Christopher McDonald's page

This game could really use proper timing windows and a distinction between actions, reactions, and forced effects, like many well known LCGs. Perhaps in the 3rd revision.

Since this thread is active again as of a couple of weeks ago...

Do many people actually use the character cards in-game, as opposed to printing out the sheets? It's easier to read the sheets, there's no issue of marking up the cards, and they can be edited to add errata or remove unused roles or just to look better.

Yes, I use them. They take up much less table space. I use a sleeve + permanent marker to avoid marking up the cards.

Sorry, but experience with base deck scenarios (which I think everyone agrees are hard, regardless of party composition) is not relevant to the discussion, which is about crushing adventure deck 4+. No one wants to the game to be either insanely hard or insanely easy, and you don't get to average out "insanely hard at the beginning" and "insanely easy at the end" to make "just right".

By soloed I mean I played by myself. I used 3 characters (Alain, Kyra, and Seoni).

Just as another data point, I've pretty much lost interest in buying any future Pathfinder products because of the design choices in Wrath of the Righteous. I soloed through the first 3 B scenarios with Alain, Kyra and Seoni. Seoni encountered the Carrion Golem twice. I don't understand how this card survived playtesting, it is neither fun nor interesting. It may as well say "If you are a cloth caster, you die."

Arboreal Blight is also just bizarre, making everyone fight a monster that's worse than most of the villains in AD1 in the previous 2 games *and* possibly summoning another monster to fight on top of that.

That villain is properly crazy - I really hope he's like Hirgenzosk or the Sandpoint Devil, rather than being a thing you HAVE to defeat to complete the scenario.

Don't really understand the monkey's paw - even uncorrupted, you're making the check d20 harder, then adding d20. On average that does nothing, AND has potential to make life much harder.

The Monkey's Paw is for those desperate situations where you have no chance of succeeding without it. e.g. You need a 8 to close a location and you have a d4. With a blessing you still have only a 1/16 chance of success. But the monkey's paw gives you about a 1/4 chance.

This looks fantastic. Between cohorts, mythic paths, and corruption/redemption, it looks like the designers are really stretching the engine in new ways to create a thematic experience and to create even more of a sense of an ongoing campaign.

Yep, there will always be some ambiguity, but there is definitely room for more precision. (e.g. compare to Magic:tG) The devs see to be learning and using terminology more precisely in this set than the last one. Hopefully they will continue to move in that direction.

I can buy the interpretation, but I don't think the rules as written provide a clear answer. (i.e. your justifications are not actually in the rules as written).

I don't see where it says you ignore the rest of the sentence/paragraph. It says ignore anything that's impossible, but drawing a card is not impossible.

I also don't understand Tanis' ruling, I don't see any rule that you can't invoke an optional effect if you can't carry out every part of it.

Reviving this thread because my question is about the second part - do you get to draw a card even if you can't recharge the ally due to the scenario rules?

Crowe looks super strong, like better than Amiri in every way.

Yeah with the ability to drop an extra 1d10 on every combat check, he seems like the strongest fighter in the game to date. We can't see his deck composition, though, perhaps he has a major weakness there.

FYI, looking at the cards again, the Perils of the Lost Coast cards are pretty good in this respect. The weakest of the ones I've seen so far (through Adv. Deck 2) are Trouble In Sandpoint (the flavor text talks about goblins and doesn't make any sense of what the henchmen or the villain are) and Crow Bait (the flavor text boils down to "fight some more undead").

An explanation of every card is not necessary, just a paragraph or so for every adventure to provide more context. For example, the Crow Bait adventure in Skinsaw Murders - all we know from what the game provides is that there are more undead outside town and we have to go hunt them down. Presumably a couple more sentences could explain who Rogers Creasby is, what his relationship to the necromancer we just defeated is, and why there are a bunch of scarecrow monsters involved.

I'm not going to buy a $60 book for a game I have no interest in to get this kind of info, but it would enhance the value of the PACG product.

First World Bard wrote:

But the new interesting question is: why pull plot from a new module? Wouldn't the Skull and Shackles RPG AP be enough content? And I guess we can still speculate wildly about that.

In the PACG Rise of the Runelords Base Set, before you start chapter 1 of Rise of the Runelords, you play through three scenarios that are not technically part of the Adventure Path.

Brigandoom! features a bandit villain named Jubrayl Vhiski, who comes from a bit of background flavor that most parties playing through the RPG version of Rise of the Runelords will never be aware of—it's in one of the write-ups about a minor location in Sandpoint described in the book's appendix:

** spoiler omitted **...

Will we be getting more background flavor like this in future adventure paths, either as flavor text on the cards or just background text in the rulebook/a rules insert?. I had no idea about any of this and it makes the "Perils" adventures come to life. Likewise the story in RotR is pretty thin for those of us who don't know anything about the AP.