Search Posts
No. Page 7 of the Core Set Rulebook: "...When a character displays a card, it is not part of that character's hand, deck, or discards, but it still belongs to that character..." The same verbiage can be found in the legacy AP rulebooks (it's on page 8 in the Mummy's Mask rulebook).
In the Ivory Labyrinth/Cultist of Baphomet instance, the sequence doesn't really matter. My interpretation... Moving to Blackburgh happens regardless of the type of bane you encounter. In the case of defeating the villain or a henchman, after moving to Blackburgh and permanently closing the Ivory Labyrinth* you would then move to a random location. * There's a FAQ or discussion somewhere that makes it clear that you can attempt to permanently close a location even if a power moves you to another location before you get to that step. At least, I think there is. I'm going through the FAQ now to find it. In the case of the Ivory Labyrinth, "attempt" isn't the right word since all you have to do is discard 3 cards.
I see this as a way for players to choose an "easy" or "hard" mode with their interpretation. The "easy" mode is to ignore closed locations, allowing members to defeat other henchmen and close those locations while still being able to win if they get an Enemy Ship on the top of the other locations. The "hard" mode (which I prefer) is that you can't win if you close any locations because you don't have an Enemy Ship on the top of those locations. My preference for the "hard" mode interpretation is my view that the thematic intent was that you're supposed to beat every Enemy Ship in the regatta, getting an Enemy Ship on the top of each location, either by defeating them or through other powers (e.g., the Augury spell). The other henchmen are in there as additional challenges, but the regatta doesn't end just because you defeat, say, Hirgenzosk. It's important to remember that each henchman card's power says "...you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from..." The key word is "may" in this case. In most scenarios, you want to close the location. In this scenario, you don't (based on my "hard" mode interpretation). So your decision should be to not attempt to close the location when you defeat a henchman. Ultimately, the developers left his open to interpretation (though I don't know if that was deliberate). They could very easily have included a "During this Scenario" power to state that locations couldn't be closed, making the "hard" mode intent clear. Lacking that clarity, however, and lacking FAQ/errata guidance, players are left to choose the interpretation that works for them.
1) Loot cards [that aren't in characters' decks] are kept in a separate section in the box (or the vault, to use Core Set terminology). They are distinct from other types of cards (e.g., Monsters, Cohorts, Weapons, Blessings, etc.) and are not dealt into locations unless specified by the scenario rules (and off the top of my head, I can't think of any time where a scenario directs any loot cards to be dealt into locations). 2) Cards that are "removed from the game" are not available for use in the future. They should be kept in a separate section of the box. If you have card dividers, you should have one for cards that have been removed from the game (there are a number of PACG card divider files available at the Board Game Geek website if you want to download some - shameless plug: you can see the dividers I made, which are available at the BGG, here). The closest the Mummy's Mask rulebook comes to stating this is on page 23, though that refers only to cohorts: "If you would banish a cohort, remove it from the game instead; it may not be used in future scenarios, even if it's listed on your character card." While you've specified that you're looking for a ruling based on the Mummy's Mask rulebook, the issue was clarified in the Core Set rulebook which was published later and which serves as a reference for the intent of previous rulebooks (not counting where things actually changed). In this case, the relevant ruling can be found on page 4 of the Core Set rulebook: "Cards that are not in the vault [what was called the "box" in previous rulebooks] should be kept in the box separately from those that are. If you are instructed to remove a card from the game, separate it from the vault using the Removed from Game divider." In this, you have to separate the concepts of the "vault" and the "box." The "box" is just the physical container for all of the cards and other components of the game, whereas the "vault" contains those cards that are available for use in the game. Cards can be in the box while not being in the vault. This concept wasn't articulated clearly in previous versions of the game, including Mummy's Mask, creating some confusion. 3) Scenario rewards are taken from the box (the "vault" in Core Set terminology). In the case of loot, you should have all loot cards [that aren't currently in play] stored in the same section of the box ("vault") and you would draw loot granted as a scenario reward from there (not counting loot - or any other card - that has been removed from the game).
That's an incredible amount of work that you did, Jenceslav. Thanks! While it's not quite what I'm working towards, it will definitely be very helpful if I move forward. At this point, I'm doing two basic things: 1. Transferring the various APs from cards to a printed file.
The reason for the first is that my gaming group is getting a little longer in the tooth and reading the small print on the cards has become challenging for many of us. Also, having some rewards spread across two or more cards makes it easy to forget some things, especially "During This Scenario" powers. And this is especially true in the case of the Season of Tapestry's Tides AP where numerous scenarios and adventures have rewards that are powers that can be used for the rest of the adventure path. By consolidating all of these rules/rewards onto a single page that uses much larger font than the cards, it's easier to read and remember everything. The lone exception (so far) is that all of the reward powers for the Season of Tapestry's Tides are recorded on a separate sheet and checked off as we earn each one (which is still much easier than writing them down on Chronicle Sheets or referring back to various pages through the course of game play. An added bonus is that I can update things based on FAQ entries, ensuring that we're using the latest official rules for each adventure/scenario. Another added bonus is that these files are formatted for mini binders, and though those are larger than 3 cards (Adventure Path, Adventure, Scenario), each mini binder contains all of the APs that use a boxed set. This allows me to easily refer to a large number of scenarios for inspiration in my own efforts at Adventure Path/Adventure/Scenario creation - I simply have to peruse through five or six mini binders rather than refer to a large number of cards and Society files. The reason for the second is simply to make it easier to play through the Society APs as a regular party, just like playing through the boxed APs. Something I'm not doing [yet] is updating text to Core wording. Some of the players in my group are resistant to learning new things. While Core wording is much more economical, incorporating that wording into these files would complicate things with the group. Aside from the adjustments from Society to regular play and FAQ updates, the only changes I'm making are using "their" in place of "his" and "her" (except in the narrative text) and fixing any spelling/grammar errors (though I'm sure I'll make my own in this endeavor). One day, once this group completes/masters the classic APs and gets to the Core Set/Curse of the Crimson Throne AP, I'll update these files to use the Core wording. In the meantime, I'm keeping things as consistent as possible with the old wordings. As for the "in this order/in any order" issue, there are also examples in other APs: Demon's Heresy (Wrath of the Righteous 3), The Half-Dead City (Mummy's Mask 1), and Pyramid of the Sky Pharaoh (Mummy's Mask 6) also allow for some of the scenarios to be completed in any order. In practice, I've changed all of the Society adventures so that the scenarios are completed in A-F order except where the narrative suggests that scenarios can be completed in any order. In this, City of Secrets (Season of the Runelords 2), Lost at Sea (Season of the Shackles 1), and a Pirate's Life (Season of the Shackles 2) allow for some of the scenarios to be completed in any order. Other exceptions include the optional (generally P) adventures/scenarios. In all of the other cases, however, the narrative suggests a sequence for at least the majority of scenarios, so it was just easier to apply the "in this order" change in the vast majority of cases, allowing the Read the Following Aloud and Development text to be read aloud without amendment. Here's an example of what one of these scenarios looks like: Best Served Col (Skull & Shackles 5)
Thanks again!
Okay, I went through the various Society APs and it looks like bonus feats (i.e., those that are specified as rewards rather than as a result of using Hero Points) don't need to be limited to #+1. Here's the basic rundown. The boxed APs are shown first, their stats showing the total number of each feat that each character should have at the end of the AP (and where they gain feats for the final scenario/adventure/AP, the number of those feats they have as they start that scenario are shown in parenthesis). The Society APs are shown immediately below their respective boxes, assuming that each character will earn 6 of each feat as a result of Hero Points and listing only those feats that are specified in rewards.
Season of the Runelords
Season of the Shackles
Season of Tapestry's Tides
Season of the Righteous
Season of Plundered Tombs
Season of Factions' Favor
The only Society APs in which characters can gain more than #+1 in one or more of those feats are Season of Tapestry's Tides (with power feats potentially being 8 OR card feats being 9) and Season of the Righteous (with skill feats ending at 11 and power feats ending at 9 - being equal to or less than the total numbers of the same types of feats in Wrath of the Righteous). Since Wrath of the Righteous is widely considered to be extremely difficult, even with the number of feats each character has, it seems clear that the Season of the Righteous requires a similar number of feats. Season of Tapestry's Tides might be debated, but the end-state isn't markedly different from Skull & Shackles. So I'm not going to limit bonus feats to #+1. Instead, players will have to somehow annotate bonus feats, either marking them differently or identifying the number of each. All of this supposes, of course, that the Society APs aren't easier than their boxed counterparts, not requiring the additional feats (where those are noted). I lack experience there, though, so I'm relying on experienced Society players to keep me in check.
Quick follow up... While I haven't conducted my detailed analysis of the reward progressions for the various Society APs, I realized that limiting feats in Season of the Righteous may be a disservice since it appears that the season follows the Wrath of the Righteous progression in allowing for considerably more feats (than #+1) as a result of the Knights of Kenabres. At this point, I'm wondering of bonus feats should simply allow for "more" than #, with players somehow differentiating between the standard (Hero Point-based) feats and bonus feats somehow (my group uses laminated character sheets, so it's simply a matter of using a different color to mark bonus feats). Or perhaps that might be an exception built into the Season of the Righteous, with other APs limiting bonus feats to #+1. I think a more detailed analysis of each AP is necessary.
I have been working on "converting" the Society APs to regular play. Most of that work is fairly simple and follows much of the advice given above, simply de-Societifying things. For example, when a reward says that a character may temporarily replace some boon in their deck with some boon from the game box and that they must return that boon to the game box at the end of each scenario, the reward can be changed to [Boon type]: Boon Name. Similarly, some rules adaptations can be ignored, such as the modified rules for Traders in the Season of Plundered Tombs and the Season of Faction's Favor. Where Society play makes it necessary for adventures and scenarios to be played in any order (because you never know who is going to be at the table and where their characters are in APs), de-Societifying everything means that adventures and scenarios are played in order. There are two areas where I am looking for input. The first is feats and the second is deck upgrades.
I've followed the convention of Hero Points. Realistically, most members of my current group will ignore the aspect of spending Hero Points to not die - they'll just not die as a matter of fact since that's how they play the regular APs (I'm the only one that plays permadeath). I'm pretty sure that the other members of the group will like the re-rolls, especially since a few of them are notoriously unlucky with the dice rolls. What I like about Hero Points is that they allow players to have more control over how their characters advance. What I don't like about Hero Points is that they limit character advancement by tier (though I've used adventure deck level in my codification). I analyzed the progression for the boxed APs and found that each is unique, and each has varying end-states and mid-AP snapshots. For example, characters have 6 skill feats, 7 power feats, and 8 card feats at the end of Rise of the Runelords; while characters have 7 skill feats, 11 power feats, and 9 card feats at the end of Wrath of the Righteous (in both cases, characters gain two card feats after completing the last scenario, so those don't really matter unless the character goes through one of the promotional 7 scenarios). It's also important to note that one of the rewards after completing the final scenario of Adventure 3 is that characters earn role cards and power feats. One of the joys of getting a role card is checking off one of the role-specific power feats. Hero Point progression doesn't follow the box APs, however. Instead, players will most likely use their Hero Points for one of each of the feats after completing the first, second, and third scenarios in an Adventure. That's not really a huge deal, but that post-Adventure 3 role card/power feat satisfaction will have to be allayed until the character successfully completes an Adventure 4 Scenario. That's a very minor nitpick, I'm sure. My main concern with Hero Point progression, however, is that some of the APs have scenarios/adventures whose rewards grant feats. The Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Guide covers this on pages 9 and 10, but I've modified that a bit. I'm just calling them "bonus" feats that allow a character to have 1 more of a feat than the adventure deck level without the conversion to a Hero Point if they already have #+1 feats (I'm not using # in my codification because this group isn't familiar with Core terminology and I don't want to muddy things further). I'm working on expanding my reward analysis to include the Society APs, but my gut instinct is that the "bonus feat" concept should be fair. However, I have never participated in Society play (not for lack of wanting), so there may be nuances that I'm missing but which experienced Society players will be able to describe.
The advice to ignore deck upgrades works well enough for characters designed for the AP (e.g., Crowe in Wrath of the Righteous). However, there are multiple characters that really benefit from cards that are in their respective decks. For example, the Barbarian CD characters might make great use of the various war paint items while the Gunslinger CD characters might make great use of the various Firearm weapons and Ammunition items. Often, these boons are not found in an AP's cards. One solution is to shuffle those decks (or specific cards in those decks) into the game box. Another is to allow characters to use deck upgrades as in Society play. I've chosen a middle ground option that is based on *not* shuffling any cards from decks into game boxes while recognizing that characters might benefit from boons in both the game boxes and their decks. Under this, a standard "reward" at the end of a successfully completed scenario is 1 deck upgrade - replacing a boon in their deck with a boon from their CD deck (this follows normal Society rules). In addition, if a scenario/adventure reward allows a "bonus deck upgrade," an additional deck upgrade may be taken. In both cases, the deck upgrade is optional - there may be times when the boons they have available are better suited to the nature of the AP. And something that I just considered while composing this post is that initial deck building should allow for some number of boons from CDs. I'll have to work that into my rules. Note that the standard Society rules for CDs apply in my rules, so any version of Seoni can use the Sorcerer CD, any version of Harsk can use the Ranger CD, etc. Also, where various Society APs allow other characters to be played using certain decks (e.g., playing Alain from Wrath of the Righteous using the Paladin CD), those are allowed for deck upgrade purposes without having to earn them as rewards. As with my feat progression idea above, this compromise seems fair to me, but my complete inexperience with Society play means that I'm just guessing. Does anyone, especially those with experience in Society play, think that these ideas are unbalanced in any way? If so, do you have suggestions for alternatives?
All it means is that, in addition to any other method you have for exploring (e.g., your free exploration, explorations granted by playing other cards such as many blessings and allies, and other powers), you may discard a card to explore. In practice, this means that you can use your normal free exploration, you may use other cards/powers that allow you to explore, then you may discard a card [that doesn't normally allow an exploration] to explore; and you may keep doing this as long as you have cards to discard. Both questions are answered with a "no."
I'm still working on the sheets for the Core characters (both the official characters and the classic characters) in the classic format, but that's a back burner item. In the meantime, I uploaded some images of the "missing" character sheets to the BGG. I actually submitted images for all of them, but the BGG only accepted a few, rejecting the rest on some 80%/20% criteria (I don't understand it, but it doesn't seem to be a hill worth dying on). So for anyone that is wondering what the latest sheets look like, here are some links: Hell's Vengeance 1: Linxia and Urgraz Hell's Vengeance 2: Zelhara Ultimate Intrigue: Aric/The Red Raven Ultimate Magic: Enora Ultimate Wilderness: Zova Those are screenshots from the Microsoft Word documents, trimmed down to the same dimensions as the .pdf versions (8.5" wide by 5.5" high, the same as the official sheets). On the screen, the .pdfs can look slightly different, but they print true. The only reason I can think of for them to not print true is if the lack of the Dax and Dax Pro fonts causes one's computer to use other fonts, which would throw formatting off a bit. If anyone finds that to be the case, I'll upload the files in image format, locking the proper formatting in.
I can use this format with the Core wording for all of the classic characters. It will take some time, however. I'll post updates. Are there any in particular that you would prefer be done first?
We already took care of that here. ;) Believe me, it was much easier and faster to do this than it was to convert them to Core wording. The only "hard" part about this little project was getting the format. Or are you suggesting using the original format with the Core wording? That can be done, too, I suppose.
The sheets are all available at the Board Game Geek. Clicking the deck name below will take you to that deck's entry at the Board Game Geek. Clicking "file" will take you directly to the page for my sheets. Keep in mind that other members have also uploaded their own versions of the sheets and you may prefer theirs to mine. Hell's Vengeance 1 >> file >> Lazzero (Cleric); Linxia (Hellknight); Urgraz (Antipaladin)
The one change I might make is to decrease the line width from .5 pt to .25 pt. This is not an important change, however, so will be done either as errors are corrected or as I find time. As always, identification of errors is appreciated so that the cards can be corrected.
Like many of you, I lament the discontinuation of support for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game by Paizo and Lone Shark. PACG is among my top 3 favorite games (counting all APs and the Core Set as a single game) and I can see myself continuing to play it for many years to come. I had hoped to see many more adventure paths and decks (and goblin adventures). Alas, that was not to be. We have seen fans of the game continue to churn out creative products, and those are great. They’re not quite the same as the Real Thing, however. My pipe dream, of course, is that we will see official products and support renewed in the future. That’s beyond my control, however, and it looks very unlikely at this point (sad panda sounds). So my mind has turned to ways in which PACG might receive a little support from Paizo/Lone Shark to help fans of the game, both current and (more importantly) future, enjoy the game. Money was mentioned as a key factor in the decision to suspend/terminate development of the game (link). Time, too, is a factor. So any potential future support for the game during this [probably permanent] period of non-support has to involve as little of each as possible. That severely limits the scope of what might be done, leaving new adventure paths, characters, etc. to the band of dedicated gamers that continues to create content for the game that they love. I decided that there were several options that were relatively easy (?) to accomplish and which would support both current and future fans of the game, all via Drive Thru Cards. While there may be some level of effort required to develop the cards, the other costs are transferred over to DTC and the consumer. This reduces the logistics demands upon Paizo/Lone Shark. There may even be mechanisms for granting the authority to develop the cards to fans working under the auspices of Paizo, Lone Shark, and the community, further reducing the time/effort requirement for Paizo and Lone Shark.
Note that I’m not including the exclusive cards that were available in the various Pathfinder Battles: Iconic Heroes Sets that were available from Paizo/WizKids/NECA, largely because I don’t know if whatever agreements Paizo/Lone Shark had with WizKids/NECA would allow for the cards to be available outside of those sets. If there was a way to do that, however, that would be nice, too.
Personally, I would purchase each of these if they became available (except for the Cards for Characters, but only because I have all the APs and decks). I have recently turned a new group of players on to the game and their options are limited because of the limited availability of most products. I allow them to use anything that I have, but they are unable to go out on their own and find most of the products. I imagine that there are other players out there that might similarly benefit from such products becoming available. I’d probably even be willing to do the work necessary to make this happen if Paizo/Lone Shark were willing but unable to support it due to lack of resources (assuming I had the necessary software and images, of course). I just wanted to get this off my chest.
Thanks for find that, Jenceslav. I didn't even think to research the other Goblin characters. It's a good thing I didn't change anything on Nok-Nok's sheet. ;)
One thing I noticed, but didn't do anything about, was that Nok-Nok (Tha Fith Gawd) has a hand size 5 □6 □7 □9. I didn't see any discussion on the forums about it. It just seems to me that the 9 should be an 8. Like I said, though, I didn't change the 9. I'm just bringing it up in case anyone knows why the progression skips the 8.
Update: I printed a few of the sheets as tests, comparing them to the official sheets, and decided that I needed to tweak the format. That took a little bit of work, but all of the sheets are [almost] completed. I'm just performing one final proofreading before submitting them to the Board Game Geek. The BGG file descriptions will list where the files differ from the printed cards, either providing an explanation (for the three changes I have made) or a link to the official FAQ (for the four changes that Paizo/Lone Shark made). I found one additional issue... Occult Adventures 2 Mavaro (Ghost Hunter): The core power uses the following wording in the first power: "...to acquire that card..." That power refers to the top card of Mavaro's deck. The Ghost Hunter role changes that wording to "...to acquire the top card of your deck..." Since both the core power and the Hoarder version use the same wording, I am assuming that the Ghost Hunter wording is an oversight, an earlier version of the power's wording that was fixed on the character card and the other role, but missed here. There is no change in functionality, so it looks like the Ghost Hunter version was viewed as inefficient. So I've used the "...to acquire that card..." wording. I hope to have proofreading completed today/tomorrow, with BGG submissions taking place within 24 hours. Time for BGG approval varies, but typically takes 96 hours or less (usually less, but I can't make any promises about someone else's availability).
Update: I have completed all of the sheets, including a first round of proofreading and a format check. I'll conduct the second round of proofreading tomorrow, after which time I'll convert each of the files to .pdf (they're currently .docx) and submit them to the BGG. Once (if) they are approved, I'll post the links here. There will likely be some errors, so I expect to see other members identify them either here, at the BGG, or both. I'll make any necessary corrections and update the files at the BGG. Note that I'll also post some pictures comparing the official sheets and mine, including printing them at 100% (the actual size on the files) and scaling them to fit the page (which is how I normally print them). The intent there is to show how closely they resemble the official files as well as to highlight where I have incorporated differences to ensure that no one mistakes them for official files. I made two changes on sheets: Hell's Vengeance 1 CD Linxia (Enforcer): The second core power starts as "When you play a boon that has the Corrupted or Shield ([] or Heavy Armor) trait for its power, shuffle a random card..." This is different from the basic power and the corresponding power on the Knight of the Rack role, which reads (using the basic power wording) "When you play a boon that has the Corrupted or Shield trait for its power, you may shuffle a random card" (emphasis added). I couldn't find anywhere where the designers indicated that this was a deliberate change. I don't recall any other character power changing the basic wording on a role card in a way that changes the functionality. I recall one character whose wording changed to accommodate role feats, but the functionality didn't change (I can't recall which character this was off the top of my head, but I'm looking). The removal of "you may" in the Enforcer role power is a functional change. Does anyone recall/know of any explanation for this change that was given by the designers? I don't recall it coming up during the Core Character Conversion project (though I'm searching through that lengthy discussion). In fact, we kept the "...you may..." wording in that power in the sheets for that project. Occult Adventures 2 Yoon (basic and both roles): The first power lists the "...Attack, Fire and Magic traits..." I have added the Oxford comma after Fire ("...Attack, Fire, and Magic traits..."). This is not a functional change, but aligns the formatting with the usage on all of the other character sheets.
Indeed - if someone has already taken care of this, I can stand down. I just checked the Board Game Geek and saw that otakugirly created character sheets for the decks and redeux created a character sheet for Nok-Nok. Here are the links for anyone that is interested: Hell's Vengeance 1
These are all very nice and I've given each thumbs and gold. However, they are too large for my needs, which requires that they print at the same size as the official sheets (so I can cut them down and use them the same way). Since sheets are already available at the BGG for the community to use, there isn't a pressing need for me to upload my own, though I'll be happy to do so if anyone else wants smaller sheets.
I'm working on character sheets for the missing decks - those legacy decks and characters for which Paizo did not create freely downloadable character sheets. I think that this this is permissible under the Community Use Policy, especially since the community was allowed to convert the same legacy characters (from all decks and APs) into Core Set wording/format and freely distribute those (via the Board Game Geek). My intent is to similarly distribute these character sheets via the Board Game Geek. If I am mistaken and Paizo does not approve of this, one of the purposes of this discussion is to allow for that communication to take place. Assuming this is permitted, however, I don't think that much assistance will be needed. It's mostly a matter of copying the information from the cards onto the documents, updating them based on official changes in the FAQ. The format I'm using bears a very strong resemblance to the official character sheets, though I'm using different fonts (I didn't get permission from my wife to purchase the real fonts), I'm not using the deck logos (including the circular icons that each deck has), and the small print at the bottom makes it clear that these are unofficial. Here's the small print that appears at the bottom (this is the template):
Please let me know if you think I need to make any changes to that template. As of right now, these are the decks (and characters) that I think are missing:
If I'm missing anyone, please let me know. As with the officially available character sheets, these will not include any cohorts or other cards that might be necessary to play the character (e.g., CD Seltyiel needs both the Magus Arcana and Gallivance cards from the Magus Class Deck). Why am I doing this? Essentially, it's because I use the character sheets instead of the cards when playing the game (except that I use the tokens when I need to shuffle someone into a location). I get the heebie jeebies just thinking about marking my cards. Some might suggest using card sleeves and dry erase markers or alcohol pens, but even that makes me twitch. I have all of the officially available character sheets, and each is laminated and cut down to size so that I can use them as quasi-mats during game play. You can see an example in this image (which is posted at the Board Game Geek). In this play-through of Wrath of the Righteous, I'm playing Seoni and Imrijka while my wife is playing Crowe and Kyra. We have begun playing the game with a new group and there are a few characters that I really want to try out (anyone familiar with my antics here on the Paizo forums knows that I'm a sucker for the Magus class), but the lack of character sheets and my reluctance to use the cards limits me. Anyhoo, I'll plug away at this little project and will keep you informed of my progress herein, including links to the finished files. In the meantime, if anyone has any advice or feedback, I'm all ears.
I just re-read my post and realized that I misstated my direct answer to your second question. The real answer is that I believe that the premise of your question - that you banish the spells at the end of the scenario if you banished the Emerald Codex to get them - is invalid (i.e., you don't banish such spells).
On the first question, I see the “Banish any that remain at the end of the scenario” instruction as only applying when the Emerald Codex is buried and the resulting spells are displayed. If the Emerald Codex is banished and the resulting spells are added to a character’s hand, they are then played as normal and are not automatically banished at the end of the scenario. In most cases, using a spell is a simple banish/discard/recharge/whatever usage. In such cases, when you bury the Emerald Codex and display the resulting spells, the normal usage is replaced with banish; and if you are playing by the Core Set rules, you ignore the prospect of recovery. In cases where use of the spell requires that it be displayed somewhere, simply use some sort of marker to keep track of it and then banish the spell once it is no longer needed or at the end of the scenario. To directly answer your question, no, if the cards (spells) are added [to your hand] by banishing the Emerald Codex, they are not banished at the end of the scenario. On the second question, the choice of whether to banish or bury the Emerald Codex really comes down to your strategy with assigning and using the card and, more importantly, which character has the card. The overall decision to banish or bury the Emerald Codex depends upon whether or not the Divine spellcasters in your party have the spells that they need/want. If your Divine spellcasters have the spells that you need/want, burying the Emerald Codex to display the resulting spells and then banish them at the end of the scenario makes sense. You can then re-use the Emerald Codex in subsequent scenarios, basically getting three free spells per game, with those spells being usable throughout the game and not depending upon being in someone’s hand (only after the Emerald Codex finally appears in the owner’s hand, of course). Conversely, if you have any Divine spellcasters whose repertoire of spells is sub-par and want to try to round those spells out without relying upon encountering and acquiring boons, banishing the Emerald Codex to get spells that might be kept at the end of the scenario can be an effective strategy; and this works best when a Divine spellcaster uses the card, putting the resulting spells directly in their hand without relying on needing characters to be at the same location or having to wait until rebuilding decks at the end of the scenario. To directly answer your question, you would use the banish option for the Emerald Codex if you don’t need more/better spells and are just looking to have some freebie Divine spells for the scenario. My personal strategy with the Emerald Codex is to give it to a non-Divine spellcaster, using the bury option when using it. This gives that character three spells and expands the total number of Divine spells that the party has available at any one time. Those spells are banished after they are used (regardless of their normal usage) and any that aren’t used are banished at the end of the scenario. The character can then do this in subsequent scenarios. Personally, the card would be clearer if it were worded as: Banish this card to add 3 random Divine spells from the box to your hand. You may instead bury this card to display the spells; you may banish any of these cards for its effect as though you had played it as a spell; banish any that remain at the end of the scenario. (Keeping the legacy language) If I were going to convert this card to Core Set language, it would look something like: Banish this card to draw 3 Divine spells from the vault. You may instead bury this card to display the spells; you may banish any of these cards for its effect as though you had played it, ignoring its During Recovery power; banish any such displayed cards at the end of the scenario.
Only if you use a power that explicitly says that you can do that. For example, Rise of the Runelords Harsk has the following power: You may recharge a card to add 1d4 ( +1) ( +2) to a combat check at another location. The key there is "...to a combat check at another location." Core Harsk has a similar power: On any combat check, you may recharge a card or reload a weapon to add
The key there is "On any combat check..." (as opposed to just a "local" combat check).
Question then: What if my character- Valeros doesn't list any of those as his skills? i.e. he is INT and wisdom...but not knowledge... This is from 2019 edition In cases where a character doesn't have a listed skill and makes a check using that skill they use a d4 (see page 11 of the Core Rulebook, the paragraph beginning Determine Which Skill You're Using). When the card is in your hand and you are considering playing it while making a check, none of the CHECK TO ACQUIRE information matters. All that matters are the POWERS and TRAITS (and TYPE, I guess, since characters can only play one of each type of boon, not counting those that may be used freely).
I have the PACG Organizer from The Broken Token (https://thebrokentoken.com/pacg-organizer) in each of my adventure path boxes. This allows me to have all of my cards sleeved and out of the smaller boxes that they came in, especially since I use custom dividers that are available at the Board Game Geek (https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/126656/vertical-dividers-pacg-base-sets - there are alternatives available at that site so I recommend shopping around before you choose to download/print any). The Broken Token's organizer makes the box heavy, but it's worth it. At least one other company provides a similar organizer, but enterprising players can also create their own using either hobby wood or foamcore. I have each of the class/character/add-on decks stored in a 100-card storage box from BCW (https://www.bcwsupplies.com/100-card-storage-box). As with the AP cards, all of the cards are sleeved and I use custom dividers (these are also available at the Board Game Geek, but each file is associated with the deck and I don't want to inundate you with links). If I'm going somewhere else to play, I only need one or two of these so I can take them in the individual boxes. If I want to impress people, however, I have a collectible card storage box similar to this (that's not the actual one that I have). Mine holds two different decks and there is a compartment for dice. In addition, I have custom standees, multiple sets of dice, and a variety of other aids stored in a tackle box from Plano (https://planomolding.com/products/elite-series-angled-tackle-system-pmc7970 10?variant=40467981238432). This is mostly for storage, but if I ever find the time to host PACG at a convention or game club, this tackle box has everything I need to provide for the needs of twelve players (i.e., two tables). Generally speaking, I don't have the "problem" of not being able to play at home. The two PACG groups I have play either at my house or at my in-laws' house. I have all of the APs and my in-laws have the first four. If I'm playing at my in-laws', I only have to worry about carrying my dice (in a handy bag) and maybe a class/character/add-on deck if I'm not going to use one of the characters that comes in the AP. If I were going to play somewhere else, I would probably only take one AP, my dice, and three or four class/character/add-on decks - not too difficult to lug around. I dream of the day when I need to carry the tackle box somewhere for PACG - it wouldn't be easy, but I'm sure it would be fun.
I wouldn't think too hard about it. When The Carnival's power is used, just flip the die over to its opposite, whether it's an "official" PACG die (i.e., with the non-standard arrangement of faces) or some other die. Having mixed dice might even make things interesting, with flipping some dice giving effect X and other dice giving effect Y.
You might check out this great blog entry. It's general in nature and not specific to the Mummy's Mask adventure path, the principles are relevant.
Are your experiences in the context of the legacy APs (Rise of the Runelords, Skull & Shackles, Wrath of the Righteous, and Mummy's Mask)? The current rules (Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne AP) actually address the issues you've brought up, including methods of varying the difficulty level. If you haven't already, you might check out the rulebook.
As far as I understand it, the limit of one boon of each type only relates to an encounter (page 8) or a check (page 12) - there is no limit of one boon of each type per turn. And keep in mind that boons that can be played "freely" aren't counted towards the limit. The direct answer to your question is that you can play a blessing on an encounter/check and then play another blessing to explore again.
Assuming you're willing to use the converted character rules that are posted at the Board Game Geek (see this discussion for details, this post has links to each of the files), the only ones you need are those for which there are other cards that specific characters need, such as Cohorts. That definitely includes the Wrath of the Righteous and Mummy's Mask APs, but I think Skull & Shackles might have a few, too (and/or the character add-on decks for those APs); the Magus, Summoner, and Witch class decks. You would also need both Occult Adventures character decks, the Pathfinder Adventures character deck, all five of the "Ultimate" add-on decks, and both Goblins decks (since these decks include characters of classes that aren't in the Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne AP). To be clear, all of the characters from official legacy products have been updated via the Core Conversion project and are available for free download, so the part this is missing is the Cohorts (for which I'm planning another Core Conversion project).
Is this for the role playing game or for the adventure card game?
I would play it as option 2 based on the rule that summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned (page 14 of the S&S and Core Set rulebooks). I know that the intent of the FAQ appears to cover sequential summoning, but it just seems cleaner to play it that way. Practically speaking, either option you presented works for me as long as you have the option to close the location if you successfully defeat the bane. The overall intent is that the character can close the location by defeating the bane, so as long as you preserve that, whatever you and your group are happy with should be sufficient.
Corrected Core Conversion character sheets for the Summoner CD (v 1.2) have been approved at the BGG and are available for download: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/207762/core-conversion-character-sheets- pacg-summoner-cla.
Corrected Core Conversion character sheets for the Summoner CD (v 1.2) have been approved at the BGG and are available for download: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/207762/core-conversion-character-sheets- pacg-summoner-cla.
Summoner CD 1.2 has been uploaded with corrections to Alase identified here (favored card type has been corrected to "Spell or Blessing" and deck list weapon entry has been corrected to "-" with a card feat of 1). The file has not been approved on the BGG yet, but should be approved later today or by tomorrow. I'll post a link here once the file is approved. Also, this error points out a weakness in my methodology that might reveal further errors. When creating the character sheets, I used the official downloadable sheets as the baseline. The only Core Conversion character sheets for which I used the cards as my baseline were those that didn't have downloadable sheets. The downloadable sheet for Alase had the favored card type and deck list errors, so those were copied over into the Core Conversion sheets and no one caught them prior to now. If there are any other downloadable sheets that have errors, those probably made it into the Core Conversion character sheets. So I'll be going through all of the Core Conversion character sheets and comparing them to the cards and the FAQs to make sure there are no further errors (and correcting any that I find). If you know of or notice any other such errors, please post them here so that I can fix them.
The Core Conversion character sheet has been corrected and should be approved and available for download from the BGG soon (version 1 2).
I'm hoping that he'll come back to see if anyone provided anything he might find useful. Also, there's a (decent?) chance that similar concerns will be raised in the future by other players. Since the forums are really slow now, anything we post isn't likely to be pushed back too far, making it more accessible.
It has been five years since I finished WotR, so I don't remember the details of the experience. From what I recall, however, yes, there were some very frustrating moments. Nevertheless, we finished the AP successfully (link goes to the listing of each group's successful party - and here are the midpoint versions of different parties). We played it with four characters (two original characters died, so we replaced them). As you can see from the linked discussions, the AP can be beat. It's definitely not a cakewalk, however. I remember from discussions here that many other groups had similar experiences with the scaling (and also here). The difficulty is relatively high in B and 2, settling down a bit in the middle adventures, and then picking up again later. There are also some tips on succeeding at the AP here. I'll have to dig my box out soon to see if I can offer specific advice for the scenario.
I recommend you check out the FAQ for Wrath of the Righteous. I linked you directly to the "question" addressing the challenges many players faced in the early levels and the solutions the developers offered. If you look through the forums, there were a number of discussions about Wrath of the Righteous scenarios/adventures and how to deal with them.
As for the skill/die, that will depend upon the circumstances and which boons might be played to help. As Parody says, you would be using d4 since you don't have the skill, only the proficiency. If someone plans to play a boon that would improve your Arcane or Divine (but not both) check, you would go with that check (unless you didn't want to succeed at the check for some reason). Also, since you have both the Arcane and Divine proficiencies without either being associated with a skill like Intelligence or Wisdom, boons that apply to Intelligence or Wisdom wouldn't help unless they also apply to Arcane/Divine. The primary benefit of having this power, though, is exactly as Parody says - the ability to discard, and potentially heal, a spell instead of banishing it. In addition, such spells might be available for rebuilding decks at the end of the scenario, in which case any player might keep the card (assuming you're not in society/organized play).
Unless a power specifies otherwise, cards come from your hand (see the Core Set Rulebook, top of page 8, right column). When an effect says "you" it is limited to the character using the power (character/role power, card power, location power, etc.). Powers that may affect other characters will use the "any/another [local/distant] character" verbiage.
Not wanting to be left out of the fun, I took the plunge and joined Discord. The link in this discussion didn't work, but the link at the BGG worked fine.
I would love to see updates/finished products posted both here and at the BGG for those of us that aren't on Discord.
My proposal is that we all come together as a community and make a new adventure path, built on top of the Core Set, based LOOSELY on the storylines found in early seasons of Pathfinder Society scenarios. There is a lot of rich content there, and since they're part of the Section 1 list in the Community Use Policy, we can 'descriptively reference storylines' from them, so as long as we're not copying any text from the scenarios directly, it should be totally fine. I would be happy to help out in this effort. If nothing else, I can help with playtesting, wrangling over ideas, and creating a storybook. If I can get my hands on the adventures I can be of even more help. I suggest a new topic for this in the Homebrew and House Rules forum.
I'll take a gander when I have time. I think that the locations issue was solved by this update to the Core Conversion Guide:
When you would put a location card back into the vault, flip it over. If it does not have a Pathfinder Adventure Card Game logo on the back (meaning it's an older location), it stays in play and local characters do not automatically move; closed locations are automatically guarded. P.S.: I kept the original "Structural damage is dealt to your ship" instead of the "XYZ suffers damage" as I am not a native English speaker and do not know if inanimate objects can really "suffer". :) Inanimate objects can "suffer" damage.
cartmanbeck developed one, but I can't find the thread. The version I have is for the classic (not core) version of PACG.
It looks to me like the suggested deck list for Feiya is intended to focus on her as buffing another local character. Her primary power, after all, is about helping another local character (and, coincidentally, cycling through her deck). In this, pairing her with Lem, Valeros, or Damiel might be a good strategy since all of these characters can similarly buff local checks. Most players that are familiar with the game don't use the suggested deck lists. If you want to build Feiya for direct action (rather than as the assistant that her suggested deck list creates), you can change her deck. Personally, I'd max out on Attack spells (for direct action) and allies with the Animal trait (to return spells to your hand if you fail to recharge them). She can still buff another local character, but can take more action herself.
I think that worrying about crowdfunding sites is putting the cart before the horse. A key to every successful crowdfunding effort is that there is a solid plan in place. The people conducting the campaign know what they can produce at different funding thresholds and develop the campaign accordingly. At this point we don't even have a product. More importantly, we don't even know if Paizo/Lone Shark would approve of a crowdfunded campaign for a community-developed product for their game/IP. Even if they were amenable to that, I'm pretty sure that they would want to know what the end product would look like (content and appearance) beforehand. We really need to focus on the content. In my opinion, our priorities should be: 1. Figuring out what we can develop. This narrows down the list of potential projects. 2. Figuring out what of the above people are most interested in helping to develop. This reduces the list of potential projects even further, getting it down to those that might actually be completed as a community effort. 3. Prioritizing/sequencing the above. 4. Figuring out our methodology for conducting each project. 5. Executing each project in turn (some might be conducted concurrently). The default for each project is that it would be developed as a product that could be downloaded and printed in accordance with the CUP. Anything above and beyond that (e.g., Drive Thru Cards, publication via Paizo, etc.) is pie in the sky. Don't get me wrong - it would be great to see any of our community developed efforts actually published. I just think that we're setting ourselves up for disappointment if we make that the default expectation. Simply adding to the body of PACG content and helping other hobbyists to continue enjoying the game via community effort is a very realistic goal. My assumption at this point is that the copyright won't change, preserving our current restrictions. Some things I'm curious about have to do with what kind of help we might get from Paizo/Lone Shark. Something I would love to see is the files they had showing the templates for rules wordings to help us as we expand upon the game (both classic and core). Those, too, might be a bit much to expect, however. I think a reasonable minimum would be the occasional nudge to keep us from deviating from what is allowed and to push us beyond friction points. Regular input from Paizo/Lone Shark isn't something I really expect to see. PACG is being supported as a legacy system, not something that will be actively supported - they now have other things to focus on so we should really just be thankful for the occasional bit of input without expecting them to hold our hands. Unless something changes, I think this is going to be up to us.
I would much rather see a discussion on any future of the ACG being held somewhere other than on the Paizo forums, so it immediately apparent that it isn't in any way an "Official Paizo" channel. The OPF Discord server has made it clear that any discussion there should be limited to PACS play, so that venue isn't an option. Maybe Board Game Geek? In order to keep this discussion on elcoderdude's intended purpose (requesting an explanation from Paizo/Lone Shark), I've responded to this here (where we're discussing what the community might do to sustain the game).
Note that this is in reply to a comment posted in another discussion. That discussion was about the reason for PACG's cancellation (?), with the future discussion being OT. I would much rather see a discussion on any future of the ACG being held somewhere other than on the Paizo forums, so it immediately apparent that it isn't in any way an "Official Paizo" channel. The OPF Discord server has made it clear that any discussion there should be limited to PACS play, so that venue isn't an option. Maybe Board Game Geek? I think that a lot of that depends upon how much interaction/support Paizo might provide. Even if all that is given is a nod of the head, that carries more weight here than if the project is conducted at the BGG. Anything over at the BGG automatically becomes homegrown and unofficial. If Paizo "sponsors" community development, collaboration and communication would be much better where we can reasonably expect regular responses and input. Posing the question here isn't just about asking the community what can be done. It's also about asking Paizo/Lone Shark what will be allowed. I use BGG extensively for hosting/sharing files, but I think that anything remotely resembling an approved community effort would be much better here. I would expect any content that the community develops to be hosted/shared at the BGG, but the actual development would take place here. Just my opinion (I'm the equivalent of a level 0 Goblin, so the whole tribe needs to weigh in).
|
