For me, I do already have S&S, but I do think I would like to see a card game more integrated like what was said before. Maybe a whole base 0 set that is just generic, but as full as RotR or S&S, then future adventure paths be added to the base set as add ins, much like the adventure deck add ons. Basically, I still only want 1 big box, that I could use for Runelords, S&S, and whatever future paths you have in mind.
Don't know if it would work with what's already been released, but others above had said something similar. That $60 is a little daunting for a big box I'll use for one adventure.
Edit, though I do plan on Playing through S&S more than once, I suppose a better way to say is that I don't want 100s of cards to just sit and rot when I move on to the next adventure path.
Edit 2: Also, would freaking love a Jade regent or oriental theme.
-Are there ever times in the game that you would purposefully decline to roll on a boon because you would not want to acquire it? If so, you are most likely weighing the importance of getting an extra hit point over diluting your card pool. This same decision making process should be engaged when deciding whether or not to take a card feat. Note that card pool composition matters more when you have a character that recycles their discard pile into their deck as part of normal play or has a card cycling mechanic that cares about card types (such as wizards with spells).
I don't think so. You can always just discard the boon, or better yet, on a subsequent round, pass it off to another player. Especially if it is a current adventure deck boon.
-Do you think that there are a few cards in each card type for a given character deck that are significantly stronger than the other choices in the character deck for any given character level, or do you think the cards are roughly the same in effectiveness?
There are clear winners, but it is also very dependant on build. Example, unless that mace is a whole whopping +4 above your sword, the sword is still better for Kyra.
-If you do believe that a few cards in each card type category in your card pool shine above the others, why would you want to take card feats to expand your deck in order to accomodate "weaker" cards in that category? Your deck should theoretically contain the best cards that you currently have access to. Increasing the number of cards in your deck forces you to put cards in your deck that you previously decided were not among best choices available to you.
That is really dependant on build. Weaker allies for the ally rogue for example are worthy of a card feat IMO, just so you have a better chance of getting a lot of allies in your hand to use his ability or really stack up his ability. Spell and blessings are always good choices for Kyra, because those will have the divine trait, allowing her to spontaneously heal. Again, weapon choices as well, only if you have access to more swords for Kyra. A moderate sword will beat most good weapons of other types.
The post did say "likely". I can think of more than a few characters where 2s are not really necessary. The 2s are really not that great an example as there's a lot of characters with crappy 2s.
Be that as it may, there's a couple bard builds that are fine without 2's, sorcerers are usually fine without 2s, and the ally focused rogue feels pretty strong without 2s.
She really should be changed so that the power reads, "As spell of a equal or lower rank than the spell she casts". It would grant diminishing returns as the game wore on, but would make it a little more useful.
Though, I do understand, they are trying to make a FIGHTER/mu, and not a FIGHTER/MU, but they really should go all the way.
I was actually really worried about doing this on my character, Siwar, since I really wasn't able to stick around shark island very long without taking damage. I was lucking enough to be in a very good group when I went through it with Siwar and it turned out to not be quite as difficult as I was anticipating. Seems like most of the closing was done by Valeros, and by Malindra, actually using a crossbow more than attack spells. I bounced into shark island and back to lonely island so I would have a couple of rounds of being able to help people and I did have one round where I had an attack spell in my hand and was with Valeros, so I could pull off that combat.
Now, in the rules, it does mention that a replay has to be with a character of the appropriate power level. For the purposes of OP card game, say, I have the character I usually play with and a couple of side characters, for classes I want to try, helping newbs catch up, or I just cleared 4 on my main and am passing time till 5 or something.
Now, that main has cleared 1 - 3, and I start a new character of a class I want to try. I crank out a couple of 1's and then hop into another game next week with some not so newbs, so this new character hops into 3 nightmare mode and gets a card power 3. So is this character forever gimped because I was filling out a table or is 1's in this case not a replay because this new character has never done it?
Yeah, I just see these kind of things as more of a, some class decks do need tweaks. Maybe they limit them for a purpose, but I would like to see like, more basic finesse weapons in the bard deck, a better selection of weapon 1 in the cleric deck, but those aren't rule suggestions, those are just flat out design suggestions. Maybe class expansions in future APs to round out the characters and give more options (I don't mean like a whole new cleric deck, I just mean various mini packs, so like a sword cleric pack about 10-15 swords, of various levels, if you like Kyra, just to give players some additional build options). I was pretty underwhelmed by weapon 1 options for a Kyra build.
1. Loot rewards. I am not sure how it is in other adventures, but Burnt Offerings only has a single Sihedron Medallion. Thus only one player can acquire it. Do the other players get some kind of alternate reward, or is it a situation of "Congratulations, you won! Your reward is a handful of nothing!" for those who choose not to or can't take the loot reward?
It's worded better in the Guild play, but the one time I got the reward said one person at the table can use each piece of loot earned.
2. Monster Banes. My group generally dislikes fighting monsters, as there is no real tangible benefit for doing so. Whenever they have the option, they prefer to evade the encounter, saving their offensive ability for the henchmen and villain of the scenario. And when they can't evade the monsters, they cite it as the lamest aspect of the game, since it is almost always better to evade a monster rather than fight it. Am I missing something in the rules that allows some benefit for fighting monsters, or <b>is the only benefit is having the monster removed from the location deck?</b>
Which is huge, because you have a site with 3+ monsters, evade the first one, odds are really good one of the other ones will be above the villain or henchman anyway. Always murder the mobs when you have the option. Especially if you're going to recharge your spell or weapon or just display your weapon anyway.
Not sure about the bonus question, but it seems to me that it doesn't because you don't actually encounter a henchman, you just summon one.
The rules for falling should be a warning to players that they better be able to role play The goody two shoes, and should be a roleplaying oprotunity, it should not be a license for a DM to torture a paladin player. When a lawful good fighter comes to the table, and after half way into it, I say to him, "I think you really should have rolled a neutral good character instead", That is the same instance I would say, "Hay mr paladin, you can fall". See, that's not even falling, that's the verbal warning right there.
Also, where I am more strict is that the paladin isn't going to "guard the door while the rogue interrogates the prisoners". There may be times where, yes this is legit, but all too often, I see the paladin, "volunteer" for this when it's not needed and you know the paladin is just being distracted so he doesn't fall due to the rogue's misdeeds.
One strike and you're out is absolutely no way to run a table. Nor is putting the paladin in the fire because they have more to lose. Why not make it so that more barbarians have to commit lawful acts to achieve their goals, and then take away their rages at the drop of a hat? This is all just silly talk.
I believe that the deadliness of Balder's Gate, Icewind Dale, and the ADD 2nd Ed. gold box classics all put the deadliness of PFS modules shame. However, PNP games shouldn't be quite that lethal. On the other hand, my tabletop players have all played those games, and thus, overly lethal games are just part of the routine (thought, I did have a bit of a laugh the other day, when I hit the paladin with an anti paladin using smite good and an unholy weapon in a homebrewed campaign, good times).
Well, I'm still working on being a well rounded blaster too, so Wands of MM are not off my list. From a practicality standpoint, at point am I able to start collecting second level spell wands? Third level? I don't recall seeing a lot of them on the chronicle sheets. Also, as many sorcerers as I have in my normal game, and as often as we play up, I'm working on setting myself apart as well. If a few dozen missiles are thrown around, the fireball will be much more memorable. However, that's also why I was thinking very highly of using charm person and color spray for the actual spells on my list (as a elemental bloodline, I'll be getting burning hands free at level 3 anyway, and I'll be getting my MM's mostly from wands until about level 3 as well, since that's where the ones I cast will become more powerful).
So, my second society character is a first level sorcerer. I've been racking my brain at trying to make him more useful in combat. My solution that I came up with.
With two more PP, I'll be able to buy items from my faction worth up to 500 GP. Scrolls of fireball cost about 375? So, as a second level sorcerer, I'll be able to use fireballs scrolls, created by a fifth level wizard. The book says the spellcaster level check is only 6, is that right (the actual wording is caster level +1)? Most checks I've seen in that book have been 10+ect, not just 1+, I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. It says that the will save to prevent a backfire a 1 is always a miss. Is the 1 always a miss on the caster level check? IE, I won't be able to cast fireball till I'm level 7 anyway, but if I'm level 5, have a fifth level fireball scroll, caster level check is 6 to use it, so will I never fail at level 5 still then?
Is all my theory viable? Also, cost is not really an issue at this time (he tagged along with a couple of slightly higher level groups that all voted to play up because they were in the middle average level wise).
My big issue right now is honestly 2 fold. One, just getting into pathfinder, I do want to use a gunslinger, oracle, or summoner, but I'm not going to buy it at whatever first couple of sessions, so physical books are out, but soon I'll start buying the physical. I'm also having a hard time convincing my wife that I need a game rule book for $50. Don't get my wrong, I am indeed planning on buying the books soon. I do want to support paizo and my local game shops.
That second part I do indeed do, but this is also part of the other problem I'm having right now. This is really more of a hand build sort of issue. Yeah, hero labs will tell you if you are 100% legal and it's a great resource, but I feel that there is a need to be able to create the same character by hand and by hero labs. It's good to have the flag pop up, saying, hey, this character is illegal, but in the end, I also really want to know WHY.
The core of the problem though is that I do play a couple of D20 system games, and while close, there are minor differences between PF, and the big one, and few other generic D20 system, that do throw me off. I was DMing another game too, and I threw in a character that was built mostly off of pathfinder stuff, because it was pathfinder stuff I knew off the top of my head, and thought it was actually the same in both systems, one of my non-pathfinder players called me on using that "crazy pathfinder stuff". Ultimately what I'm saying here, is that, yeah, you can memorize a bunch of rules, but there are other things that can muddy the water. Also, being in a transitional phase, or playing 2 games at the same time, I do want to confirm that the rules are or are not different before I start spouting stuff. Especially if one build is so much better in one game or another.
Right, both still great bonuses for stacking AC.
One of my favorite characters in that other game was a halfling warlock. Now, a lot of the build in the halfling warlock is just as awesome for a halfling sorcerer in pathfinder.
1) Sorcerers can get a lot of rays to do damage, especially if you have a bloodline like elemental or something like that. The +racial dex bonus does help on those ranged touch attacks and is yet another +1 AC.
2) Halflings are small and have a +1 ac to medium and larger creatures, How great is that.
3) what do you know, that small means +1 to hit too.
4) Strength as a dump stat. Sad but you don't need strength as a sorcerer, so that can be a great dump stat and that's what you lose for being a halfing. Load up on Handy Haversacks when you have the fame.
Now, things that are great that I found in pathfinders.
1) Underfoot trait, yes, you can have another +1 AC to medium creatures
2) Cha is a stat boost for the halfing in pathfinder. Here's your caster stat.
3) The ray gun. Elemental bloodline is fun for a zap, and your 0 level spells all require a ranged touch, bonus now that we have a build for that.
For my first level Sorcerer, I did this, I took a 12 con, then took toughness for the feat, giving me 11 HP for a first level caster. Not too shabby. (6 + 1 con + 3 toughness + 1 favored class). At third and fifth level I can start taking my DPS feats, like was said in the OP, get armor and what not to survive that first level.
It's funny, I picked the pre-gen cleric for my first character in society because I started at a con and didn't really have time to roll or anything like that. To me, it seemed like a balanced type cleric, melee/magic mixed, and of course, I got knocked down to the edge of my life because
mists of mwangi:
I got the skeleton with the great club in Mists Of Mwangi at level 1
When everything was said and done, I had actually blasted through about a half of a wand of CLW in 1 session (my second session to boot).
Later, I had blown through another half of a wand of CLW in another session, I really became known as the healer. People see that, and in all honesty, I hardly ever do a lick of damage anymore (last night, I got a finish because I rolled a crit and max damage on a scimitar strike, and then got a finish because the gunslinger put a dozen rounds into a mob already) but they wouldn't have me join any other way.
I have started my second society character, a sorcerer, and my feeling about the sorcerer is that early level damage is really pitiful as a sorcerer and that to get anywhere, you really need a good selection of save or suck spells, at least until you get second or third level spells. That's just my initial impression though, I haven't really gotten him past 1.