Warpriest Class Deck Preview

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

It's time for a look at the upcoming Warpriest Class Deck. As the song reminds us, warpriests are good for absolutely everything. While we all know the iconic paladin Seelah is objectively the best character ever, what you might not know is that my favorite character is actually not Seelah, but rather Oloch. In fact, I love warpriests across the board. Let's meet some now!

First up is Oloch. In Skull & Shackles, Oloch combined solid combat and seafaring skills with strong support powers. A devout Gorumite, our new take on Oloch here is more self-reliant, perhaps even a little bit selfish. My guide for this character was a line from his Meet the Iconics post: "Oloch is a quiet, brooding warrior with a disturbing love of violence."


"...relishing the red rush of battle..."

This Oloch shows a personal take on the minor blessing power, but if you need aid in a fight, he can contribute some divine aid—or just charge into the fray himself. During playtesting, our phrase for this Oloch was "Gorum helps those who beat the crap out of things."

Next up is the forgepriest Amli Faldar. We found Amli in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book Belkzen, Hold of the Orc Hordes. Amli is a follower of Kols the Oath-Keeper, the dwarven demigod of duty.


The hammer is also named Oathkeeper.

As a member of the Oathkeepers, Amli adds dwarven toughness and Craft to Melee and Divine skills. She's good at using both weapons and armor, and she can help others who do so as well.

Finally we see Uliah Muharim, a charismatic member of the Wagons of Light, a group secretly working to combat the undead. We found Uliah in the Pathfinder Player Companion book Black Markets. Like many in the Wagons of Light, Uliah is a devotee of Sarenrae, the Everlight.


Shown here NOT in disguise...

Uliah is our most divine-focused warpriest character, and is also the best with allies, especially mounts. Our hope with Uliah is that you will enjoy having him charge around from location to location, and so will everyone else in your party.

For this class deck, we're trying a few new things. We've added some boons for each character's deity. For Gorum, we added a series of spiked armor cards, reflecting the favor of Our Lord in Iron. For Kols Son of Torag, we added a series of hammers, weapons that aid in crafting. For Sarenrae, we added a variety of healing and anti-undead powers, and also a theme built around mount allies.


Look at all the holy candles...

Another new concept in this class deck has to do with deities' favored weapons and a new concept for cards list powers. The idea came from various attempts to make the favored weapons available to the characters even though they aren't—and shouldn't be—Basic cards. On the cards list side of each character card, in the area where a cohort might be listed, we have a new instruction. For example, Amli's is You may treat 1 copy of the weapon Warhammer as if it says "Owner: Amli." This is somewhat like a character power, but it applies only during deckbuilding and rebuilding. Using this technique, we can give Oloch a Greatsword, Amli a Warhammer, and Uliah a Scimitar.


A trio of starting weapons—in the right hands.

We might adopt this concept to other uses in the future. For game designers, this is interesting new space, a way to smooth over some rough edges and also add some fun new knobs and levers, without adding more powers to an already crowded powers list. One thing that's key to this idea is that it's "fire and forget"—you use it when you need to see the cards list, but you don't need to look at it when you're playing a scenario. Please try this out and let us know what you think!

One final note. Those PACG players who like to dig into the background of these characters might recognize some names from the Pathfinder resources mentioned here. When we were looking for existing warpriests to inspire the class deck characters, we found several potential examples. When we discovered that both Ron Lundeen and Tyler Beck had (independently) worked on some, we knew we'd found our characters. Special thanks to both Ron and Tyler for inspiring the characters and for playtesting and feedback on these (and many, many other) parts of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game—and thanks again to all of our amazing fans, playtesters, players, and contributors!

Chad Brown
Adventure Card Game Lead Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Class Decks Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Warpriests
1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just got this deck over the weekend and really interested in running Uliah, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oloch's first power seems very good if I'm reading it right.

A character at oloch's location fights some horrorbeastie but fails the check, they then discard to evade before any damage would be taken, yeah? Then oloch greatswords it into little chunks of horrorbeastie meat.


Also: owning a greatsword from the start of a campaign? Nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Googam wrote:

Oloch's first power seems very good if I'm reading it right.

A character at oloch's location fights some horrorbeastie but fails the check, they then discard to evade before any damage would be taken, yeah? Then oloch greatswords it into little chunks of horrorbeastie meat.

I am not sure they avoid the damage. It basically lets them evade in the resolve the encounter step, which is after you take damage for failing the check to defeat.


For that Golembane Warhammer +2, does it mean to say "For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Strength or Melee die..." instead of "For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill..."?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Googam wrote:

Oloch's first power seems very good if I'm reading it right.

A character at oloch's location fights some horrorbeastie but fails the check, they then discard to evade before any damage would be taken, yeah? Then oloch greatswords it into little chunks of horrorbeastie meat.

I am not sure they avoid the damage. It basically lets them evade in the resolve the encounter step, which is after you take damage for failing the check to defeat.

I'm not sure that's the intent of the power.

It would seem that the designer is trying to prevent the result from the failure. (Yeah, I realize the rest of failing is that it gets shuffled back into the location plus any powers that would occur then.)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wraithguard wrote:
For that Golembane Warhammer +2, does it mean to say "For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Strength or Melee die..." instead of "For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill..."?

Likely not. I expect Vic to post on this thread shortly by sighing, saying that the incorrect text always gets shown on preview blogs, and posting a FAQ entry.

Silver Crusade

Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Just got this deck over the weekend and really interested in running Uliah, I think.

I was excited to run Uliah til I saw there are no attack spells in the warpriest class deck. But RotR Kyra makes her d6+2 melee work out okay.


That was sort of what I was expecting FWB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I was excited to run Uliah til I saw there are no attack spells in the warpriest class deck. But RotR Kyra makes her d6+2 melee work out okay.

The d4 from revealing a Mount will probably help a good bit. Does the deck have combat helper spells? I would definitely expect a Righteousness in there. So I'd expect him to be adequate in the combat department, but just not a rockstar like Oloch.

Paizo Employee Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
Wraithguard wrote:
For that Golembane Warhammer +2, does it mean to say "For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Strength or Melee die..." instead of "For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill..."?
Likely not. I expect Vic to post on this thread shortly by sighing, saying that the incorrect text always gets shown on preview blogs, and posting a FAQ entry.

Vic's on vacation currently, so any sighing and posting will likely happen next week (from him at least).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Googam wrote:

Oloch's first power seems very good if I'm reading it right.

A character at oloch's location fights some horrorbeastie but fails the check, they then discard to evade before any damage would be taken, yeah? Then oloch greatswords it into little chunks of horrorbeastie meat.

I am not sure they avoid the damage. It basically lets them evade in the resolve the encounter step, which is after you take damage for failing the check to defeat.

I'm not sure that's the intent of the power.

It would seem that the designer is trying to prevent the result from the failure. (Yeah, I realize the rest of failing is that it gets shuffled back into the location plus any powers that would occur then.)

It very well could be meant to interrupt the check. But I can't get there from the wording. If it is meant to activate when you fail a check, I'd think it would say so. The way it is worded now, you can succeed at the check(s) to defeat a Ghost, not have the Magic trait when you resolve the encounter, then evade it and let Oloch deal with it. But you'd have to go through the checks first.

I see it not so much as Oloch saying "Let me help you out" as saying "Puny weakling! Move! Oloch smash monster to show you how!"


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

From my 6-character-party perspective:

- Amli seems strictly underwhelming

- Oloch has a cool first power (unless Hawkmoon is correct), but then I look at his hand size and find it's abysmal he's expected to go through half an Adventure Path (at least!) with a Hand Size of 4. Furthermore, he's forced to *recharge* his displayed blessing, which in our games can pretty much mean he's kissing them goodbye. In a party of fewer characters, that isn't struggling for every explore available, his first couple of turns could be spend whittling down his deck to Spells and Blessings only, and I guess he could get some efficient booster-engine going, but in 6-players he's a lost cause

- Uliah... actually seems a pretty cool and well-rounded character. So much so, I can imagine enjoying playing him even better than RotR Kyra, and I'm not even so disappointed he's saddled with a useless Ally as a favorite card

The 'favored weapon' mechanic is downright awesome! I can't wait to see what else can be done with this design space, and I hope it came up early enough, that we may actually see some twist on it in MM. (Though, it's a pet peeve of mine that, strictly speaking, Uliah is armed with a khopesh -you know, which wouldn't be out of place in MM and should probably have its own design- instead of a scimitar)

Lone Shark Games

First World Bard wrote:
Wraithguard wrote:
For that Golembane Warhammer +2, does it mean to say "For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Strength or Melee die..." instead of "For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill..."?
Likely not. I expect Vic to post on this thread shortly by sighing, saying that the incorrect text always gets shown on preview blogs, and posting a FAQ entry.

I'll do it for him. Sometimes I feel like there's a hex on us that says, "The things you are proudest of will be the things that are wrong."


Uliah has the "reveal a Mount/ally to add 1d4 (+ 1)" power which helps a bit. It does make it a bit troublesome, especially when playing blessings I think.

I also just got the Warpriest deck and my comment to Tonya was "wow, there's a lot of combat here. It's basically all combat". Not that that's a bad thing - Alain is pretty much an explore and combat machine.

Longshot: Amli has Poog's power to recharge stuff when you play a blessing on her, that's pretty powerful, although Poog's is a bit more powerful since you reshuffle the card.

First World Bard wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I was excited to run Uliah til I saw there are no attack spells in the warpriest class deck. But RotR Kyra makes her d6+2 melee work out okay.
The d4 from revealing a Mount will probably help a good bit. Does the deck have combat helper spells? I would definitely expect a Righteousness in there. So I'd expect him to be adequate in the combat department, but just not a rockstar like Oloch.

There's a Righteousness; but it comes late.

Running Uliah from the box will be a very different experience than running Uliah from the class deck. Not having Attack spells may be very annoying.

Longshot: The favored weapon comes from the RPG where the playtest Warpriest had bonuses with their deity's favored weapon. It got dropped from the playtest because it was too good and got genericized because some favored weapons were very awkward.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:
Longshot: Amli has Poog's power to recharge stuff when you play a blessing on her, that's pretty powerful, although Poog's is a bit more powerful since you reshuffle the card.

As I said - I'm coming at this from 6-characters perspective. I appreciate that some cards and character powers take on a whole different weight depending on party size and composition, but in my experience: being able to afford to bunch up in 6-player is rare enough (in terms of turns spend at same location, not necessarily in term of occurrence per game), and then Amli's power *recharges* the healed card. As you pointed out, a shuffle would be better, but with only 5 turns per player, unless the healed character has a good cycling mechanic (and those are rare in their own right) - a card recharged is as good as a card lost, as it is extremely rare we reach the 'bottom' of the decks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does the deck contain new 'fancy' blessings of gorum and sarenrae? I do so love those special fancy blessings. Savoured Sting is a house favourite.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
Vic's on vacation currently...

ENJOY!!!!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Googam wrote:
Does the deck contain new 'fancy' blessings of gorum and sarenrae? I do so love those special fancy blessings. Savoured Sting is a house favourite.

Yup! Also new blessings for Kols.


Longshot11 wrote:
I'm coming at this from 6-characters perspective....a card recharged is as good as a card lost, as it is extremely rare we reach the 'bottom' of the decks.

He also can gain the power to reset his hand at the beginning of his turn. This would allow him to cycle up to 8 cards a turn.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Longshot11 wrote:

From my 6-character-party perspective:

- Amli seems strictly underwhelming

- Oloch has a cool first power (unless Hawkmoon is correct), but then I look at his hand size and find it's abysmal he's expected to go through half an Adventure Path (at least!) with a Hand Size of 4. Furthermore, he's forced to *recharge* his displayed blessing, which in our games can pretty much mean he's kissing them goodbye. In a party of fewer characters, that isn't struggling for every explore available, his first couple of turns could be spend whittling down his deck to Spells and Blessings only, and I guess he could get some efficient booster-engine going, but in 6-players he's a lost cause

- Uliah... actually seems a pretty cool and well-rounded character. So much so, I can imagine enjoying playing him even better than RotR Kyra, and I'm not even so disappointed he's saddled with a useless Ally as a favorite card

The 'favored weapon' mechanic is downright awesome! I can't wait to see what else can be done with this design space, and I hope it came up early enough, that we may actually see some twist on it in MM. (Though, it's a pet peeve of mine that, strictly speaking, Uliah is armed with a khopesh -you know, which wouldn't be out of place in MM and should probably have its own design- instead of a scimitar)

As someone else who normally plays 6-character (though I've been trying more small groups lately), I find you're more likely to get through a lot of your deck, even in the fewer turns. The reason is that you're usually going nuts discarding for explorations, and cycling any other cards you have to get to those explores (you can't really afford to carry cards like the belts or circlets, since that slows your cycling). Add that to the fact that you're usually packing almost every cure spell in the box, and I feel recharge is almost as good as shuffle in 6-player possibly even more than in small teams.

I've had 2 player games where I've literally not drawn a card from my deck for 5 turns because my hand is stuffed with non-cycling weapons/items and blessings I don't want to risk losing, so it's very possible to never see a recharged card again. My Sorceror in RotR could generally count on using staff of minor healing 3 or more times per game, since she just powered through her deck at a ridiculous velocity.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Though I only play in two character games, I'm with Longshot. Taking it a step further even, this is the first class deck in a while that didn't have at least one character that had me champing at the bit to see them in action.

The favored weapon mechanic is cool, and I'm down with putting more rules like that on the back of the card. Starting the game with a Greatsword is a nice perk, but, from my memory, Warhammer and Scimitar are both Not Super Great (warhammer is d8+d6 on a discard? same as a longsword--though bludgeoning is (rarely) better; scimitar is d6+d6 on a discard (or maybe d6+1?) so default worse than a longsword on most characters). Either way, since it's only allowing B weapons, chances are it'll be completely irrelevant by the end of the B/1 scenarios. If these were powers that allowed one weapon with a certain trait--"hammer", "finesse", whatevs--that'd be a different story. But as it stands, it's got nothin' on a Wolf (or evil doll) cohort that lasts the entire AP.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Dave,

On that point I'm not at all arguing. I'm still excited, but I just get excited at seeing new designs. I agree that the favored weapon effect is not powerful, and hopefully shouldn't be considered much, if at all, in the power level of the card (maybe a very minor boost for the GS, but not the others). There's certainly no character here that just screams 'potentially broken' in the way S&S Damiel, Radillo, and a few others have. I wouldn't underestimate Uliah, especially come next Season, since Mummy's Mask will probably be overflowing with Undead.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think that player can abuse the own weapon power by banishing weapon during the game, so They can chose another weapon in that time to be "named weapon" potentially allowing two card upgrades. Not super powerfull, but possible.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
I think that player can abuse the own weapon power by banishing weapon during the game, so They can chose another weapon in that time to be "named weapon" potentially allowing two card upgrades. Not super powerfull, but possible.

I don't think that's abusing the power at all. It acts just the same as any other "Owner: CharacterName" card does.

Assume you find yourself 1 weapon short at the end of the scenario (because you banished a weapon or took a weapon card feat), and you take a weapon upgrade. So you add a B-basic weapon to your deck, then apply the upgrade to any of the weapons in your deck, which doesn't have to be the new B-basic weapon. Since any card your character "owns" counts as a B-basic card for building their deck, there's no issue with adding the "owned" weapon & upgrading a different one.
Alternately, you can do things in the opposite order: apply the upgrade to the weapons you have, then add a B-basic card to your deck. But that would still allow you to upgrade a B-basic card to something else, then add the same B-basic card back to your deck, just like any other B-basic card.
And if the "owned" card is still part of your deck at the end of the scenario, you either add some other B-basic card & then upgrade it, or upgrade the "owned" card & then add it back as the new card, depending on the order you apply them.

As far as banishing the "owned" weapon & then taking a non-weapon upgrade, that's the same as Feiya banishing the promo ally Daji & taking a non-ally upgrade. She still gets to choose Daji as her new ally to replace the empty space in her deck, and there's nothing that says she has to take an ally deck upgrade just because she's 1 ally short. A rule like that wouldn't make sense anyways, because then what would happen if she had banished an ally & a spell?

Scarab Sages

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I like Amli. I think she is a better Iconic than Oloch.

Lone Shark Games

The comics gave me an extra appreciation for Oloch. I encourage checking them out, if you don't like the lug enough :)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm super excited about Uliah. All three base abilities are super exciting and make him a good contender for solo play.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Awesome.

Now, can we PLEASE get a magus class deck? I love the class in PFRPG, but Seityl is one of the worst characters in PFACG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Googam wrote:

Oloch's first power seems very good if I'm reading it right.

A character at oloch's location fights some horrorbeastie but fails the check, they then discard to evade before any damage would be taken, yeah? Then oloch greatswords it into little chunks of horrorbeastie meat.

I am not sure they avoid the damage. It basically lets them evade in the resolve the encounter step, which is after you take damage for failing the check to defeat.

Really hate to disagree with Hawkmoon but "would fail to defeat" means that actually the monster could still be defeated. Seems to me that you take damage if the monster is undefeated and that's not the case yet. But a clarification would help, for sure.

Grand Lodge

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

"would fail to defeat" implies, if I recall, that the rest of the text (evasion, in this case) replaces the defeat, as if it never happened.

I could see people trying to argue that the ENCOUNTER never happened, and therefore they should get any expended cards back. However, since it's just the defeat that's specified, and cards have no memory of when or why they were played, I'd personally rule they stay played.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are weapons which you can discard to evade if you fail a check. I don't have my cards -- I am wondering what the wording is on those. We always played you take no damage from the check.

I'm also wondering -- what if the monster has more than one check, and you fail the first? Can Oloch step in right then, or do you have to take the damage, and attempt the subsequent checks first? As soon as you fail the first check, you're not going to defeat the monster.

Finally, I am wondering about the timing of exactly when a bane is defeated.

Don't we have after you act powers which kick in if the bane is defeated or undefeated? If so, the defeated/undefeated state isn't always deferred to the resolution step of the encounter.

Look at the villain's powers for Season of the Runelords 2-5A:

Leaura wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity or Acrobatics 9 check or when Leaura would be defeated, reroll the dice; Leaura is defeated or undefeated based solely on the result of the new roll.

Here you are rerolling the dice on a check because the villain "would be defeated". This seems like very similar timing and language to Oloch's "would fail to defeat".


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

We've played it as if the evasion replaces the defeat. The character doesn't take the damage (or other defeat resolutions) that would result from the monster being undefeated (but any cards played for the encounter remain played). Before/after you act actions would take place as normal (some discussions/FAQ may address complexities with these).

As far as multi-check monsters go, we've played it as if the evasion may occur after either of the (failed) checks.

I was stoked when I received my class deck earlier this week. While the art for Amli didn't have me excited (I'm a big fan of Oloch), I really like the rules for all three of the characters. The Warpriest character really suits my style of play (along with the Magus - there's something about hybrid warriors/spellcasters that appeals to me) and I don't know which of the three characters I want to play more. Each is interesting in their own way, and I could see how I might use each of them effectively (largely depending upon the composition of the rest of the party).


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

Yeah. A bane isn't technically defeated until you resolve the encounter. And comparing his power to the Repelling Pike +1 is exactly why I think it works differently.

Repelling Pike +1 wrote:
For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill + 1d8+1. If you are on a ship, add another 1d4. If you fail this check, you may discard this card to ignore the result and evade the bane instead.

Or think of a Ghost. If you exceeded the difficulty, but didn't have the Magic trait, when would you fail to defeat it? Only during the "resolve the encounter" step.

Look at the "resolve the encounter" step from WotR.

WotR Rulebook p11 wrote:
Resolve the Encounter. If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don’t succeed, it is undefeated—shuffle the card back into its location deck. If you encounter a bane that has the Mythic trait, when it is defeated, your character gets a mythic charge. If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it. If you are forced to end your turn during an encounter, shuffle the encountered card back into the deck, or if it was summoned, banish it; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.

See the parts I made bold? It is declared undefeated only at this step. And, you get a mythic charge when you defeat a mythic bane. And you get that charge during the "Resolve the encounter" step of the encounter. Because that is when the bane is declared defeated.

Now, I will say, "fail to defeat" might be a bit larger. See this comment from Vic. So, it is possible that "fail to defeat" might be more than simply "I got to resolve the encounter and didn't succeed at all the checks."

Maybe we should take it to mean "the moment another character knows the monster would be undefeated they would fail to defeat the monster" which might then mean any of the following:
1. They evade it.
2. They fail a check to defeat it.
3. It has a power that renders it undefeated.

I could see that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Maybe we should take it to mean "the moment another character knows the monster would be undefeated" which might then mean any of the following:

1. They evade it.

Evaded monsters aren't undefeated though. They are "not defeated". I forget if Vic has weighed in on if evading something means you have failed to defeat it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Oops. Yeah, I mean to say "the moment another character knows they would fail to defeat the monster". Edited above. I have a link above too where Vic says evading = fail to defeat a monster. But I'm not sure we should apply that here or not.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Maybe we should take it to mean "the moment another character knows the monster would be undefeated" which might then mean any of the following:

1. They evade it.
Evaded monsters aren't undefeated though. They are "not defeated". I forget if Vic has weighed in on if evading something means you have failed to defeat it.

Man I love those can'o'worms.

It's clear that when you evade the card is neither defeated or undefeated. OK I still have much to learn in the Elvish language but for me it does mean "you didn't defeat" but it doesn't at all mean "you failed to defeat" or "you failed a check to defeat" (since you never tried). Makes some sense?


With regards to taking damage, I would play it that damage from failing the check still occurs, because that damage is part of resolving check, not the encounter.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I read "would fail to defeat" as "a condition was met that declared the encounter as not defeated"

This happens in one of the following ways:
1) The "Resolve the Encounter" step if a check to defeat was failed. Oloch's power can be used during this step to evade and then have Oloch encounter it
2) A power that declares it undefeated or not defeated. Oloch's power can be used immediately after that power takes effect (whenever that would be) to evade and then have Oloch encounter it
3) When you evade, as evasion says it is neither defeated nor undefeated. Oloch's power cannot be used in this case, as the encounter is already over after you evaded it the first time, so you cannot evade it again as part of Oloch's power (recall that the power is "discard a card to evade").

In case 1, note that you cannot evade until after you have taken damage for failing the check, attempted subsequent checks as necessary, and have resolved all AYA powers.

Case 2 is the tricky one, but I don't think it would allow you to evade mid-check. Take the Ghost for example, which is undefeated if the check lacks the Magic trait. However, page 10 of the WotR rulebook states "After you attempt the check, deal with any effects that were triggered by the check." This informs me that the Ghost's undefeated power doesn't happen until the check to defeat is over, so Oloch's power to evade and pawn the encounter off to Oloch similarly cannot be used until the check is resolved (and you take any damage for failing the check, if applicable). It would allow you to skip subsequent checks, and would allow you to skip AYA powers as well.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cyrad wrote:

Awesome.

Now, can we PLEASE get a magus class deck? I love the class in PFRPG, but Seityl is one of the worst characters in PFACG.

The earliest this would happen is after Mummy's Mask is completely out, as it's been stated there are no Class Deck releases during that time (with exception of Summoner, because the schedule slipped a month). This means the earliest we'll see new class decks is going to be April 2017.


skizzerz wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

Awesome.

Now, can we PLEASE get a magus class deck? I love the class in PFRPG, but Seityl is one of the worst characters in PFACG.

The earliest this would happen is after Mummy's Mask is completely out, as it's been stated there are no Class Deck releases during that time (with exception of Summoner, because the schedule slipped a month). This means the earliest we'll see new class decks is going to be April 2017.

Yeah, that is a shame. On the other hand, the design space and, as a consequence, the quality of the class decks has grown with each wave, so having your favourite class later is probably better than sooner.

An observation about possible future class decks:
So far, class decks have always involved characters that have been in a base set before, so I guess there won't be any ninja, samurai, brawler, scald or investigator anytime soon (however, they would all fit greatly into jade regent, so there is hoping for that as the next set after MM).
I also guess that classes that only appeared in a base set and have a reward that allows them to be played with another class deck are off the table as well. That would leave as with possible candidates:

RotR:
-None
SnS:
- Magus
WotR:
- Arcanist
- Hunter
- Bloodrager

Swashbuckler, cavalier, shaman and succubus spy have been rewards afaik.

MM is still missing the final character list, but so far there seem to be kineticist, spiritualist as well as the slayer, with the occultist being out for being a reward again. That's 7 classes so far, with the final mystery class of MM not being known.

@cyrad: If it's only about the character and not about the society, you get a new magus in the MM character add-on already. Besides, brother tylor has put a lot of effort into some awesome homebrew magus characters you can check out in the homebrew forum as well, so there are quite some options.
However, I don't really understand how seltyiel is bad in PFACG. He may be a one-trick pony since his sole purpose is to obliterate anything that involves a combat check, but that is very useful in both RotR and WotR (can't comment on SnS, but since he has an extra role designed around the set, I can't imagine it being too bad).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Arcanist is a reward for Adventure 0-6.

Silver Crusade

I still have high hopes for an investigator class deck.

Scarab Sages

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

Looks cool. As usually, I will near-shore the business of wrangling with the technicalities of wording to Hawkmoon, and will enjoy these decks. I too hope for magus, as I am in the minority (not that any scientific sample has been taken) who liked Seltyiel in S&S.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm surprised at this idea that Seltyiel was disliked in S&S. I rather enjoyed him (although I'll admit that he was in a party with Alahazra who would snatch up all the boons and then point Seltyiel to kill things she couldn't deal with.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I loved Seltyiel as well. He was basically PACG Wolverine. He's the best at what he does (fight stuff).

I used him in Wrath as a Mythic Guardian (Spellblade role) and he was pretty ridiculous.


Iammars wrote:
Arcanist is a reward for Adventure 0-6.

Thanks, I thought swashbuckler was that reward. That would bring us to 6-7 classes for another two waves of class decks after MM. We'll just have to wait and see.

While I really would've liked the magus class deck being out before the hiatus, I think it was actually a good decision to have the hiatus and lessen the burden of everyone for things to settle down for a while. They'll have more chances to catch up with their backlog and their other projects and they will be less prone for delays in the next season and related things.


I like versatile characters, so the OMGKillStuff characters can get boring for me.

I see the Fighter, Barbarian, Gunslinger, Warpriest (for example) as class decks belonging to that role. All of those class deck have side things they can do a little of, but their main purpose is to make the bad guys go away. I can see how some people didn't like them, or think that having too many of them is boring.

But it's still a role and a useful one at that.


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

I think they will eventually do class decks for even the ones that have been rewards.

Silver Crusade

zeroth_hour2 wrote:

I like versatile characters, so the OMGKillStuff characters can get boring for me.

I see the Fighter, Barbarian, Gunslinger, Warpriest (for example) as class decks belonging to that role. All of those class deck have side things they can do a little of, but their main purpose is to make the bad guys go away. I can see how some people didn't like them, or think that having too many of them is boring.

But it's still a role and a useful one at that.

I dunno if I would put the warpriest in that role. Oloch, perhaps, but I think Uliah and Amli are more support.

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Warpriest Class Deck Preview All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.