Lostblade's page

I knew not to add the bonus. :D

Thank you. I figured it was the base die, but wanted to check.

I'm not a huge board game / card game fan. I tend not to like games with winners and losers - that is why RPGs have been my game of choice since '77. But I love Pathfinder and this was co-operative. My wife knows me too well. I am hooked after 1 scenario (Brigadoom!).

Once you start upgrading your gear and start seeing the combinations that can be had, it's going to blow your mind. Enjoy it man! :)

Side note: The wife got me the two adventure decks for Christmas so I got PLENTY of playing to do. :D

I've found that if you're running low on health, it's better to just hang back and let the timer run out. Sure you lose, but at least you keep your character and all the upgrades they've gotten.

As a side note: I've found putting a crossbow in Merisiel's hands makes her a forced to be reckoned with. Just my two cents. ;)

I've played a few games from 1 to 3 players and so far no one has come close to dying. I'm starting to get worried that maybe I'm playing it wrong. More often than not the timer runs out long before our health pool becomes a serious concern. Maybe some people are getting some serious strings of bad luck....

DEX based check + 1 die = 2d10

or
STR based check + 2 dice = 3d6

2d10:

3d6:
Min: 3
Max: 18
Range: 15
Avg: 11 (10.5)
STD: 3 (2.96)
68% of your rolls will be between 8 and 14
95% of your rolls will be between 5 and 17

What does this mean?

You have a better CHANCE of rolling a high number if you go with Gorum but you'll never be able to roll as high as if you went with his ability. Which is better depends entirely on the situation and just how LUCKY you feel. ;)

** This math moment brought to you by "Bordem at Work", and by the letter "G" **

Recruit a new rookie to join your party and try to enjoy the new experience of protecting and sheltering them as they try to learn on the job and quickly build their deck and powers to compete with the nefarious beasties, banes and villains that you encounter.

This actually sounds like it could be a fun and interesting challenge. It'd be like playing with a handicap for the other players, but you could quickly "gear" up if they feel like sharing.

As a side note:

Is it just me or are people really treating the scenarios as all or nothing games? I understand if you want to push your character to the limit, and if that's fun for you that's fine. But I get the feeling that people feel like they HAVE to complete it or die trying which is NOT the case. Death can be entirely avoided if you're paying attention to your health (deck). If you get a string of bad luck and you're on your last legs, take your loot and run! Sure you failed but a least you SURVIVED!

And the between games section says you can use the cards in your hand, discard pile, draw pile, or buried pile to rebuild your deck. Assuming you acquired some of those during the failed scenario, they are fair game in rebuilding your deck.

That's how I understood the rules to work. And even if it doesn't, I'm probably going to HR it anyways. If I'm getting my ass kicked, I'd at least like a consolation prize of a few upgrades. Seems to add a layer of progression to me.

My son has been pushing me for a house rule to allow each character to "stash" one card in your "chest" and swap it out in a later game -- like a side cart. So far, I have poo-poo'd him and said we must win by the straight rules once through first, but I think it is actually a good idea. For those who think the game is too easy already, though....

I really like this idea! Probably needs to be balanced a tad, but baring that giving the character more options sounds like it could be fun.

I've also toyed with using the gold to item conversion that's floating around to buy and sell items in between scenarios. Haven't decided if I want to randomize the buying process or let the character choose the item.

Tell him if he designs a pack-mule card you'll let him have it cart around one thing.

^ That is awesome!

Sure! Do whatever is most fun for you! :)

Yeah, you put it way better than I did Captain (gonna blame it on the lack of coffee, heh).

Now, again, with regards to a card like Gogmurt, he would normally deal combat damage in a check to defeat him that is not successful. However, due to his power which states that he ONLY deals fire damage, I *think* the correct interpretation would be that he deals fire damage instead of combat damage in the case of failed checks.

I agree with you. Especially considering the question, how else does he deal damage? If it's the card I'm thinking of, then the only way to take damage from him IS to fight him. So that damage being fire instead of combat, based off the power text, makes the most sense to me.

Yeah... that's not how I'll be doing it. That seems needlessly brutal and pedantic. Not to mention not at all fun.

Fair enough. Personally, I've opted to just change how I approach exploring. Once I see my deck getting low, I start playing more cautiously. If I'm ever down to one or two cards, I usually just bail (flip over the blessing deck), take my loot and run. Hopefully I'll have gotten better cards to deal with that scenario again in the future.

It might be my rogue's mentality, but you know what they say "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!". :)

To me, fire damage is combat damage if it happens during a combat check. What am I missing here?

I think your confusing the TYPE of damage with the type of encounter.

Damage is damage. Combat damage and a combat check are two different things.

In fact, for the sake of clarity, I just remove the 'combat' from check all together.

A check is a check is a check. Consider it it's own little world with no types, just dice and numbers.

So during an encounter (a monster fight, barrier, etc) you have a check to make it might be a combat check but if the card says it's FIRE damage then only armor that specifically says "reduces fire damage" will help. Otherwise you can assume it's combat damage.

I hope I didn't confuse the issue any. :(

Rulebook: If you are ever required to draw a card from your deck and cannot, your character dies.

So if your hand size is 4, you have no cards in your hands, and you only have 3 cards in your deck when you have to reset. Time to pour a little out in your characters memory, because their journey is over...

Here's my understanding:

A) When you have to draw a card to reset your hand and you can't. You're dead.

Example: Your hand size is 4, you have 3 in your hand and you have to reset, but there are no cards left in your pile. Shake hands with the Reaper.

Or you have no cards in your hand but you have 3 in your deck. You draw 3 but need a 4th to complete your hand size. High-fiving death again.

From the rulebook: If you are ever required to draw a card from your deck and cannot, your character dies.

B) To the best of my knowledge, once the character dies you have to burn their character cards in memory... KIDDING!! DON'T DO THAT!

But seriously once you die that's pretty much it. Wipe out their skills, reset your deck, and let the adventure begin again! (Of course if you're playing by yourself or with trusted friends... no one has to KNOW that you died.... SHHHHHHHH).

Hope this helped! :)

At the risk of being "that guy", I actually see both sides of this. I totally understand where h4ppy is coming from (and being an efficiency freak and partial OCD suffer, I really appreciate what you're trying to accomplish), and I also understand the reasons why Paizo went with multiple cards.

And in the end, I'm glad Paizo made the decision they did. I won't write a long essay giving some arm-chair psychology reason, but I will give you a short example:

Deck is low, Blessing pile running out, you got nothing good in your hands. You explore and...

that picture. That ugly ugly picture of that henchman that is about to ruin your day.

That heart drop feeling (to me) is more effective when the threat "pops out" at me from the deck than just sits there beside it as a constant reminder.

.... but more is better.... ;)