Lollingsgrad's page

Discounts would be cool, and with all the other great stuff Paizo has done, actually a possibility.

Paizo does seem to have gotten a lot of goodwill from their customers. This is my first experience of them and as you can tell it hasn't gone so well. Out of curiosity, what have they done that makes you say they've done a lot of great stuff?

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

And the Base Set has NOT yet been reprinted a second time, so it is only available as the first printing.

Second printing Base Sets should be showing up at retailers in the next week or two. We're still shipping first printing Base Sets for paizo.com orders, but we're also getting down to the end.

Since you now have second printings of everything are you going to be providing replacements or discounts for those with mismatching first prints? From what you're saying it sounds like I've got a week to shift my set then I'm stuck with it :P

So there really isn't anything Paizo can replace for you. All they have is the same thing you have.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation, I can't help but be irritated that Paizo seem to have garnered a lot of understanding for their situation whilst we get to like it or lump it. It is what it is though. I think I'll try eBaying off the base set. It seems like it's totally out of stock everywhere here so I have a reasonable shot of getting my money back. I'll probably pick it all up again a couple of years from now when the issues have been resolved and you can likely get the entire adventure path and base set in one box.

I'd say it's pretty similar to that picture - (obviously it's hard to be 100% certain without knowing exact light levels/monitor settings etc.)

Well I checked the boxes, the base set is Chinese and the character add-on is American so that's almost certainly the problem. Has anyone had any luck getting replacements out of Paizo? I contacted them before posting and they seemed rather evasive then pointed me at these forums.

Adventure deck 2 for us came in a noticeably different style of box (side opening instead of top, taller tab) and the card backs are much lighter

My character add-on deck was side opening too; is the colour difference like the picture I posted above? The base set is on the left and the character add-on on the right.

Ranseur, the photo you've got is definitely not normal.

Each Base Set box encompasses seevral different press sheets worth of cards, and it seems likely that one of your sheets was running off-color. Please drop a note with your details to customer.service@paizo.com and link to your photo!

Hi Vic,

My base set has colour differences with the character add-on, not as dramatic as Ranseurs but I can spot it without trying during regular play. Would the color difference here be considered normal or could my base set also have been printed off-colour?

http://m.imgur.com/Sqa29d9

Some monsters and barriers do things if undefeated that would negate your idea. For instance, some monsters say that if undefeated you are to put them on the bottom of the location deck, or move them to another random location. Some say that they are to stay faceup on the location deck and be the first card anyone encounters. And one barrier in particular has a check for one skill to defeat it, and if you fail it stays faceup, but takes a different skill to defeat it while faceup. And some cards say to banish them after the encounter no matter what the outcome. So you'd have to figure out how you would handle those things.

I can't quite think how to word it but my idea is that they stay right there as if they are neither defeated nor undefeated whilst another character encounters it. Meanwhile the original character suffers any negative affects of failing to defeat the card except any that would require you to move the card anywhere. It's easier to play it than to explain I think.

And what about a 2 check villain? A second character can already help with that, so would this apply to them as well? And if so, suppose there are 3 characters at a location. Character A encounters a 2 check villain. Character A attempts check 1 and fails. Character B attempts check 2 and succeeds. The villain is undefeated. So Character B flips a blessing. Now Character C attempts check 1 and character B attempts check 2. You've not only given yourself two chances to defeat the villain, you've avoided the loss of blessings if he flees and you've let the encounter involved 2 other characters besides just 1 other character.

This is a good point. I think I would count anyone who rolled one of the checks on the villain as having encountered it.

You'd also basically be stealing turns from some characters. If Amiri was the second character a lot, she might always want to encounter the other characters failed encounter, but by doing so, she'd be taking turns from other players. Right now, 30 blessings splits evenly for every group except 4, and even then it is close. But with this change some players would loose turns because another player wanted to do something.

Another good point, fortunately my group craves the teamwork aspect of a coop game and so the personal loss of a turn isn't much of a problem for them.

And in terms of boons, your decks would probably become pretty awesome pretty quick, since if a character encounters a card that they have little hope of acquiring you'd give yourself two shots at acquiring it.

...

I'm personally not very "thematic" with the game (much closer to the "Its a card game" than "Its an RPG" on the Card Game-RPG Spectrum.) But I think I could figure out ways to explain why things happen. Why can't Ezren attempt to acquire a spell Valeros fails on? Maybe because Valeros goes "Hey what is this piece of paper?" Then destroys it while he picks it up. Or maybe he uses it as a napkin. Or maybe he sees it lying on the ground and thinks it is just a piece of paper since he can't understand what it say and Ezren doesn't notice it all. Things like that.

I think you're probably right on this so I think we'll only apply this to combat then since that's the only place it's really annoying us. Having your caster getting bashed around whilst your fighter watches on is just so, so theme-breaking for me that it renders that game down to the bare cogs and switches. It matters more to some people than others but I suppose you have to expect that when you bridge the gap between pen-and-paper and board game.

I think this would make the game much harder than intended, actually. Advance the blessing deck and encounter ONE card, then it goes back to the original character's turn, then advance the blessing deck again when it's the second character's normal turn? Do I have that right? If so...uh...good luck with that...

That's the idea, you can choose to advance the blessings deck to encounter the card again with another character at that location. I don't want it to be something you necessarily always want to do if you fail. There's a number of reasons you might want to do it. Maybe it's the henchman and you want the location closed. Maybe it's an item that barbarian desperately wanted and just had to watch the bard roll his d4 for it and put it back in the box. The aim is to make it feel like you're actually a party rather than two characters independently exploring the location but without breaking the game.

Our group have been trying to enjoy PACG but we feel that the ways you can help in a characters check are too limited. For instance we find ourselves getting frustrated when our bard is forced into a strength check with the barbarian standing next to him on his location. It also bothers us that there is a definite advantage to spreading across locations (temporarily closing locations when the villain appears) and yet only a few characters provide an advantage when you share a location with them. Admittedly this bothers us on a thematic level more than a mechanical one, but it bothers us enough that suspension of disbelief isn't enough. We want to run a house rule to change this without making the game to easy and this is what we've come up with:

If you fail an encounter, another character at your location who has not yet encountered the card may advance the blessings deck to immediately encounter it. You still suffer the consequences for failing the encounter (e.g. damage). After the encounter you complete your turn as normal.

Do you think this would make the game far too easy? Any specific examples where it would be totally broken?