Dulcee's page

Organized Play Member. 117 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 14 Organized Play characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's just more unnecessary confusion then. So revealing a displayed card does the exact same thing as drawing a displayed card (which is the word used on many armors)?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please clarify. If you're playing a pre-Core scenario with post-Core rules, location handling is the same as it was pre-Core (i.e. the location isn't removed and characters don't automatically move to a new location). So characters like Amiri, who were always intended to be able to move to a new location and continue exploring, would still be able to do so with the proposed addendum that you made.

I'm not seeing how that's stronger than before. Unless you're stating that it makes the power stronger than it is with the current conversion rules, then yes. But that's because the current rules make the power far weaker than it was previously (which is the crux of the original post).

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

well... I like the cloak. But pardon me if I liked her old look better.

just me though
oh and Kalindlara. it was said somewhere along the road to 2e, that her hair was a very light blonde.....

Not just you. I very much prefer her old look and happily backed the kickstarter of her statue which will be displayed in my home.

Having said that though, I don't hate this new look. As an alternate universe Seoni, she still looks great. But I feel that she (and nearly all the other iconics for that matter) looks better in her original artwork.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Nobody says "Gee, I wish I would fail more checks" but people _do_ say that they want more illusion of danger, challenge, less sameness, and a vast variety of things that actually translate as "I wish I thought I might fail more checks, even if I don't actually."

I'm curious of the sample size you used to reach the inference that this is what most players want. There's a notable difference between an illusion of danger that requires gambling with using bonuses to ensure passing one particular check at the risk of not having those bonuses on a possibly more important future check and an illusion of danger that relies on making checks more random.

Granted there is a sense of satisfaction at passing that last difficult to achieve check with only one turn left and the odds not quite in your favor, this should be an exceptional case not the norm and is quite simply achieved by increasing the difficulty of the final villain. It's something you already do to great effect. And you've already solved the problem of trivializing that final check by limiting the number of blessings that can be played on it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Always thought it was 'Kee-ra'
Yeah, I remember hearing James Jacobs on Twitch a few weeks back making the correction that it's Kee-ra not Kie-ra, but it seems not everyone got the memo.

Well considering it's been officially pronounced Kie-ra for around a decade, it's not easy to suddenly change the way you pronounce her name based on a decision made a month ago.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like a lot of the changes being made. There are a couple questionable ones (like the location banishing), but I can't say whether that's good or bad without some context in how new cards will interact with that.

The one thing I wish the team would stop spending its energy on is trying to make this game backwards compatible. There are enough changes being made that likely HUNDREDS of cards will need to receive errata.

In my opinion (and I'm not sure how unpopular an opinion it would be), instead of generating a mountain of errata to fix the old cards, new versions of the old cards should be reprinted for use in the new "edition". This would give a chance to revisit the old class decks and bring them up to the current power level of cards. Those original seven class decks especially need some updating. I would much prefer to have a new version of the class deck to buy (with some all new characters included) to constantly referencing errata. It would also allow the cards to match the new style and save a bit of frustration for those of us with OCD. And it shouldn't require too much effort since many of the cards can be reused with minor adjustments to fit the new rules.

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in agreement with others that she looks far too frail. I don't agree that muscled barbarians are a "cliché". It's a natural result of constantly lifting and swinging around heavy objects their entire life. In Amiri's case, it's an extremely heavy and unwieldy object. You're bound to develop muscles in a career such as hers. She has a natural 18 STR before raging. For a human that means she's going to be muscular.

In my personal opinion - of all the artwork I've seen, I prefer the originals in nearly every single case.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sweetestsadist wrote:

"Combat: Reveal this card to use Strength or Melee + 1d8 + 2. Add an additional 1d10 against a Dragon bane.

[Weapon Proficient symbol]: Reload to add another 1d4 to this attack.
Recharge to reduce 4 damage dealt to a local character."

Ideally, this is what I would have liked to see the game evolve towards as well. I've lost count of the number of times I've mistakenly misplayed a card because I was reading it too quickly and missed a word towards the end of the paragraph of instructions. Magic: the Gathering also started out with rather verbose instructions, but they quickly moved to a more concise and consistent format which greatly improved card readability.

Although given that the RPG has a similar problem, I don't anticipate the game moving in this direction. It would be nice to at least keep it under consideration, though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, even though it still hasn't been put into the official card errata, we've been playing it as such. Our Zova player was also abusing the heck out of it. He seemed to always have it in his hand any time we encountered any before/after encounter monsters. It trivialized so many encounters that required making a certain check to play spells/weapons or that caused automatic damage. I was actually having less fun because I would have cards in my deck specifically to help me in those situations, and he would just Cloud Puff away every time. (And with Zova's ability to cycle through her deck so easily, it never took long for Cloud Puff to come back.)

After changing Cloud Puff to only affecting his own location, the game seemed to return to normal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wkover wrote:
If memory serves, seized ships don't carry over to the next scenario. They're only valid for the scenario in which they have been seized.

Yeah as someone already mentioned, you can use seized ships at the start of any scenario.

parody wrote:
The Dominator specifically says it cannot be seized.

Well, I wasn't sure what the ship name was. I guessed that one, but it clearly wasn't it since that ship doesn't reduce structural damage by 2. It was Mistmourn.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been waiting years for this. Instant pledge!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with the efforts to make "sword & board" more viable, will the requirements to use lay on hands be made more explicit? I know a couple GMs who say you can't use it if your hands are currently preoccupied (e.g. holding a weapon and a shield). This caused some players to come up with creative ways to drop and retrieve their weapon, or to just use a 2h weapon (which was often better anyway). But now that it costs actions to do this, it becomes even harder to use LoH in the middle of battle.

Thematically, S&B paladins have always been more appealing to me, and I'm hoping to them become more viable. The blog even mentions a case of a paladin using LoH on himself and raising a shield for even more AC. I'm hoping this is all doable without also dropping his sword.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with the side that feels this is bad news. I've been playing Pathfinder for a long time and even spent an entire summer participating with strangers in local PFS groups (which is a big step for me since I'm normally too introverted to go out by myself and talk to a group of people I don't know). That's how much I loved Pathfinder.

I enjoyed playing D&D 3.5, and when it become 4E, I disliked the change. I tried it, but really disliked it. Then I found out about Pathfinder, and it was exactly what I was looking for. I introduced some of my old 3.5 friends to it, the ones who were also disappointed with 4E, and together we started playing Pathfinder. And we loved it. It's hard to believe we've invested nearly 10 years in it already.

But now it feels like a legacy is coming to an end. It's a bit disheartening, but I guess nothing good lasts forever. I already know I will dislike 2nd Edition based on some of the things I've read. That doesn't mean I won't give it a try. I gave D&D 4E and even 5E a try, but I didn't like either of them. And I'll give Pathfinder 2E a try. But I really doubt it'll give me the enjoyment Pathfinder has given me all these years, so I will most likely not invest any more money into it.

It's a shame that this is the decision Paizo has come to. I didn't think they were hurting this badly. In each of the local gaming stores I do my shopping, Pathfinder by far dominates the RPG section. There's only one tiny shelf for D&D products, while Pathfinder covers nearly a dozen others. And I feel this decision only serves to split the playerbase. If new blood is what they were looking for, it would have been a much wiser decision to simply relaunch the game with a fully compatible system. In exactly the same way the Unchained book brought new life to several classes, a new "Unchained" core book with the original classes and races would have been better - a stepping on point for new players where you could make the changes that need to be made for new players and players who want the change; but still allowing older players to continue moving forward with what they've already invested in.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is mostly for those who haven't tried out the Magus deck yet or are on the fence over grabbing it: it's one of my favorites. I've played Talitha quite a bit, and her ability to bury blessings to later retrieve them is tremedously powerful. And even though she's classified as a "staff mage", I gave her Gallivance and never looked back. Gallivance was almost made for her! (I think Seltyiel stole it from her.) I love being able to bury a blessing to add her high Arcane skill to her melee checks, with the ability to use that blessing to reroll a die that rolled a bit too low. She rarely ever fails checks. Then later when she gets her Holy Avenger role, she can add the number of buried blessings to ALL checks (after a feat)!

Kudos to whomever designed this deck. I haven't gotten tired of using it!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Kasoh. If a game has a "perma-death" feature built in, and it's a character that I've spent a long time developing and have grown attached to, then I will hand-wave any death as not having happened. There's nothing worse than a game basically erasing all the time you spent on something, as if you have nothing better to do with that time. It's even worse in video games since you can't just pretend it never happened. (I believe there was an MMORPG once that included permanent death as a feature. I never touched that game.)

Since I have very little free time, I'm opposed to any game elements whose design is solely to waste that time. This is what annoyed me (and the rest of my gaming group) about Wrath of the Righteous so much. Barriers such as Demonic Horde and Arboreal Blights just slowed the game down to a crawl. Demonic Hordes were especially bad because they could wind up hitting the same person repeatedly, forcing the rest of us to play all our blessings to help them get through it. And if there was one failure, it meant not only did we waste playing those cards, but we'd have to spend an entire round recovering from it, then end up facing it yet again. That was the most "unfun" we've ever experienced in this (or possibly any) game.

So yeah, we have no problem house-ruling away permanent death.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slacker2010 wrote:
Still no official ruling?

I'm curious about this as well. I just bought the Occult Adventures character deck, and now I need to know if the many cards in that deck that use Ranged or Disable for your combat check are unusable for Rivani.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been hoping the original class decks would be given supplements for well over a year now. Every time I want to play Seoni, I'm reminded how bland her class deck is compared to all the recent class decks.

It would be nice to have a supplemental product released with new cards to be implemented in the first wave of class decks. Even a few cards each could make a big difference. Then rangers (and an Adowyn unlock) could make use of a Basic bow. And the older classes could also make use of some of the newer blessings.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
I'm tempted to try a solo Enora or Seoni playthrough of B, possibly starting with the example deck, just to show it can be done.

I'm sure there are few who doubt it can be done. I can invent a game where you roll a d6 once every hour, and if you a roll a 6 you're allowed to advance to the next stage. That game can also be done. But the odds are stacked against it, and it's not fun for those who fail to advance.

Given it seems to be the majority opinion that this game is best balanced around a party of 4, I think I'm going to retry with that instead of 6. Also I'll encourage everyone to play non-casters. It's a shame players can't play the type of character they enjoy to have fun in this game - since it's apparent this game was designed to cater to the "power gamers" we'll do our best to try doing that and see if it's enjoyable.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Klandestine wrote:
2.It stands to reason that the ‘base’ level missions of ‘any’ game should facilitate a learning curve, so people can get to grips with the new character they have chosen, get used to the game mechanics, and understand how to work together to overcome goals. Whether “thematic” or not, having card wipes and even party wipes in the first few scenarios is not conducive to helping people to get ‘into’ the game. In many ways, it presents the entirely opposite situation of making people wanting to give up. You can make things challenging without making them feel 'impossible'. That's called balance.

I think this is the most important fact that the game designers seem to have forgotten with Wrath of the Righteous. This game is going to be the introduction for many new players into the world of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. The B scenarios are supposed to represent a sort of tutorial to acclimate players to the game mechanics and strategies. To have them be the HARDEST scenarios through all 6 Adventure Paths is ludicrous and not conducive to player retention.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

First time PFS =! first time pathfinder.

True, but PFS has some rather large changes from pathfinder, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were errors in traits, feats, evolutions, eidolon skills, eidolon HP, eidolon attack bonus, and so on.

Several people aren't aware of 4.5 hp per hit die rule, for example.

Isn't it 5.5 hp per hit die for eidolons?

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Is this just a phase or has Paizo finally left its teenage phase of cleavage windows and bare belly buttons behind? Both this Hunter and the girls in the Iron Gods Player's Guide look totally badass and functionally dressed. If anything, that makes them hotter.

Teenage phase? Really?

Childish comment aside, you act like Paizo is doing anything differently here. Let's completely ignore Lini, Seelah, Kyra from the very beginning who all had neither cleavage windows nor belly exposed. Perhaps you'll also note that Kess, the new iconic Brawler, has her belly completely exposed.

It bothers me that I even felt the need to defend this sort of thing, but sometimes the puritanical beliefs some people try to force on others really irks me, and even more so when they think flinging insults helps to back their position.

I think Adowyn here looks fantastic. But I also think characters like Amiri look just as amazing (and completely fit the lore of barbarians who relied on their own natural strengths instead of armor). Paizo has never had a problem of dressing their women in full armor when it's appropriate or giving them more revealing attire if it fits the character. I don't see their art direction having changed at all (nor do I wish it to).

My apologies if I come across as a jerk here or sound angry. It's not my intention at all, and I'm just a little annoyed more than anything. But we're all here as fans of Pathfinder, or we wouldn't be bothering to post at all, so this is all I'll say on the matter. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While those mats do look really nice, and I can appreciate the amount of work that went into them, I have to agree with others that this does not sound like something Paizo would approve of. Trying to recover the cost you spent on miniatures and other game materials is definitely going deep into the profiting territory. You weren't forced to buy any miniatures to make playmats, and I'm certain you didn't buy those miniatures for the sole purpose of putting their image on a playmat.