd lose half my deck, I'd be pissed too.

Third and Last: The Carrion Golem is not THAT hard to kill with Seoni or Enora. If you have an ally that gives you a combat boost or some blessings over the characters, or even a longbow here and there, then every character can Melee a Carrion Golem to pulp, yes, even Enora.

Golems have been in PACG since WotR and they have been immune to Spells since Long Before PACG in most Tabletop RPGs, just like Undead are immune to Mental and Poison. It's just logical and themewise for those monsters.

I'm sorry people feel that Carrion Golem is a pain, but it's here and it's a reason to think the game is Hard. The Game is Hard because of certain Scenario Rules and the fact that you need more than just Brute Force to clear a scenario. Also, when I say "Hard", I mean "Challenging in a good way".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Donny, in an RPG typically a melee character can intervene on your behalf, in PACG not so

A d6 strength caster will take 3 blessings to be at a 50-50 shot. Your definition of not that hard seems to differ to most people's

We are discussing the set in general, this bane is a stand out in terms of frustration.

As a sidebar we could also discuss the lack of stand out boons. None of the temptation barriers have tempted me in the least. This has more to say about the strength of the boons in the set rather than my intrinsic will power

This factors into the challenge level of the set as a whole. Harder monsters, harder barriers, less effective boons, and Nasty Scenario rules create a situation that is much more difficult than the sum of its parts might indicate


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Donny Schuijers wrote:

I do think that people are blaming Carrion Golem on totally wrong reasons.

First of all: The Monsters you encounter are pure random and have nothing to do with the Scenario they actually show up in. This is about the power curve of the Scenarions/Adventures, not a random card in a random deck.

Second: Every, YES EVERY, character who would fail a roll against a Carrion Golem is able to lose his starting hand + 3 from his/her deck. This would be a pain for all characters, not just characters. Trust me, if I play Alain or Seelah, and in the first exploration I'd lose half my deck, I'd be pissed too.

Third and Last: The Carrion Golem is not THAT hard to kill with Seoni or Enora. If you have an ally that gives you a combat boost or some blessings over the characters, or even a longbow here and there, then every character can Melee a Carrion Golem to pulp, yes, even Enora.

Golems have been in PACG since WotR and they have been immune to Spells since Long Before PACG in most Tabletop RPGs, just like Undead are immune to Mental and Poison. It's just logical and themewise for those monsters.

I'm sorry people feel that Carrion Golem is a pain, but it's here and it's a reason to think the game is Hard. The Game is Hard because of certain Scenario Rules and the fact that you need more than just Brute Force to clear a scenario. Also, when I say "Hard", I mean "Challenging in a good way".

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on point 3. An ally that gives a combat boost and some blessings? okay, so I play a blessing, my ally plays a blessing, I play an ally that gives me a d4, and what the heck, maybe I used a Mendevian Crusader to explore so that's another 1. What's that add up to? 3d6+d4+1, which averages *drum roll* 13! Hey, you still have less than a 50/50 chance to win, after spending 3 cards, 2 of which were discarded, AND you were lucky in the exploration card you used. Golem IS that hard to kill with a caster. If it had been a 10 or even 12 DC, I don't think you'd have anywhere CLOSE to the frustration you're seeing here. However, 14 is right at that point where a group is spending a level of resources beyond what they'd be using when encountering a Villain with an unprepared character.

Every other point you make I agree with (I'd argue that golems have never appeared this early before, but that doesn't mean they can't). However, the idea that 'characters just need to put in a bit of effort' is foolish. The level of investment you need to put in is more than an average 1-2 person group could handle (you need 3 blessings to get to decent probability), and it's more exploration resources than a 5 or 6 person group can afford to spend (I haven't done the math, but I figure 6-player groups still need to spend at least 60% of their blessings/allies on explores even with average luck finding the henchmen). So, once again, if you're not in that 3-4 character sweet spot, you're boned.


I'll be willing to do an experiment here. Someone pick a number of characters, and what those characters are, to simulate a group of people taking the characters they want. 4, 5, or 6 - just fine by me.

I'll take that party through B-1-2 and see what happens.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Enora's weaknesses can be ameliorated somewhat by having her stick close to Kyra, especially if Kyra and Enora are both packing (at least at low levels) some evasion. Sanctuary and Create Pit can do a lot to keep Enora from getting too badly beat up, and blessings Kyra spends to try to help Enora fight her fights can also heal Enora, buying her more time as well.

Pathfinder ACG Developer

My playgroups have been (size varies 3 to 6 depending, usually 3-4):
WotR: Adowyn, Alain, Enora, Kyra
SotR: Agna, Amaryllis, Flenta, Zarlova, Merisiel, Radillo

Not really sure how representative that is or not, but hey it's a data point :)

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: How Hard Should it Be? Adventure Card Game Power Curves All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.