Dr.Jay's page

57 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I just wanted to clarify that we did something right (I now think we did it wrong).

We encountered a barrier, Collapsed Ceiling or tunnel I think (the one the stays in place if you fail it), at a location where there were 2 players present.

The person whose turn it was attempted the check and failed it. So...

According to the rulebook: "Any character at that location
can attempt one or more of the checks, as long as the character who
encountered the bane attempts at least one of them. If the character
who encountered the bane is not able to attempt at least one of
these checks, the bane is undefeated and other players do not need
to attempt checks against it."

Ok, first, does this ONLY apply to checks that have multiple conditions, like 'then' or 'or' cards. BECAUSE, it could be interpreted that as long as there are multiple players at a location, then any bane could be approached by multiple players as long as the primary player was able to attempt the check at all. In the case of the card above, the card stays in place (and therefore in play), so unlike other banes it is not shuffled back into the deck if the primary player fails the check, thus leaving it up and available. Unlike a combat check where the monster gets shuffled back in to the location and has to be found again to be encountered again.

Since it is still up and playable, if the primary player attempts and fails it, does this rule now come into play allowing another player to attempt the check? The rule says the 2nd player can attempt one or more, but is not specific in that it has to be a different check than the primary player. It also does not state that the primary player has to succeed at their check, only that they have to attempt it.

Now, I realize that this rule came up in reference to cards with 'then' conditions on them, but at the time we were playing it seemed perfectly reasonable that the 2nd player could attempt the check, which they succeeded at in our case. Thinking about it now, it seems that we probably misinterpreted this rule, at least in the spirit of the rule.

Perhaps some clarification is needed.

Also, another question in regards to this same card. If you are the primary player at this location, encounter the card and fail the check, can you then discard a blessing or ally card and re-encounter this barrier twice in the same turn?


So, ran into this situation last night:

We were playing a three player game and had one location that no one was particularly suited to close, I think it was a wisdom check.

Anyway, the player at that location defeated the henchman there and then failed the close check, so the location stayed open. We continued to play and eventually explored all of the cards in that location's deck.

At that point, with the location empty, is that an automatic close, or do you still have to roll to close the location?

In reading the rulebook it seems you still have to roll to close the location even if it's empty. Just wanted to clarify.


1st question: In this scenario, the villain runs to hide at another open location. When you defeat him at location 'A', set aside the villain, location 'A' is immediately closed and you draw 1 blessing card from the box. Mix up the villain and the blessing, then randomly select one of the 2 cards for location 'B', the other for location 'C'. Then, you move on to explore the remaining locations. The villain will run like above if you encounter him again with 2 open locations OR if you encounter and defeat him at the only open location, you win.

2nd question: No, cards don't have memories, so partially wounded monsters/henchman/villains are shiny and new when you meet them again.

After winning the Lost Coast scenario by the skin of my teeth playing solo with Merisiel, I came across 2 questions:

First, in the desecrated vault, the location special (Undead are undefeated on a roll of 1) applies to the Ancient Skeleton Henchman as well? I was wondering which order you read the cards in. If you resolve the entire henchman card first, it would seem you can attempt to close the location before having to roll that 1d6.

Second, I pulled the Elven Chain Shirt as my random boon. The 2nd part reads: Banish this card to reduce all damage dealt to you to 0; if you are proficient with light armors, bury this card instead.

It then goes on to say: If you are proficient with light armors, you may recharge this card when you reset your hand.

Why is the light armor proficiency tagged twice in different ways?

Would you bury the card to reduce the damage, then recharge it when you reset your hand? Why not just recharge it, period?


Thanks for all your hard work and clarification.

As a point of order, I don't expect perfection out of you folks, I just expect problems to be addressed as they arise. As I think you pointed out before, prior to release you have x number of playtesters, after release you have exponentially more, no matter how good you are, stuff is going to turn up.

Again, thanks for a great game.

Also, I know this is hard to imagine, but I think people probably over analyze the cards just a wee bit.

NariusV wrote:
So in that case discarding a card as an activation cost for another power/ability/function does not count as playing that (discarded) card.

No, it does not. It just so happened I had that card to burn. Otherwise, any other card or card type would have worked.

Basically any weapon that has the ranged trait is considered ranged combat. As stated above it just generally uses a different skill die as its base die (usually Dex). The weapon may also refer to your Ranged skill, like if you read the crossbow card, which will be a subskill of a major skill. So it will read something like Dexterity d12, Ranged +2 on your character card.

Other than that, its the same as all other combat.

Yes, it was BotG :)

My hand worked out really well for that one, but by the time I was getting to the Villain I had already cycled a fair amount of my hand through to have all the stuff I had, and it was the final villain confrontation so burning cards was not a problem.

So, with all the discussion about what applies when, I wanted to check and make sure I had one of my plays correct.

Playing with Merisiel and facing one of the villains last night. I had earlier acquired the Deathbane crossbow +1.

So, facing the villain I came up with these die.

Revealing the crossbow gave me: 1d12+1d8+1 Use your dex and the xbow damage
Revealing the Sage's Tome (I think?): 1d4 vs villain
Discarding a TotG to get an extra die: 1d12 Discard to add a die
Discarding another TotG to activate Merisiel's solo ability: 2d6 (1d6 if you recharge a card, 2 if you discard a card)

So, my roll was: 2d12+2d6+1d8+1d4+1

I just wanted to see if I doubled up on anything I shouldn't have, seemed like a helluva lot of die for one roll.


So, there are no truly 'unique' items. If you got em fairly you can use them.

So, one of the things that the devs said people would do with this game is to run solo games with their characters in order to get loot/buffs to use later in their multiplayer games. Can't remember where I heard this discussed, I think it was on a play through on YouTube with Mike.

Anyway, what happens if you have multiple characters that have the same loot cards from different boxes? Not from a standpoint of mixing up cards, but from a standpoint of how many pieces of equipment are available total.

For an example, say their are 2 light crossbow cards in the game total and you have 2 characters that are armed with 2 crossbows each? This is just an example, but play it out however you like, spell cards, items, etc.


Cheez wrote:
Yep - I think you're totally right, Dr. Jay. That locked door barrier card has got to stay. Plus, the card doesn't say to banish. And in the spirit of the game, the door is still locked so it certainly should still stay in that deck if undefeated. Where could an locked door go?:)

Our thematic interpretation was that you are going down the main corridor of a dungeon, or some such and come upon a side passage with a locked door. If you can open it, you get to see what's behind it, if not, you move on.

Worked for us, but alas, we were dead wrong.

Well, I was going to say that the barrier just was banished. But, having reread the appropriate rule section I think we did it wrong. And, looking at other barriers, like locked chests, those cards tend to say something like 'You may banish this barrier if undefeated'.

Considering that the barrier is considered a 'bane', then according to the rulebook, page 11. It says:

'If you fail to defeat any bane, it is considered undefeated and is shuffled back into the location deck.'

Cheez wrote:

Hi Guys,

So we just defeated the Ancient Skeleton Henchman at the Desecrated Vault. Thus, it's time to perform an immediate Divine 6 check to close it and my daughter attempts to do so as this was on her turn. She fails the check.

My question is: My character is also at this same location. It's now my turn. Can I try to close the location? Or, have we lost that chance and consequently, the only way to close is by going through all the remaining cards in that location deck? I'm a little fuzzy on what are all the opportunities to close a location are (besides finding a henchman or villain).

Side Note: I had no idea one could close a location and still go through that location's cards if one wanted to (provided no villain was still in that deck). I thought closing a location always banished all its cards. Glad I caught that rule on pg. 13 before we started a campaign adventure.


Yes, Cheez, your options at this point are to completely explore all the cards in the location then close it with another Divine check OR to close the other locations either by defeating Henchman or the Villain, let the Villain flee to the open location (the one with the Divine check) and then defeat the Villain there.

On the side note, once you close a location, those cards are gone unless the location itself or some other effect comes into play (like the General Store location).

However, I was wondering, when you defeat a henchman the card says you MAY attempt to close the location at that point. I guess you could choose not to and then fully explore the location for loot.

Thanks for the lengthy discussion, Vic.

I would initially probably use the PDF versions since the printed version are going to be offsized, although if I'm totally honest I'll get the $8 set as well. Do you envision a time in the future when all the cards that are going to be corrected and get printed in the right size?


Hey folks,

The largest game we have played is 3 characters, so forgive me if the answer to this question is readily apparent during game play.

How do really large games, like 6 people work in a way that you can win them?

Since the timer (Blessings Deck) is always 30 cards deep, for a six person game that means each person gets (baseline) 5 encounters. Since each location has 10 cards,you are talking 80 potential encounters for a game of 6 players.

In the games we have played so far, we have not had enough blessings and allies to consistently give each player 8 or 9 more encounters. I know if you hit a henchman or villain you can kill a location quickly, but if they are buried deep, how does that work?

Also, any character that has a subskill for melee, you can use that as well. So if you have a Str d8 with a subskill of melee +2 you would use the 1d8 + 2 for your unarmed attack.

Scribbling Rambler wrote:

I'm curious what cards are in dire need of reprinting.

Looking at the FAQ, so far we have:

1/ Detect Magic has a game affecting misprint on it.
2/ The Sandpoint Cathedral and Town Square have the correct information, but in a non-standard order.
3/ Bruthazmus, the +1 Bastard Sword, and the +1 Warhammer are each missing a trait.
4/ Scorching Ray erroneously has the Basic Trait.
5/ Speed is missing a Divine check.
6/ The Sihedron Medallion is mislabeled as to which set it came from.
7/ Other cards could be worded more clearly.

IMO, only 1, 3, & 5 actually affect gameplay.

If Paizo were to re-print those cards, they would still require passes thru editing and the art department, an order to be queued at the printers, printing, shipping overseas, then the logistics of getting them out to customers.

Basically, to reprint 5 cards at close to the cost of a full print run.

Or people can print off the FAQ and put it in the box with the rules.

Things may be more feasible in electronic format, or as part of another printing of the game. However, I feel some of the expectations expressed here are extremely unrealistic.

There is nothing in 'dire need of replacing'. Some of us just like complete unaltered sets of cards for our games. I don't think anyone has ever intimated that the game is unplayable or a total disaster due to the misprinted cards. I just don't want to have a handful of cards that I had to write on to correct for the game.

It's just my personal feel about it.

Scribbling Rambler wrote:

It's fair enough that you only have this experience to judge from.

However, I cannot see how anyone can feel mistreated here.

There have been a few misprinted cards, and several clarifications made. The company and designer have been proactive in answering people's questions, and a FAQ was put up in record time. The co-owner of the company has monitored the boards closely and taken a personal interest in clarifying the game rules. He also said he would discuss the question of reprints, and acknowledged that most of the discussion was reasonable, but he took exception to being presented with a petition.

Frankly, the title of this thread, and a very few of the posts in it, show a great deal of entitlement, as well as ignorance of the logistics involved in producing a product like this.
The game is entirely playable (and even those complaining say it is a great deal of fun) with the few errors present. They have continued to address errors/ambiguities with the boards and FAQ. And the company has a strong record of listening to feedback.
This is not a non-functional product with key missing elements. It's a game with a couple of mis-prints. For a game of such complexity, it's remarkable how few errors there are.

Obviously, people should ask for what they want, and discuss possible ways of fulfilling that desire. But to "petition" for free cards and lambaste a company rep who is willing to discuss the issue with you (and would be key in any decision made) is neither smart nor realistic.

Being one of the folks who is a proponent of getting replacement cards, and one of the folks who believes in good customer service, I feel the need to clarify some things that seem to be misrepresented in this thread.

I stated some of these things above so, this is mostly a reiteration of previous points.

First off, the OP of this thread, regardless of whether he used the word 'petition' in the title of the thread was nothing but polite when posting. His writing was not offensive, threatening, or combative. It did not demand anything. It asked for support on the issue of the misprints.

Second, wanting good customer service is not, by any means, an 'entitlement'. An entitlement by its very nature is something that is unearned or given to you for free. This game was not given to any of us, it was bought, and many times with an ongoing subscription. There is no reason for anyone who is not happy with the product, for whatever reason, to feel that they cannot voice that displeasure.

As I pointed out in a previous post, this is a question of scale. For every poster on this board, there is some magic limit where if you bought something and something (however minor it may seem) was wrong with it, you would go to the provider of that service or product and want it fixed. For some it may be some cosmetic defect with the new car they bought, for another it may be the marred surface of one out of a dozen golfballs, for another it may be some of the food on their plate was unsatisfactory, for others it is components of a game. To dismiss someone else's claim because it is insignificant TO YOU (generic you here, not you Rambler) is the height of egotism.

Finally, no matter how great Vic has been with rule clarification and overall response to the folks on this board, his reply to THIS post was, from a customer service perspective, inappropriate. If you look through this thread, all eighty some odd responses, he is the only person to use the words pissed off, offensive, demand, and insulting. No one else said any of that, he did. The OP, and most of the folks who have responded to this thread have been civil and respectful of each other, they have offered dialogue from varying viewpoints and offered multiple suggestions for how to address this issue.

While you (again generic you, not you Rambler), may not view this as a significant issue, some of the people who purchased this game do. As stated before, the company may or may not choose to replace the cards. If they do, they may or may not decide to charge for that service. That is their prerogative to decide what their course of action will eventually be. They don't owe us any particular course of action.

What they do owe us, as customer who purchased their product, is a listening ear when issues arise.

I will be the first to say that I really enjoy this game and think that, for the most part, Paizo did a bang up job with it's development and implementation. I will be the first to say that seeing multiple posts by Vic and Mike in the forums is great. But, I would also like a set of clean cards that I didn't have to write on and customer service reps who treat me with the respect I treat them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

I'm happy to engage in a *discussion* when I have time, but starting a "petition" to try to make us do something is not a good tactic—it just makes me feel like I'm being strongarmed, and frankly, pisses me off. I consider it thoroughly offensive and insulting.

I appreciate that most of the posts in this thread are from people engaging in a reasonable discussion of the issue. I'll respond more fully when I have time (which is unlikely to be today).

Well said, Vic!

These guys are a company, not a government. Petitions are for governments to ignore, not for companies to pay attention to.

That's right, these guys are a company. A company that produces a product and sells that product to the eventual end of making a profit. Whether something comes to them in the form of a discussion, request, complaint, petition, or demand is irrelevant. It is still the voice of at least some portion of their customer base, and as a company that sells a product to the public, they are at least in some form or fashion obligated to listen. They don't have to agree, they don't have to do whatever is asked of them, but they at least owe their customers an ear.

The original OP of this post was highly complimentary of the team as a whole, non-inflammatory, and non-confrontational. He asked a valid question that deserves a valid answer. At no point in his post did I read a 'demand' and although the post was called a petition, I see no call in there for other people to post in support or spam Paizo or any such thing, I see no strong-arming.

Vic, I have to say that you taking the time to respond to a lot of posts on this messageboard has been outstanding. The game as a whole is outstanding. But calling a customer to task and saying they have pissed off and offended you because of the wording of the title of the post is a bit over the top. This guys is a customer, the same as anyone else. Whether he is singing your praises or raising a valid concern, he deserves the respect to be listened to.

There are very few instances where a representative of a company would stand face to face with a customer of that company who had a complaint and tell them that they (the customer) was pissing them off.

Message boards offer us a distance that is not always a good thing. We should all be treating each other as if we were talking face to face.

paganeagle2001 wrote:
If I want to put a card in a sleeve, who is going to stop me! Lol.

Card police. They work closely with the mattress tag enforcers.

Back to the topic at hand.

I have to disagree with having to pay for the replacement cards (if they ever come out). I already payed for the game. Why should I have to pay twice for something that is not my fault? If I trash a card by accident, fine, I'll buy a new one. But with a game I am paying upwards of $140 ($60 base +$15.99 x5 expansions) for, why should I then have to shell out more for the publisher's mistakes?

QuantumNinja wrote:

I realize my analogies have their own flaws, but I guess the point I was trying to make was this: I have no expectation of absolute perfection when I purchase an entertainment product, whether it's a DVD, a card/board game, a video game, a book, etc. I think it's reasonable to expect a minimum level of functionality with these things, but these things always have at least some form of minor imperfections. As long as those imperfections don't impair my ability to enjoy the product, I can live with them.

The minor card errors in the PACG at this point are definitely not drastic enough to impair my enjoyment of the game. But I realize different people have different thresholds of what they deem acceptable.

Ninja, I don't expect perfection in every service or product I buy either. However, when I find a defect in that product or service, I do go to whoever supplied it and say, 'Hey, can you fix this?'

And some of those typos do actually make a difference. Detect Magic anyone?

I am not asking for a new game. All I am asking for is a reprint of known misprinted cards. I don't have to have them today, but having a plan to replace them in the future will suffice.

I pointed out FFG for a reason. They go to the top of the customer service and support list. And shouldn't we, as customers, want everyone else to be as conscientious as FFG rather than pointing to them as the anomaly?

We, as consumers, deserve to get what we paid for. When I bought the game and subscribed, there was not a little asterisk that said 'up to some percentage of the cards in this game will be misprinted.'

Accepting the defects as the norm rather than asking the company we are paying to step up and fix a problem (small as it may be)that is solely their fault is simply allowing their company to ignore a customer service obligation.

Whether or not you think it is a big problem or a very minor problem, it is still a problem, and a company should pride itself on making it's products as close to perfection as possible and fixing the things that aren't.

--Again, to all Paizo folks. The game is great and fun to play. My hats off to you for design and fun factor. Just reprint some cards :)--

cartmanbeck wrote:
Yeah, I agree with Ironburn. Either write on them, or print a label to put over them. I just wrote on mine with Sharpie. This is not a collectible card game where certain mint-condition cards are going to be worth money... it's just a game.

You are right, in the end, it is just a game. BUT, I take very good care of my games. They are something that my family and I enjoy and part of that enjoyment is the game itself. Not how it plays, but how it looks and feels.

With that in mind, writing on my cards with a sharpy does not seem like a great option. The simple fact is that some of the cards were published with errors, and us as the paying customers and subscribers should expect those errors to be corrected.

This applies to any situation where you are the customer and you have been delivered a faulty product. --Note here Paizo folks. The game is great and I love it. Overall you guys did a fantastic job--

For most folks, it is a simple question of scale. You wouldn't slap duct tape on a cracked dashboard in the new card you bought. You would ask the car dealership to fix it. That's because it is a large expensive purchase and this card game, in the grand scheme of things, is not.

But, to those of us who like the look and the feel of the game as well as count sterling customer service as a plus. Getting reprints of cards in error is par for the course.

As a good example, look at Fantasy Flight Games. They publish great games, and every one that I have ever owned eventually came out with reprints to replace bad cards.

I appreciate everyone has their own threshold for when they really want something fixed. I fall on the side of the OP on this one.

--Again Paizo folks, great game--

oops, sorry!

Well, to lose in this particular scenario, there would have to be 2 locations you can't close. If there is only 1 un-closable location, then the villain would flee here eventually and you would defeat him there, winning the game.

So, if you are stuck at a location you can't close, move to another location, explore it til it is closed, either by exploration, defeating the henchman and closing, or defeating the villain in that location (at which point he will move to another location, the un closed one if that is all that is left). Then go and defeat the villain there.

He is a good character, though some folks feel that his lack of blessings can really hurt him. Having just played through the Lost Coast adventure with him solo, I haven't seen it yet, but I am sure other folks can speak to his strength's and weaknesses.

You would roll your total Intelligence + skill feats + arcane.

The +2 you pick up as a skill modifier gets added on to any Intelligence test you have after you gain the skill.

In Ezren's case, Arcane is a sub-specialty of Intelligence and gets the overall Intelligence bonus.

It also gets applied when tallying damage for an Arcane spell in the same way. So, Lightning Touch gets 1d12+2(skill feat)+2(arcane bonus)+2d4 for damage.

If the Arcane skill were under some other heading, say Charisma, you would use that Arcane skill check instead.


Oh, maybe I was misreading TC a bit.

I see it as the spell that gets BoP played on it needs to be cast for that check. And by that I mean applied to that check, not applied across the board. I'm sticking with Strength type spells being cast on a player, not a check itself, no matter when in the sequence it gets cast. So, it is ineligible for BoP.

Who the heck really knows though? I am probably wrong. :)

@TClifford yep, that was what I have been trying, albeit not well, to say all along. It just makes it easier for me to remember by thinking of Strength as being cast on the player rather than check.

My interpretation is that the spell needs to affect the check itself, like a direct combat spell.

I interpret spells like strength as affecting a player, not a specific check. Therefore BoP doesn't apply.

That may be a too literal interpretation of the rules for some folks, but it makes sense to me.

But, as always, in the end it's whatever works for you and your group.

Good question and discussion!

Dr.Jay wrote:
You aren't playing the Strength spell on a check, you're playing it on a player.
"h4ppy' wrote:
Well, you can play the Strength spell 'on a check' if you play it during the "Play Cards that Affect The Check" phase of encounter resolution. Even if you played it before the encounter started, it's still affecting the check.

You still aren't playing the Strength spell on a check. You may activate it during that phase of play, but you are playing the spell on another player (or yourself) and its effect will last beyond that check.


Yes, you are right, you can play blessings on anyone's check. So if, say, Ezren casts Lightning Touch, Lini can cast BoP and double whatever the base die is, in this case, Ezren's Arcane die or d12.

And, yes, I think strength only lasts til the end of your current turn.

The matter at hand:

To me, a spell like strength is meant to be a bump to your base skill die, just like checking the +3 box on your character card. In that situation, BoP would seem not to apply since its not referring to an individual check, but potentially many different checks (every time you use your strength skill).

For example, lets say it's Lem's turn. Lini plays strength and Val plays BoP on it. Would Lem get double die for every check for the remainder of his turn? That would seem to me to be outside the scope of BoP.

However, with something like a targeted spell, IE Lightning touch, that applies to a defined check (combat), BoP makes sense since it bumps the die for that check.

This is because, to me, the wording of the blessing refers to a check. Not the spell itself.

'discard this card to add 2 dice to a CHECK when playing a spell'

You aren't playing the Strength spell on a check, you're playing it on a player. It's effects later apply to checks (the +3), but you didn't play it to affect the check itself, you played it on the other player, in our example, Lem.

Whereas a combat spell, such as Lightning Touch is played on a combat check and therefore is affected by BoP to add the dice to the combat check.

My interpretation anyway.

TClifford wrote:

The example stated he played the Strength spell....therefore he cast a spell. Just because the spell doesn't change the type of combat check doesn't mean he didn't cast a spell. As I said, the blessing is pretty powerful.

Now if Lem cast Strength to help out someone else's check...that is a little stickier. If you read it like a rules lawyer then technically it looks like only Lem can use the BoP to modify the check because he is the one playing the spell. But for the sake of this being a cooperative game and not a competitive game I see no reason that anyone can't use the BoP because a spell has been cast by at least someone to effect the check. Basically as long as there is some magic in the air, Pharasma is willing to help out on the roll.

So, you are saying that on Lem's turn, Lini casts Str to help Lem. Lem plays BoP on Lini's Str spell to rebound and bump his own (Lem's) str check? I don't think that works that way.

Clarification: I see where you are going with that question, but I don't think BoP works that way on a spell like STR. Most of the other spells that have a die associated with them (IE Lightning touch) signify which die you are using, and therefore which die you would add (Arcane). To me, the Strength spell is just adding a +3 to any strength check, so it doesn't really have an inherent die to double.

I need some clarification to answer your question.

Lem is in STR-based combat. Is he playing a spell?
The BoP works when the character using it is playing a spell. If Lem is going to play a spell, then he can bump it with BoP. If he is not going to play a spell, its moot.

This occurs regardless of Lini playing a spell on Lem, since she played the spell. Lem's BoP would not effect Lini's spell.

So, if Lem is in a straight STR check mode, not using a spell, BoP would be useless for him. If Lem is using a spell during his check, he can play BoP to bump that check.


Q1) Yes, if Lem is playing a spell

Q2) Again, yes but only if Lem is playing a spell himself

Q3) BoP will only be useful when the BoP is used to augment a spell played by Lem, if won't effect Lini's spell.

Lini's strength spell will still help Lem throughout the turn for STR based checks, regardless of what Lem does.

That is what I did

Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Yup, Myriade & TClifford are right. Pg 19 of the rulebook, under "Between Games".

I know how to do it rule wise, I was more pointing out the spirit of the game, if you will.

Banished items are meant to be gone. Not reloaded for the next game. They are one-offs. In that sense, it seems out of character to use them 1) without risk of losing them, ultimately; and 2) without any guarantee of replacing them if you don't acquire that particular type of boon.

That's all I am pointing out.

RDewsbery wrote:
Banished items are not gone for good; they might show up again in the very next scenario you play. And if they are Basic cards, and your party doesn't have enough of that type of card to allow a character to make a legal deck at the end of the scenario, you're allowed to go back to the box and choose them without having to encounter and acquire the card in-game.

No, I get that you might re-encounter them in the next game since you re-deal the cards. But say you don't, or don't encounter enough cards of a given type to replace the banished ones? Does it not kind of defeat the purpose to say, for example, hypothetically-- 'Well, I've got better weapons, better spells, etc. But I keep having to replace those damn banished caltrops from the box?'

Again, I exaggerate to make a point.

It's almost 2 am and I just finished making some basic character decks and a question arose.

Given these parameters:

1) At the start of any game, the character deck has to match the number and type of cards listed on a character's deck list (3 weapons, 2 spells, etc.)

2) The characters are meant to grow in the sense that they acquire new cards, better cards, etc. through boons and rewards obtained in each scenario and that you are meant to replace cards in your beginning hand with these acquired boons.

3) Some character's recommended starting hands contain items that are banished (ie caltrops). Not discarded, banished. Meaning they are supposed to return to the box, never to be seen again (que echoey voice).

What happens when through a scenario, or multiple scenarios, you use banishable items without getting boons to replace them?

I would assume you are just supposed to replace them from the box with each new scenario, however, this would seem to go against the spirit of the game. Banished items are supposed to be gone, period. You could argue that they are simply meant to be unusable in any way, shape, or form for this scenario, but isn't that what burying a card does?

Like I said, I am probably way overthinking this one, but I wondered what people thought.


On the temple location, you have to discard when you move to or are moved to that location.

If you start the game at that location does that count as a move and thus require a discard?


Ahh, thanks!

Yes, the primary skill will roll over into the secondary, but not vice versa.

So if you bump Str (d6) to +1, then you would get 1d6 +1 +2(for melee), in a melee attack.

If you are doing a Str check (not melee) then you would get 1d6 +1.

If you had a choice to bump the melee not str +1, then that +1 would only apply in a Str->Melee check.

You will initially combine all the cards, BUT, I think once you are on adventure path 2 you start taking basic cards out of the box when you banish them. So you will eventually start trimming down the playable cards to higher level ones based on the adventure path you are on.

I actually have 2 cards (so far) that have big ink smudges on them.

Same here, and the punch of his offensive spells rolled all the mobs I ran into.

I guess I just got lucky, cause I rolled through the solo plays with him thus far.

I've played some with Valeros and Merisel (and got smacked around with Merisel. We have also played a group game with Sajan and Amiri who were pretty good as well. I was just initially surprised with how powerful his spells were, especially since they can be recharged pretty easily.

Ok, so I've played a few scenarios with various characters and I just want to make sure I am reading Ezren right.

On his Lightning Touch and Force Bolt, I am using Intelligence(Arcane) + 2d4.

So 1d12 +2 +2d4?

Seems like he hits a ton relative to the other characters.

Thanks for the response. I actually saw the answer after I had already posted but I certainly appreciate you taking the time.

So, now that the game is out and you have 5 billion people looking at cards and finding typos (see the FAQ). Will Paizo be issuing any replacement cards so I don't have to have a nice beautiful set of cards marred by my scribbles all over them?

Can we expect that sometime in the future?


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>