Jenceslav's page

So many new posts (and lengthy, too). You are very prolific, Brother Tyler ;).

Jenceslav wrote:

Do you want to incorporate "new" keywords like avenge from Core versions of character classes that form a basis of the pre-Core characters?

Do you have any specific recommendations for where updated wording should be used?

I was thinking about Alain's Glory Hound role, in line with the suggested "split" of Cavalier and Samurai into Mount-based and Solo combat-based multiclass, respectively. It was mostly an idea that the avenge keyword may be overlooked if you stick too strictly to the concept of using only the (converted) powers. I am not saying it's bad or good, just wanted to present some ideas.

□ When another character at your location would encounter a monster (□ or a weapon), you may discard (□ or recharge) a card; you encounter it instead.

A possible translation into some multiclass card's power (more suitable for e.g. a Samurai) could be e.g.:

□ You may discard (□ or recharge) a card to avenge.

Of course, there is a difference in timing (before encounter vs. after failing to defeat), so it's not direct parallel - and you clearly stated that in this stage, chiefly the original (or converted) powers should be used.

As to the "stacking" of powers, there are some combinations that may be acceptable, if one argues that you pay e.g. the cost separately.

□ On any combat check, you may recharge a card or reload a weapon to add 1d4 (□ 1d6).

On a distant combat check, you may shuffle a card into your deck to add 1d4.

In this combination, though, it becomes "distant combat check = shuffle 2 cards into deck to add 2d4", if you use the powers in the correct order. It's probably OK ;) Similarly, Harsk Gunslinger would result in the same combination.

What if Lem became a Skald and chose this power, though?

At the start of your turn, you may exchange a card with a card of the same type from your discards.

□ At the start of your turn, you may exchange a card with a card of the same type (□ or a weapon or an Instrument card) from your discards.

Does it trigger once, or twice? Would a player argue that they want to use the power feat for the "(□ or a weapon or an Instrument card)" as they already have the Bardic power?

Another of your long and well commented posts, nice (but it took a lot of time to read through and digest).
I have a few comments for particular archetype cards, but there is one question that concerns many of them. It revolves around design space and the pre-Core & Core characters & your other archetypes.

Preface: Design-wise, many of these character powers are very similar to (or even verbatim with) the iconic powers of another class. For example, when you have a pre-Core power that allows you to exchange cards with your discards, the character may feel like a cross of Bard with some other class. If a power allows movement after closing a location or burying a card to add to a combat check, this would feel like a Barbarian. Similarly, Inquisitors in tabletop PF sound mechanically similar to Sorcerers (for Divine). Many parallels in designs can be probably found if one searches enough.
I originally considered only one aspect. Let's take the bard power mentioned above, for the Medium archetype.

At the start of your turn, you may exchange a card in your hand with a card of the same type in your discards.

At the end of your turn, you may discard a card to recharge a card from your discards.

Would it be better to provide the Core verions of such powers that feel like they occupy identical design space?

Do you want to incorporate "new" keywords like avenge from Core versions of character classes that form a basis of the pre-Core characters? These were not there before Core and could be used in the archetype cards instead of earlier powers that share its design space. "... encounter the bane instead".

Cavalier and Samurai (who is part of cavalier in TT PF, as you say)
In your take, you focused on the same thing in both archetype cards - mounts. wiki says that JP Samurai were skilled in martial weapons, archery and horsemanship, so OK, but looking at them solely as mounted warriors might be wrong. When I thought about this, I remembered Eric from D&D cartoon - a "cavalier", who leaned toward the hero aspect of protecting others, with no horse around... ever. This is similar to honourable fights between two samurai (no one should interfere) and to Alain's powers (fighting with no help). If we don't consider the role-playing elements, i.e a player wants to play a mounted samurai, my suggestion is this:
Cavalier archetype powers could concentrate on mounted fighting, with cohort Jinfu, Donovan or the Warhorse ally. They could be drawn from both Alain's and Hayato's mount-related powers.
Samurai archetype could focus on Melee (and possibly Bow) weapons, protecting others ("do x to avenge" ~ Glory Hound power) and attacking swiftly ("On your first combat check of your turn, add 1d6") or leading others. Again, picking the appropriate powers from both Alain and Hayato.

Specific comments to suggested powers:
Bloodrager - I am in favour of replacing +2 with "(□ or the card)"
Hunter - radio box is a great idea, fully in favour; "you encounter" is superfluous in the evade power?
Inquisitor - the Ranged=Strength +2 seems to me as Imrijka thing and not an Inquisitor's inherent take. Other Inquisitors have different weapon preferences (and thus, proficience). Maybe you can use the radio box to choose one of options?
Medium - Spirit Relatives is an Erasmus-type card, but probably OK in this phase. Having separate cards ~ Devil forms would be the best, I believe. Also, the wording for favoured card should be "OR Choose 1 Card Type" ~ Core Lem? Similarly in Occultist
Ninja - "OR Weapon OR Poison card"; Shifter - "OR Animal card"
Psychic - I really like Mental proficiency / Mental spells, but would give it also to Mesmerist. Both sound similarly (and very strongly) Mental-focused. I'm in favour of replacing "(+2)" with other powers, as I believe there are too many power feats in one line.

□ On another character's check, you may display any number of blessings and weapons; for each card displayed, add 1 (□ 2).

□ On your check, you may display any number of blessings and spells; for each card displayed, add 1 (□ 2).
Before you reset, recharge the cards displayed for the powers above. (□ You may reset at the start of your turn.)

Overall, this project is extremely thorough and complicated; communicating thoughts through posts is lengthy and may cause a loss of the context. Also, we cannot think everything through, so please consider my suggestions only as such; it would be best for others to also provide their opinion, so a single voice does not lead you away from your original idea ;)

There are quite a few Perception-based checks on banes, but there are also some Core ones that punish you for having Perception. Being able to read tiny runes may be a hindrance.
OotS: "I prepared Explosive Runes this morning!"
Order of the Stick, 92

Thank you for a detailed discussion and the thoughtful comments on weapon types etc. There are many good points you've made. I believe the Core terminology has many advantages even though there are as many unresolved (or new) problems. Making the cards work with both pre-Core and Core cards in mind sounds very taxing, but probably wise.
I did not consider non-European (and non-Californian) Swashbuckling heroes, just the Dumas' musketeers, Fanfan la Tulipe, Zorro etc., but Sindibad makes a lot of sense as well and wuxia too.
I do not object to any of your explanations.

There are four Firearm weapons with “recharge” powers: Deadeye Pistol +1, Dragon Pistol, and Dragon Pistol +1, and Wheellock Pistol. In addition, there are also three Firearm armors with “recharge” powers: Flaming Buckler Gun, Goblin Buckler Gun, and Venomous Buckler Gun. This means that the power is [slightly] more powerful than you think, offering both offensive and defensive benefits.

OH, I did not consider the recharge power on these Firearm bucklers at all. I think about them only as the powers that come from the buckler side of them - as something any non-Firearm buckler / shield could do. RAW, it works for those cards as well. In that sense, there are 4 more cards (incl. Buckler Gun; 7 total), so it would be slightly more useful. In converted powers to Core, two of them would only reveal ("If proficient with light armors" = always), but let's not think about that.

Oh, I forgot to clarify the Gunslinger comment...

GUNSLINGER MULTICLASS wrote:

□ When you play a Firearm card, if you would bury (□ or discard) (□ or recharge) it or shuffle it into your deck, you may keep it and perform the required action with another card instead.

Jenceslav wrote:

The "upgrade" of 2nd power to discard or recharge actions sounds extremely limited in effect. There are 3 Firearm weapons that recharge for some of their effects, 7 that discard for some of their effects (total is 31 Firearm Weapons). It makes sense to me in the context of Gunslinger class deck, but only a little. What about replacing the recharge with "□ Treat your character powers as if the word "Firearm" were "Ammunition or Firearm".?

Given the gunslinger’s lack of healing powers, being able to keep a Firearm card in their deck is very important to remaining viable. Besides, as much as possible, we’re adapting the existing cards/powers, not redesigning things [unless absolutely necessary].

I do not object to this power, which is taken from Lirianne, it is an essential part of Gunslinger with non-Reliable Firearm weapons. My comment was on the usefulness of the "(□ or recharge)" part of the power for multiclass characters. In the current products, there are only 3 Firearm low-level weapons that recharge for their power, and that is even for their secondary use.

Recharge this card to add 1d6 and this card's traits to a combat check by another character at your location.

Recharge this card to add 1d4 to a combat check by another character at your location.

What is the usefulness of this power (recharge another card instead of recharging a Firearm) in Gunslinger Deck Lirianne is beyond my understanding - in AD2-3 (2 power feats needed), you won't be using anything other than the Dragon Pistol +1, if even that. The multiclass character may have even less use for such feat. As such, I proposed the power from GunDeck Lirianne in her Alkenstar Marshal role, "□ Treat your character powers that say Firearm as if they say Ammunition or Firearm." as a replacement.

I am sorry for missing the Bard power +1d4 :)
As for the proficiencies, it was a logical progression of the division you already made in the Fighter multiclass. Even though each character can use weapons that are not the "primary" ones, i.e. Ranger could use the Melee weapons, the power couples skill and proficiency gain.
For example, gaining a Ranged skill AND now being able to utilize e.g. Greatsword fully, despite not necessarily having the Melee skill, sounds weird. I do not dispute your opinion, merely provide feedback about powers that feel wrong in context. I am OK with them being like you propose.
Ad Champion - having the 2 powers separate instead of linking them together helps characters that already have the Divine skill, so that they do not "waste" a feat gaining it. Your proposal is probably the best one.

□ Gain the skill Divine: Charisma +1 and you are proficient with Divine. When rebuilding, you may treat up to 2 (□ 3) Divine spells as weapons, items, or blessings. (□ When you attempt a check before acting, you may use Divine instead of any listed skill.)

□ Gain the skill Divine: Charisma +1 and you are proficient with Divine. When rebuilding, you may treat up to 2 (□ 3) Divine spells as weapons, items, or blessings.

□ When you attempt a check before acting, you may use Divine instead of any listed skill.

As for the Summoner, I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly. What I find weird is that their inherent power cares for monster cards in hand even though they have no way to gain these monsters. Therefore, they will want to take the "draw monster" feats first, limiting the variability of the multiclass archetype.

SUMMONER MULTICLASS

...
You may banish a monster from your hand to ...
□ You may recharge (□ or shuffle into your deck) a spell to draw a new monster.
□ When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may draw it instead. (□ When you defeat a summoned monster, you may draw a new monster.)

In my opinion, it would be better to have this power progression, without taking the Cohorts - or their powers caring about monsters - into consideration:

SUMMONER MULTICLASS

When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may draw it instead. (□ When you defeat a summoned monster, you may draw a new monster.)
□ You may banish a monster from your hand to ...
□ You may recharge (□ or shuffle into your deck) a spell to draw a new monster.

Downside: The "use Monster card for stuff" gets too many power feats and you may consider its splitting into two powers.

Ad Swashbuckler - apart from the Pistol, I believe all the classical weapons associated with Swashbucklers (all sabres and light swords) are Finesse weapons and have the Strength, Acrobatics, or Melee combat check in Core - except Elven Curve Blade that has only Strength and Melee. Some of them such as daggers or Shortsword have Stealth combat check as well. The Core Shortsword is probably the best case against Swashbucklers caring only for Acrobatics combat checks.

In any way, good luck with tweaking the cards, they sound very interesting indeed.

Ad Swashbuckler: In my Jirelle-reimagined-into-Core (an alternative to the converted characters made by you), I devised the power that replaces the "gain Melee:Dex+2"
On your check that invokes Finesse, add 1d4.
By symmetry with Rogue I meant having e.g.
Rogue: "On your Stealth combat checks, add 1d4"
Swashbuckler: "On your Acrobatics combat checks, add 1d4"
(both are applicable to the Core Finesse weapons)

Here are some of my thoughts about the current proposed archetype multiclass cards:

Alchemist - OK
Barbarian - OK
Bard - Why did you not include the "bardic" power of recharge a card to add 1d4 etc. to a local (or another local character's) check? Core Lem has it as well.
As for the "or to heal" - some cards care about healing (Wounded scourge etc.). I would keep it as "shuffle" because it gives the idea that the bard is adept at reusing, not that it is a healer.
Maybe off-topic: Did you want to erase the original favored card by a chosen type, or make it an alternative or have both and new? Suppose the favored card is a Sword weapon. You choose 1 boon type = "item". Do you draw until you draw the item (chose the multiclass fav. card), or do you draw until you draw a Sword (chose the original fav. card), or do you draw until you draw either a Sword or an item? The "OR" is not clear to me.
Brawler - OK
Champion / Paladin - "When you attempt a check before you act, you may use Divine instead of any listed skill." seems extremely powerful when that same feat already gives you Divine spells and Proficiency. I would suggest replacing the (□ +2) with this power: Gain the skill Divine: Charisma +1. When rebuilding, you may treat up to 2 (□ 3) Divine spells as weapons, items, or blessings. □ When you attempt a check before you act, you may use Divine instead of any listed skill.
Along with Cleric and Rogue (and maybe someone else), there is a power line with 4 power feat boxes □, but you mentioned somewhere your own self-imposed limit of 3 □. Or am I wrong? :)
Cleric - OK
Druid - OK
Cleric - OK
Fighter - I would argue that the Diplomacy does not seem appropriate for a fighter. A replacement suggestion: reducing damage for other local characters - Valeros, Tontelizi in Fighter CD have this.
Alternative: When you would discard a Melee weapon for its power, you may recharge it instead? Your Ranger multiclass has something similar.
Gunslinger - The "upgrade" of 2nd power to discard or recharge actions sounds extremely limited in effect. There are 3 Firearm weapons that recharge for some of their effects, 7 that discard for some of their effects (total is 31 Firearm Weapons). It makes sense to me in the context of Gunslinger class deck, but only a little. What about replacing the recharge with "□ Treat your character powers as if the word "Firearm" were "Ammunition or Firearm".?
Magus - OK, but maybe should gain proficiency only in Melee weapons
Ranger - OK, but maybe should gain proficiency only in Ranged weapons
Rogue - Maybe should gain proficiency only in Finesse weapons.
Skald - Melee => should gain proficiency only in Melee weapons.
Sorcerer - OK
Summoner - I do not like the fact that "You may banish a monster from your hand to (□ draw a card or to) ..." does nothing unless you take a feat that draws monsters. It is somewhat forcing you to choose one of the 2 monster-drawing feats. Another feat (draw 2 instead of 1) also does nothing. I suggest rearrangement, possibly into "(permanent) When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may draw it instead. (□ When you defeat a summoned monster, you may draw a new monster.)" and keeping the "banish a monster to ..." behind a □. You can maybe split it into two different feat lines.
Swashbuckler - Maybe should gain proficiency only in Finesse weapons. Also, I suggest removing the reduction in Structural damage - Swashbuckler became associated with pirates and ships, but it's actually a much older hero type (IRL). Gaining Craft also seems focused more on the ship aspect, but is acceptable. Maybe gaining Acrobatics seems a good option? Most non-Rogue Finesse weapons allow Acrobatics combat checks. Maybe there is a way to both differentiate Rogues and Swashbucklers, and make some symmetry between them. Gaining some similar power on your Stealth / Acrobatics combat checks sounds appropriate.
Witch - OK
Wizard - The last power seems very powerful when you have e.g. Intelligence +4. Any check becomes 1dX+1dY+4, including combat ones, while the Intelligence checks are "just" 1dY+4? Although there is the cost of a spell, it still seems too powerful. Maybe adding Intelligence die would be better?

These are just my semi-random thoughts when reading the suggested cards, some may be much less though out than your original texts. I hope this helps a little! :)

You're welcome. I am pretty sure I've read somewhere something about Arueshalae and the Rogue deck, but it is not in my file. Maybe I just did not enter the full entry into my spreadsheet. Or there was an update to the files later on, but I had the older version downloaded. Maybe you can find the missing sources ;)

It's possible that the rewards from Core seasons or stand-alone Society scenarios allow you the rest of the character - class deck combinations in your list. I do not have a searchable Excel database of the new seasons, only individual PDFs with adventures. Sorry ;)

I am amazed (and a little bit scared) by the insane amount of work and thoughts you pour into this project, Tyler. I believe that the current version of the Alchemist & associated rules represent the pinnacle (PTSD RotR AD6 Scaling Mhar Massif) of the archetype multiclass idea. 10 power feats seem like a good balance, the guideline you used to make them sounds very well thought through and appropriate. You are great!

I do, however, have my own form that was based on that guidance, and it also allowed some supported characters to use alternate decks (omitting those characters that are listed in the sidebar in the current guide):

Alain (WotR) – Paladin Class Deck
Arueshalae (WotR) – Rogue Class Deck
...

I do have a few versions of the society guide I downloaded over years for the sake of curiosity - 4.2, 5.0 (the last pre-Core I have), 6.1 (the first Core I have). Some mentions about character or class decks in them are:

You can add any character card of the same class (along

with a matching role and token card) from any Pathfinder
Adventure Card Game Base Set or Character Add-On Deck.

No mention of characters without class decks.

Ekkie - Goblins Fight!

Ranzak - Goblins Fight!
Reepazo - Goblins Burn!
Tup - Goblins Burn!

Crimsi - Goblins Fight!

Ekkie - Goblins Fight!
Grenek - Goblins Fight!
Nok-Nok - Goblins Fight!
Pizazz - Goblins Burn!
Ranzak - Goblins Fight!
Reepazo - Goblins Burn!
Siathorn - Goblins Burn!
Tup - Goblins Burn!

Hakon - Warpriest
Kess - Barbarian
Quinn - Ultimate Equipment

As for the rest of your lists, there have been rewards for the Season scenarios that allow you to play with characters from APs and their associated decks:

SotS AD1 - S&S Jirelle, Rogue

SotS AD6 - WotR Enora, Wizard
SotRig AD6 - WotR Alain, Paladin
SotRun AD3 - WotR Shardra, Oracle
SotRun AD6 - MM Mavaro, Inquisitor
SotPT AD1 - MM Zadim, Inquisitor
SotPT AD2 - MM Mavaro, Bard
SotPT AD4 - MM Mavaro, Alchemist -- He is quite popular, isn't he?
SotPT AD5 - MM Estra, Oracle
SotPT AD6 - MM Mavaro, Magus -- Ehm
SoFF AD1 - WotR Crowe, Magus
SoFF AD3 - WotR Enora, Pathfinder Tales
SoFF AD4 - any Ranger, Hunter
SoFF AD5 - Wiz Darago, Hell's Vengeance 2
SoFF AD6 - OA1 Meligaster, Bard; any Lem, Occult Adv 1
SoTT AD5 Heaven's Call - Barb. Ostog, Monk
SoTT AD5 Get Kraken! - GF! Reta, Gunslinger

I may have missed some, but it's most probably fairly complete. Rewards for SoFF fights against HV1&2 characters allow you to replace your character with them for a scenario.

I have never played in the Society and have no experience to base any comments on. However, regarding this:

...characters who use multiclass cards (and only those characters) may also choose either of the following combinations:

Class Deck & Class Deck
Ultimate Add-On deck & Ultimate Add-On Deck

In addition, the player is free to swap any adventurer’s packs.

Just by looking at the allowed deck combinations, it seems that there is an assumed equivalency Class Deck ~ 1 adv. pack, Ultimate Add-On Deck ~ 2 adv. packs. The 4 latter options out of the 6 presented in the Guide would then have the same "equivalent size" of 3 adventure packs. The former 2 are smaller, so "size <= 3 adventure packs". If that is the intent, Class Deck & Class Deck might be OK (equivalent to 2 adventure packs). Ultimate Add-On Deck & another Ultimate Add-On Deck might be considered excessive (equivalent to 4 adventure packs). Swapping adventure pack cards for cards in Class Decks or Ultimate Add-On Decks seems like a headache in making (too many considerations at once), but on the surface acceptable.

The non-incremental power feats with regard to dice are a different matter altogether.

I agree completely, I was trying to point out existing precedents, so that you can feel less constrained in further tweaks. Of course, modifications to card lists are different than non-incremental dice / check power, but still inspiring. Some of the many examples are:

On your (□ or a character at your location's) non-combat check against a monster, you may recharge a card to add 1d6 (□ 1d10)(□ 2d6).

□ Add 2 (□ 4) to your check to recharge (□ or acquire) a spell that has the Attack trait.

Follow-on question: In such instances, do we need to limit power feats for deck modifications to single card increases? Characters who already have some number of the multiclass favored card(s) in their deck lists might not use/need such power feats, but characters whose deck lists don’t include any of the multiclass favored card(s) might gain value from being allowed to take a 2-card increase via a power feat.

I agree that this would be feasible - and there is a precedent, although with a Goblin character, Chuffy - Shanker role 7 => 9 in Hand Size. Similarly, there are newish characters that have power feat progression that is not incremental +1d4 => +1d6 => +1d8, but e.g. 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 (I would need to check the tables with characters to find the actual example). I think that allowing 3 [] 5 spells instead of other boon types for a Sorcerer seems a pretty good fit. Sorcerers have much smaller Spell selection, sometimes even just the 3 at the start of adventure path, so that sounds appropriate. The same numbers sound appropriate for Magus and other non-mainline spellcasters or fighters. Wizard multiclass gaining 4 [6] spells instead of other boons is also appropriately higher than the Sorcerer.

I'm sorry if I distracted you :)

It’s interesting, and frustrating, that you can’t see the linked images.

A funny thing - now it works. The rules are quite lengthy (as can be expected), but the powers themselves are nice, clean, simple and look perfectly like a Core card. 10 power feats seems reasonable, with tiered progression in a given power feat group - that's perfect.

Looking at the Magus multiclass card in patricular, I have a few minor suggestions / concerns:
Adding 4(5) cards of a given type seems like a large number at once to me. Maybe 3(4) cards would be a less abrupt change. A character with 2 Weapons would suddenly have up to 6 Weapons in their deck, more than many a Fighter (and the gain is higher than the weapon count in most Magus' decks).
Proficiency with Weapons in the text rather than Weapon?
Is the multiclass Magus effectivity dependent on the Magus Arcana? If the cohort would be too strong, maybe use some of its powers as multiclass Magus powers.

Overall, the card looks really cool; I'm not a fan of the long rules explanation, though. ;)
Cohorts in multiclass cards - I recommend only the Witches and Summoners to have them; a rule "When you gain this card, select a Witch Class deck cohort and mark it on this card" ("... an Eidolon cohort and ...") plus a power that displays the marked cohort for a cost might be enough. For Hunter multiclass card, I would suggest focusing on Animal allies only, no cohorts.

The cohort issue is much more significant as it has the potential to affect numerous character decks and two adventure paths (especially Wrath of the Righteous).

I fail to see the significance how this affects adventure paths (you probably meant WotR & Season of the Righteous, but there are few scenarios in Season of Factions' Favour that have cohorts as well). If I recall correctly, cohorts in the scenario are given to any character; they are in no way related to the characters having or not having cohorts on their own. As for the cohort / Loot ally option, I agree that adding cohorts might be troublesome when characters work that way. To me it seems that cohort should be something / someone that is character's constant companion; without it the character would not function. Summoners and their eidolons seem the easiest fit - maybe they may be enabled after a power feat for multiclass archetypes.

I've created some preliminary versions of the cards.

...
Front | Back

Um, the link does not seem to work for me. "Just a moment," it says ... forever. Maybe it's that I'm based in Europe?

Your efforts are inspiring, so sorry if it sounds like I'm nitpicking ;)

However, one of the tenets of this project is that everything has to work with the entire range of PACG products, including the classic products. In the case of the gunslinger and Firearm weapons, this is especially important. So just as the designs of the magus, summoner, and witch characters force us to preserve the existing cohorts for those multiclass cards, the design of the Firearm weapons forces us to continue using the Weapon (or Weapons) proficiency for the gunslinger multiclass card, especially since we didn’t change/add to the gunslingers’ proficiencies in the Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters? project (except for the Light Armors thing). Most (all?) of the Firearm weapons have text that alludes to the wielder being “proficient with weapons” improves the chance to shuffle the weapon into their deck instead of burying it after use.

A fair point, Brother Tyler. There are quite a few Firearms that do not check for proficiency (they all have the Reliable trait as well) - Deadeye Pistol, Enervating Pistol, Lucky Rifle and Sword Cane Pistol, + Alkenstar Pistol. The community-led Core versions of old characters did not include the changes in proficiency, true - and there is a good justification for that.

A short "rant":
However, each Core card that cares about proficiency counts ANY proficiency. A simple conversion rule could say something like "If a card refers to proficiency with its boon type, replace this condition with 'if proficient,'." Barely anyone would disagree with using that, I believe. There may be some edge cases, but otherwise it is simple, clear and most of all, does allow an easy transition to Core+ wording of the character decks. If a new version of the Gunslinger deck were to be made, would you change the e.g. Pistol card to keep Core's simplicity in wording, would you make two cards named the same that are functionally different (pre-Core "proficient with weapons", Core "proficient"), or keep the old wording? My opinion is to fully convert every card to a new wording (I have done it for my games ... plus all the 3291 boons&banes in my list etc.). I would say that this decision convert / keep shapes this whole project, as the character powers often stay some way due to the need to preserve the function for the old wording.

I am not criticising your work, which is great and admirable, just offering a different angle to look at character powers.

You are putting a lot of effort into this, Brother Tyler, so I am amazed - and at the same time sad because I can't contribute to this much (I have too little time).
One thing I would point out that concerns Gunslinger and Swashbuckler (see, I played with both Lirianne and Jirelle in S&S, so I love them ... and Tessa Fairwind) - and it's more like a suggestion.
When the Core terminology of proficiency was introduced, it opened a lot of potential character differentiation in my opinion. You can have characters proficient with Fire, Instrument, so why limit yourself to Weapons?
Swashbuckler may gain proficiency with Finesse (or Finesse Weapons), Swashbuckling (or Swashbuckling Weapons). Gunslinger may gain proficiency with Ranged Weapons or even better, Firearms. Giving Weapons proficiency to a Gunslinger seems wrong, if you can now fight proficiently e.g. with a two-handed sword.
So maybe consider adding proficiency to a subset of a boon type instead of the whole group. Non-Attack Spells, or just gaining Attack Spell proficiency can spice things up.

I do not think of it as a significant flaw, Brother Tyler. There's always going to be a difference between all the classic APs (and Seasons) and Core+ APs. It might need to be taken into consideration, but it's better not to limit yourself by it.

I mistakenly counted 4 power feats pre-role in WotR where there are only 3, like in other pre-Core classic APs. Sorry about that. Despite that, one should not consider WotR as a meterstick for power feats (or skill feats, of course). Mummy's Mask would be probably the best AP for discussing the differences, I believe.

Now I (hopefully) understand the numbers in your breakdown:

So the combinations for most of the classic APs are:

3 base class and 4 multiclass
4 base class and 3 multiclass
5 base class and 2 multiclass
6 base class and 1 multiclass

E.g. 4 power feats in the base powers and your role card, 3 power feats in the archetype role card. I am not sure if limiting this amount is a good option, especially if you consider that there are (quite a few) possibilities to change power feats. The AD6 location in Mummy's Mask and in Core, replaying a scenario with higher difficulty.

Consider this: you have 4 power feats in your character/role card, 2 in the archetype role card. You replay some scenarios and change it to the archetype power feats, e.g. 1 power feat in your character/role card and 5 in the archetype power feat. Trying to contain this with any ruling would have ugly convoluted wording. Would this be more fun than trying to create weird, but enjoyable characters? Why not allow the person to have their role card and not limit their power feats distribution? The characters would not be overpowered, as they will have much fewer power feats in their base/role powers and lose the improvements in their base powers.

This can be difficult to determine since there are three basic combinations of power feats:

2 base class power feats and 4 multiclass power feats
3 base class power feats and 3 multiclass power feats
4 base class power feats and 2 multiclass power feats

I suppose these options mean how many power feats a character receives prior to a role card and after (or together with) a role card. If so, then I would consider the "powerfulness" of archetype role cards according to the Core / CoCT power feat progression. The older APs may end up slightly different, but that is to be expected.

BTW: Do we need to consider WotR as a basis for characters gaining 4 power feats before getting a role? WotR is completely different in power level, so we should not consider it relevant. Is there another AP that grants 4 power feats pre-role?

Brother Tyler,
even though I agree "only" with a huge majority of points you've made, I applaud your Wall-o'-Text in general. Well laid out and thought out.
Generally, I would be very happy if some more PACG content appeared, using the Core terminology and AP philosophy. I do not mind either the old visuals or the new design, both have their pros and cons. The new one is clean and elegant, but usually has soo much wasted space (background).
I would also support the new decks being fully compatible with pre-Core cards instead of forcing a hard split. Of course, this would be a financial decision as well - when one has a huge collection of PACG decks that would not be useable going forward, they won't likely be happy if the new content replaces the old one.
Ideally, the creators would participate in this initiative, but what happens when they say "we don't want to" or "sorry, but the IP or copyright doesn't allow that"? I am no lawyer (and understand even less about weird laws of the USA), so I may be mistaken. Even if there is a crowdfunding initiative, it will be doomed if the original authors say "no".

New APs as expansions similar to Curse, focusing on levels 4-6+ (mainly) with 3-4 sheets à 110 cards sounds great, utilizing the most of the Core Story banes. As for the size of the box, I was able to easily fit everything from CoCT inside its box even when sleeved - in PerfectSize sleeves. So I do not see the need to change its size; as for the Core box, it's size would not suffice for many APs, but is there a need for it? Original pre-Core boxes are huge: they fit enormous amounts of cards when fitted with cardboard inserts like in Core (all my S&S, WotR and ~ 12 character decks + extra cards for Seasons.
Archetype decks sound cool as well, great idea!
Revamping old character/special decks to the Core version as the "Essential <class>" including the overlooked classes sounds great! I would love some Swashbuckler deck, either pirate- or duleist-themed, it doesn't matter. Having some variety and predictability in the characters would be great, characters are the most interesting part of this game for me. New power cards for iconic characters in new settings would provide so much new variety for them.

As for the effort itself - as a completitionist, I've spent an enormous amount of time converting the old cards from all the decks, adventure paths and the bug-ridden Obsidian app (~3400 cards in total, ~270 locations, ~360 scenarios) into somewhat consistent Core terminology. I would be happy to provide the creators with this spreadsheet, if that would lower the development costs or hasten any work done. Even if they discard most of the conversions, it may be useful for someone else than just me and my friends.

Thread necromancy to show that it is still being played ;)
We are using Corified characters and cards with a few thematic Pathfinder-Adventures-originating "promo" cards. 4 players, no deaths, maybe 1 Hero Point used during the whole campaign.

Ahmotep - Eldritch Scion
Skills: STR +3, INT +4
Cards: Spell 7 (+3), Item 5 (+2), Ally 3 (+1), Blessing 4 (+1)
Hand Size: 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9
Upgraded Powers: On your (■ or a local) check, after the roll, you may discard (■ or recharge) a card to add or subtract 2 (■ or its level).
■ On your check, after the roll, you may discard a card to remove or reroll any 1 die (□ or any 2 dice).
Weapons: Crook and Flail of Kings, Staff of the Hooded Cobra
Spells: Dune of Doom ×2, Monstrous Physique, Ride the Lightning, Spite Cloud ×2, Symbol of Fortune
Armor: Gravewatcher Chain Mail
Items: Evocation Staff, Golden Serpent Armband, Ring of Energy Resistance, Ring of Stony Flesh, Staff of Revelations
Allies: Erayu, Ptemenib, Pyromaniac Mage
Blessings: Blessing of Pharasma ×3, Favor of Pharasma

Channa Ti - Tsunami Caster
Skills: DEX +2, INT +2, WIS +3
Cards: Weapon 2 (+1), Spell 7 (+2), Armor 2 (+1), Item 3 (+1), Ally 6 (+2)
Hand Size: 6 ■ 7 ■ 8
Upgraded Powers: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold (■ or Electricity or Poison) (□ or Fire or Liquid), you may discard a card to add 1d8. (■ If you succeed, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.)
When you suffer Acid or Fire (■ or Poison) damage, you may recharge a (□ Divine or) Liquid or Magic card to reduce it to 0.
When you would discard an Animal or Elemental ally (■ or any ally) for its power, you may recharge it instead.
■ When you suffer (□ or another local character suffers) any damage, you may bury any number of cards from your discards to reduce it by 2 for each card buried.
Weapons: Iceblade Spelldagger, Spellsword +2
Spells: Boneshatter, Corrosion, Ice Storm ×2, Jolting Portent, Pillar of Life, Sirocco
Armors: Elemental Brass Mail ×2
Items: Mask of the Forgotten Pharaoh, Pure Holy Water, Spellbottle
Allies: Cleric of Nethys, Clockwork Menial, Hippopotamus Mud Elemental, Khai-Utef, Maftet Hunter, Pakesket
Blessings: Blessing of Maat, Blessing of the Lady of Graves

Estra - Ectoplasmatist
Skills: WIS +4, CHR +3
Cards: Spell 7 (+2), Item 3 (+1), Ally 5 (+2), Blessing 6 (+2)
Hand Size: 5 ■ 6 □ 7
Upgraded Powers: On your turn, you may recharge a spell to examine the top 2 (□ or 3) cards of your location. If any examined card is Undead, (■ you may ignore any powers that happen when examining cards and) you may encounter 1 Undead card. You may not use this power during an encounter.
When you suffer any damage, you may discard (■ or recharge) (■ or reveal) a spell or a blessing to reduce it by 3 (■ 5).
On your check against an Undead card, add 1d8. (■ If you acquire or defeat it, you may explore.)
■ On your Strength or Dexterity check, you may recharge a card to roll d10 instead of your normal Strength or Dexterity die and add #. (□ If it is a combat check, add another 1d8.)
Spells: Channel the Gift, Cure, Eruption, Good Omen, Holy Light ×2, Smite Abomination
Armor: Bronze Sentinel
Items: Greater Sage's Journal, Life Lantern, Ring of the Grasping Grave
Allies: Aunty, Death Initiate, Honaire (Mummy's Mask), Library Curator, Tetisurah
Blessings: Blessing of Anubis, Blessing of Isis, Blessing of Maat, Blessing of Osiris, Blessing of Pharasma, Blessing of the Lady of Graves

Simoun - Lightning Thief
Skills: DEX +4, INT +3, WIS +1 (Memory Cenovath)
Cards: Weapon 6 (+1), Armor 2 (+1), Item 4 (+1), Ally 5 (+2), Blessing 5 (+2)
Hand Size: 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 □ 9
Upgraded Powers: On your check to defeat a Trap (■ or Obstacle) barrier, add your Perception.
When you would discard a Knife weapon (■ or discard, bury, or banish an Electricity boon) for its power or during recovery, you may recharge it instead.
■ When you encounter a card during your exploration, you may evade it then move then (■ you may) end your turn.
■ When you move, you may examine the top card of your location. If it is a monster, you may encounter it; on your checks to defeat it, add 1d6 and the Electricity trait.
Weapons: Chakram of Ruin ×2, Dagger of Doubling ×2, Galvanic Kopis +2, Shattertouch Shotel +2
Armors: Rhino Hide Armor, Skyplate Armor
Items: Carpet of Flying, Cartouche of Protection, Staff of Minor Healing, Wyvern Poison
Allies: Ausetitha, Druid of the Storm, Fortune-Teller, Sophronia, Stained Glass Elemental
Blessings: Blessing of Horus ×3, Blessing of Maat, Favor of Nethys

It's reduce by half, not to a half. So it should reduce the damage by 1.
Armors reduce damage either by some number X, i.e. damage := damage - X, or to some number Y, almost always zero, i.e. damage := Y.
Probably language misunderstanding rather than rules isuue.

When does this level 7 card come into play? It's considered a Loot item but there's no scenario or adventure reward in CotCT that awards it. The Vault also doesn't get rebuilt for Adventure 7 so it wouldn't show up in normal play.

Is it intended to be a Year of Rotting Ruin reward?

https://pacg.fandom.com/wiki/Yzahnum_the_Efreeti

Interesting question. I honestly don't have an idea what would be the "correct" answer. My opinion is - this check does not have any skill (the rulebook's rule about blessing such a check is needed to tell us what die to add), so I would say that part must be ignored.
No skill = do not add anything. It is slightly different from not having any Arcane skill when doing an Arcane check (thus, use 1d4) - here there is no skill at all.

To summarize: The first part of Marriage adds 1d6 (per rulebook), the second part about other local character's skill should not add anything.

I have doubts regarding these 2 spells, especially regarding Animated Weapon. Damiel's skill is active only "WHILE you play a spell", and "while" is not the same as "while and after". So, as soon as you resolve the spell by playing a weapon, you finish playing the spell and your Arcane and Divine skills are back to normal d4.

I believe that under Core rules, you play the cards in the "Determine Which Skill You're Using" step and the check becomes Intelligence-based Craft check that gains the weapon's traits. It does not matter if you do not have Arcane or Divine skills later, as it is a Craft check now and forwver.

skizzerz wrote:

For example, no playing Cure on yourself when you have no cards in your discards and no scourges that can be removed in place of healing.

Can you please refer to the exact page and paragraph of the rulebook that state this?

I believe the "You may not use a power that doesn’t apply to your current situation. For example, you may not play a card to reduce damage when damage isn’t being suffered" on page 8 of the Core rulebook is the one you seek. If you have no cards in discards, no scourges that could be removed by healing (or if that applies to other local characters), then you may not use the Cure spell. Of course, you might argue that you want to heal yourself for no effect. In that case, do whatever floats your boat and just do it - it's your game; but you are again not allowed to play it during an encounter or check, as it in no way relates to your situation. And, because it goes to a recovery pile first, you can't argue about you needing cards in your discards or deck for other effects.

Whipstitch wrote:

The Core Rulebook added the following to its definition of Display: "Displaying a card and immediately activating a power on it counts as playing it once, not twice." So, you can display a card and immediately activate one of its powers any time it's appropriate. It doesn't have to be displayed before you want to use it.

I think that the exact quoted text can have more interpretations than the one you provided.

...
But Anchor card says:
"Display this card next to your character. When you would shuffle a non-villain monster into your location, you may place it on top of that location instead. At the start of each turn, roll 1d6; on a 1, bury this card. If you move, discard this card."
In case of Anchor, displaying is listed like a separate action you could do with a card. I have doubts that you can display Anchor during an encounter, because you shuffle an undefeated monster into location during Resolve the Encounter step of the encounter. And you are only allowed to play card powers that directly affect that step. Simply displaying Anchor does not directly affect this step.

The text in the Anchor card parallels the armors, for which this new rule was created. If you look at any armor, it says "Display. While displayed: When you suffer ... damage, recharge ". You can play any armor whenever it relates to a current situation (Display+Recharge to reduce damage), or when it is outside encounters or checks (there is no condition to Display - if it said "When you encounter a monster, you may display. While displayed:", then you could not display it unless the condition applied). I fail to see the reason why Anchor would need to be already displayed for you to use its power. Acceptable plays are:

Probably yes - generally, cards that heal for their power are excluded from the healing, but this is adventure power + works with only a single card for a given character, so why not.

Semicolons join the parts that should go together, periods separate powers that should be checked, well, separately. :)

Sawtooth Saber:
If you are proficient, you can play it on
First combat check: reveal S/A/M+1d6+2, discard S/A/M+1d6+1d8+#+2
Another combat check: reveal S/A/M+1d6+1d8+2, discard S/A/M+1d6+2d8+#+2
If you are not proficient, you cannot discard it and only the reveal part applies.

Horrorbane Heavy Pick:
Reveal uses S/M+1d6+3
Reveal against Aberration uses S/M+1d6+1d8+3
If proficient, you may discard (regardless of bane type) for 1d8.
If any die shows 1 (regardless of bane type), it counts as 6.

(It's consistency with other similar weapons and powers - see Scythe and Vicious Scythe that both transform 10s into 12s: would you think that because this weapon is good against Aberrations makes it less capable than a non-magical weapon? Granted, Heavy Pick is pre-Core - that's why I mentioned scythes)

Hello HexZyle, my opinions that may or may not be valid are shown below:

Would I be able to play an Ambrosia to heal a character Drained during that combat check? Provided no other items had been played during that check?

During an encounter, you should not be able to heal or remove scourges at all, unless some power specifies it by its timing. For example, Ruan Mirukova allows you to do that. If you wanted to get rid of Drained, then between / before encounters. TTRPG-wise - when you encounter a monster and it is attacking you, it's probably hard to eat some Ambrosia ;).

The Desert wrote:

Discard to move another character to your location

Would I be able to play The Desert in order to bring another character to me so they could assist me with ally cards for the check? (But no blessings because I have just played one)

...
Many cards that allow you to move, examine, or explore explicitly say that you cannot do so during an encounter. The fact that these two do not made me start to wonder if they could be played during one, and that I have been ruling this incorrectly.

Almost all powers that allow you to move (unless allowed by timing) explicitly state that you cannot use them during an encounter, as you mentioned. There has been no FAQ entry about The Desert, so you may probably use it during an encounter? I would probably rule out that it's a mistake on the card, but RAW you can. Nevertheless, it cannot be played on your character so in solo-game (or when everyone else is dead) this power cannot work.

The Lady of Mysteries wrote:

Discard to draw 3 cards, then recharge 3 cards. Then you may explore

Would I be able to play The Lady of Mysteries in order to get a more appropriate hand for the combat check? (I am assuming he rules say you cannot explore during an encounter somewhere)

I am beginning to think that the rule specifically means that you can't play The Lady of Mysteries if you have no cards in your deck and there are no cards in your location

OK. Many different issues here. First, can you play this blessing during an encounter? RAW you probably can, similarly to Pharasma's Knowing; I would probably forbid it anyway. Second, any power that allows you to explore, unless it is in your turn, will fizzle out and is ignored. An interpretation that by playing this during an encounter you get an extra explore (like when defeated barrier says "You may explore") would be also wrong, in my opinion. Third, if you wanted to play this power and you had only 2 or fewer cards in your deck, it would mean death - first you need to draw 3 cards. If you don't have that many, your character is dead. No arguments here. In other order (recharge 3, then draw 3) it would be OK.

Again, all these are my interpretations. Feel free to disagree with them and play in whatever way you want :).

Edit: Stannis Baratheon would approve?

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.
2. Adjusting the Society APs to regular play.

OK, understood! My conversion spreadsheet contained also the original powers (pre-Core) that I removed before I shared it with you. If you need that list with some erratas incorporated, I can send it to you as well. But you probably have all of that already.

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.

A counterpoint, perhaps - a "complete these scenarios in any order" instruction is actually present in a non-Society adventure. Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure 5 (with the different undead). Thus it may be acceptable to have some adventures playable in any order, if the scenarios don't really weave a story.

Hello, Tyler.
I have never played according to the Society rules, so I can't provide you with any help regarding how it is played. However, I wanted to one day play the PFACG sets our gaming group has with the additional adventure paths (Season, Year of). And when I converted all the PFACG cards to the Core terminology, I also had to adapt the adventure path, adventure, scenario, and Society rules at the same time. I am not sure what are the terms I can make them available under, so I did not upload the xls spreadsheet with conversion. There might be some change you disagree with, but maybe there are some hidden gems that you can use.
My conversion is aimed at playing at a table with the same group, using the original adventure path cards maybe with some few thematical class decks added inside the vault. Therefore, I ignored the deck upgrades altogether, but your idea of having the class decks sounds reasonable. I just don't have the experience with it to provide you any feedback

I've made a smaller version of my master conversion spreadsheet, which I will send you by Private Message on BGG, along with the password to open it. There are all story banes, support cards, adventure rules etc., an automated sheet with adventure selection that displays everything needed for the setup, but I've excised the pre-conversion wording.

If you decide to use any of this, I will be content; if you found errors, some issue or opportunity for improvement, I would be very happy - please let me know.

I would also love to see this game to continue, even just by fans using their time, effort and resources (provided there is some approval from Paizo and/or Long Shark, of course - it's their IP). Drive Thru Cards or whatever printer company with official approval would be great. Disclaimer: I've never used DTC and don't even know if they ship to Europe and at what costs; I have no experience with marketing or bussiness and no game development besides fan-made stuff. But let me add a few comments of mine.

Core versus pre-Core
The wording of Core is a strict improvement over the original one. There is a tremendous difficulty of converting everything from the older wording into the Core one. However, I've done that for all the cards and adventure paths and Seasons in the game. Even though everyone's fallible and my interpretation of some interactions might be wrong, it'd be a great boost if it were used as a basis. Of course, assuming the community would want the Core wording. There might be some who prefer the original, but they can use the older sets if available. If there was an official or just Paizo-approved effort to create sets with Core terminology and the issue is financial cost, I can provide my database free-of-charge (or possibly in exchange for some of the created card sets).

Season Sets
Most of the Seasons' cards in original form are available within the PDF files of particular adventures, so one can extract them and easily print them as a proxy. Many of them are, however, of poorer resolution so I would wholeheartedly agree that having them available as printed card would be great. I think they can be easily made available by Paizo as they should have the higher-res images of the cards in the production files. ;)
I would love to have official pretty cards available instead of inserting a piece of paper into a sleeve with extra PACG cards just for their back.

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.

I've found just this forum post about Reta (Goblins Fight - so not a promo, I mistook her for the promo Ally Reta Bigbad).

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.

Reta Runaway Bride has the same thing? Possibly some of the silly promo goblin oddities, I believe.

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).

Hello Tyler, I've just checked my Linxia role card and you are right that there is the "you may" omitted in the Enforcer role card. Seeing as the cards often have errors and other 2 instances are "you may", I agree that it is most probably a typo. Only very few characters have their base power changed in similar way, if any.

There are some location cards required to play the Curse, as well as level 0 cards to fill the characters' initial decks. You would also need the proxy cards for henchmen, some generic story banes + the scourges. The remaining cards are not really needed. You could get by without the Core - barely and with a lot of proxying or looking at the cards in https://pacg.fandom.com/wiki/Core_Set - but it's much simpler to use the Core set.

The Amulet of Fortitude came long before there was even a possibility of having a combat Fortitude check. As it is now, it could indeed be used on combat Fortitude checks, including the OA2 Yoon's first power. The MM Yoon does not use Fortitude, she just adds her Fortitude skill (and not the corresponding trait).
As for the recharge to succeed part, that power is much too powerful even on its own. However, if you use the Core terminology, you can look for similarities with other items. I do not believe there is a single level 0 or 1 card in Core / Curse that allows one to succeed at any check.

Based on the changes in some fundamental items in Core, the Amulet of Fortitude would state something like this in Core terminology.

On your Fortitude check, reveal to add 1d8.

On your Fortitude check, recharge to add 2d8.

However, play it in any way you believe it should be played. If you think it should be used on non-combat checks only, go for it.

P.S.: For completeness, my revised powers in question:

On your combat check, you may recharge (□ or shuffle into your deck) a blessing to add your Fortitude and the Fire trait. You may additionally discard any number of cards; for each card discarded, add 1d6 (□ 1d8).

For your combat check, you may reveal a spell (□ or a blessing) to use Fortitude + 1d8 and add the Attack, Fire and Magic traits; you may additionally discard it to add another 1d6 (□ plus its level).

My point when talking about playing both powers relates to my experience with players. They may think "Oh, I failed an Arcane combat check to defeat a monster, so I reveal the Robes to shuffle two cards into my deck. And I'll also reveal it and discard an item to search for my Sihedron ring in my deck so I can reveal it to prevent the damage."
Maybe I was not specific enough in my comments, sorry for that.

These are two separate powers and thus, it would be playing the card twice on the same check, which is not allowed. Core cards and some specific pre-Core cards specify that you cannot play those cards to draw / search cards during an encounter (Restoration spell, Errata-ed in FAQ). You should not be playing this card "twice" for the same check.
Pathfinder Adventures is buggy, unfortunately, and some weird or corner-case interactions are often misrepresented.

Timing should be - first reduce the damage by armor, items, whatever, and only when the damage is decided, play Robes of Xin-Shalast. As worded here, it would not be possible to play it together with another item (unless it has You may use another item on this check or "freely").
In my rewording into Core, I made this thing semi-armor like and allowed this to be played freely. There is similar (Grounded) Studded Leather Armor in Curse that works mechanically similar to the Robes, which inspired me to this.
Seeing as this is a AD-6 Loot item, it should be quite powerful, so I would allow another item to be played, but RAW it should not be allowed.

Well, timewise you suffer both damage types in any order (there is no "then"). There is some discussion of what it means to suffer two damage types at once (there is one monster in Mummy's Mask that does multiple elemental damage) - do you reveal cards sequentially for them? Does playing armor for 1 Cold damage prevent you from playing armor for the other? Still ambiguous even in Core set rules.
However, you can look at the Core cards for inspiration. In that way, Sihedron Ring would be "freely reveal" so that it does not care about order. It just says "when you play me, do not count me as an item". So I would allow both cards to be played, in any order you choose ;)

When playing pre-Core, try to stick to the latest available rulebook, that is: Mummy's Mask + for things specific to the adventure path, refer to the rulebook. I do not believe there is anything special about RotR gameplay-wise, apart from a single card Runeforged Weapons (at least mechanically).

I have not uploaded my translation of pre-Core into Core wording anywhere, especially because I am not sure if there are no possible copyright issues. The original wording is in PACG wiki, but not in an easily searchable database (like e.g. my XLS file). Additionally, it was a tremendous amount of work with possibility of omitting / misinterpreting some interactions - once I publish it anywhere, any mistakes are going to stay ;) I'll think about it.

I would like to add that the "Cloud"-type spells are somewhat simplified in the Core wording. They no longer have a restriction when they can be played, so you can play the Incendiary Cloud whenever you like - provided you stick with Core wording.
https://pacg.fandom.com/wiki/Corrosive_Storm

Freely display. While displayed:

On combat checks, add 2d6 and the Acid trait.
...

vs.

Display this card when a character encounters a monster. While displayed, add 2d6 and the Acid trait to combat checks to defeat monsters.

I've converted all of the original cards (from all campaigns and expansions, 3291 boons and banes in total) into self-consistent Core wording, so the Cloud spells have the same template. If you need a RotR excerpt, just let me know ;)

Does anyone know where official maps of these can be found? All the maps I've found on my own via google have been wildly inconsistent, and don't site a source (leading me to think many of them are labors of love by fans, rather than official material). Any help on this is appreciated.

Some maps of Casmaron and other parts of Golarion can be found here:

3. Fetch Fire Gecko out of your deck and recharge it instead of discarding it per Zova’s Weretouched power.

Note that step 3 is only relevant if you’ve recharged other cards or shuffled your deck since recharging Fire Gecko in step 2

I'd like to add that it's also relevant if, and only if, you chose the Weretouched role and checked the power feat box in "When you would banish a spell that has the Animal trait (□ or discard an ally that has the Animal trait) for its power, you may instead recharge it." Base Zova does not have this druidic ability.

I used the cost / trigger just as a convenient shorthand (inspired by MtG) that was meant to convey that these two things happen in different steps of an encounter. "Cost" = when you play the card or power, "trigger" = the power on the card that becomes (in this case) active after the final reroll. Maybe I should have said so? :)
Zova's power does not wait until something else might happen later in turn.

Friend at the table thinks this is different as the power is on the gecko. Since the Fire Gecko power is waiting to see the end of the check, its locked in a limbo and cant be used for anything else. I disagree.

OK, I believe you may be talking about two different issues, but maybe I did not understand correctly.