MSpekkio's page

Organized Play Member. 35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Keith Richmond wrote:

To be fair, the biggest downside of the proxy system for OP is that we're using cards that have actual statistics on them. A card that instead worked like Enemy Ship and said "Now go get the proper card" would be a lot less confusing.

A working example for Wrath would be something like a henchman named Servitor Demon that stood in for the relevant AD's servitor demon.

That's what I had in mind. For me, it's just my wife and I playing so opening an Adventure deck and looking through the cards to find say 6 Barbarian Hordes is a little annoying.


I would like to see PACG adopt the innovation of placeholder cards in the locations for the villians/henchmen. It seems such a waste of space in each Adventure Deck to have 6 copies of 3 or 4 different 'common' Henchmen just so we can build the locations. Ship the base set with 4 common henchmen cards (it worked for S&S with Enemy Ship) and enjoy adding 5 or 10 new unique cards into each Adventure Deck.


No spoilers, but I am happy to report that AD4 does contain the answer to the biggest question of WotR.

Also, Umbral Dragon's are jerks.


rules wrote:

At This Location: These are special powers that are in effect while the location is open. Some of these remain in effect when the

location is permanently closed; in that case, they also appear on the
back of the location card.

At this Location power can apply globally, and the rules don't explicitly limit them to such. Consider the recent case of the FAQ to Chasm of Shadow:

FAQ wrote:

Is the restriction on searching and examining Chasm of Shadows limited to characters at that location?

No—nobody gets to search or examine that deck.

Resolution: On the location Chasm of Shadows, change the At This Location power to "This location deck cannot be searched or examined."

That resolution wouldn't work unless At this Location power's could reach out and effect character anywhere. S&S Fog Bank's would be another one that wouldn't work if At this Location powers couldn't reach out. Of course, I might just be making a devil's argument around how things are assumed to work versus what the rules and cards say.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Possible errata here:

PDF, page 144, Undercasting Spells wrote:
For example, a psychic spellcaster who adds ego whip III to his list of spells known can cast it as ego whip I, II, or III. If he casts it as ego whip I, it is treated in all ways as that spell; it uses the text and the saving throw DC for that spell, and requires him to expend a 3rd-level spell slot.

I'm assuming that last line should say "... expend a 1st-level spell slot" or else undercasting is rather pointless.


elcoderdude wrote:
There was a non-Ekkie promo? All I got was Ekkie.

Goblin Skull Bomb

Ekkie pack (4 cards, character, role, token, filler)


I'm also excited about the additional ways of managing burn via the buffer, and additional Gathering Power actions.


Thank you for the detailed response sir, and for letting me beat this particular horse a little longer.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Because this begins "If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement," and there was no requirement for you to succeed at, you don't get to do anything here.

I think I can argue that I did meet those requirements by defeating a auto-closing henchmen or villain since the relevant rules 'you don't have to meet the When Closing requirements'. I don't see a difference between not having to meet any requirements, and the card not having any requirement. I can easily imagine a card design whose When Closing requirement says something like "you fail to meet this requirement" and can only be closed by defeating a villain.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Everything in the paragraph that begins "if you defeat the villain, close the villain’s location" depends on you first doing what that sentence says. Since the location is never permanently closed, you cannot do that, so you cannot do anything else in that paragraph.

The issue we are dancing around is that the When Permanently Closed power triggers at particular times, and isn't a ambient effect. Instructing the player to 'do what the cards and rules say' but then expecting them to read ahead on the card and somehow know to back apply that to the rules is a step too far.

If the Abyssal Rift's At This Location power said that it couldn't be permanently closed, I think the situation would be different.

If the When Closing power said, this location cannot be permanently closed, you'd still have an issue since Henchmen that auto-close and villain's ignore power (and no, ), but at least you'd have clear instructions in the cases where you are evaluating the power.

Talking it over with the squad, here's our revised card text.

Open Side
At this location:
<Blessing power>. Ignore any power or rule that instructs you to permanently close this location. This location is always open. <flip text>.

When Closing:
Bury a blessing and flip this card.

When Permanently Closed:
This location is never permanently closed.

Closed side:
<Blessing power>. Ignore any power that instructs you to permanently close this location. Treat this location as if it is always temporarily closed. <flip text>.

When Closing:
This location may not be closed.

When Permanently Closed:
This location is never permanently closed.


Hey Vic,

My wife and I just had to go thought this tortuous logic problem last night in Scenario AD2-1. Given how often you use the Abyssal Rift on scenarios (it's on AD2-2, and a few others in my quick shuffle) can we get a FAQ entry on the various permutations. Generally FAQ's are used for Errata, but I think having a singular reference for this complicated location would be worthwhile.

From my point of view there are three additional scenario's that this thread doesn't address, or address in conflict with the rulebook.

1. Henchmen that automatically close the location.
Just because this location can't be permanently closed does not imply that you wouldn't go though the 'Closing a Location' steps in the rulebook, and if the henchmen lets you bypass the When Closing requirement then why wouldn't you banish the location cards. In fact the rules give you a specific point in the process to apply the When Permanently closed power, and it's after you have examined (and potentially banished) the cards.

This is somewhat a rule book issue as the 'Closing the Location' section references banishing location cards twice, first at the end of paragraph two after When Closing, and again in paragraph 3 after completing the When Permanently Closed. By the rules then, I would get to clear out the location if we found a villain during the paragraph 2 search steps, but not if I didn't?

We can all agree that either way I get to examine all the cards at the location?

2. In the case when all locations are closed, villain is at the Rift with the closed side up, and you do NOT defeat the villain.?

The Note in the rulebook about the villain's source location being open is overridden by the card text ("This location is always temporarily closed"), and the first sentence of Villain Escape section states that 'if any locations are not closed, the villain escaped', followed by 'if the villain has nowhere to escape to you Win.' You could argue that the 'villain escapes' rule is impossible in this circumstance, and you just default back to general undefeated banes rules, but the "no where to escape, Win" instruction would still apply. Changing the rule book to say (as it does in After the Scenario) If you defeated the villain and it has no where to escape, you win would help.

3. If you do defeat a villain at the Abyssal rift, do you banish it's location deck? Again rulebook unequivocally says it does as you do not need to meet the When Closing requirement, and you banish cards before applying the When Permanently Closed effect.

I don't think there's a easy change to the Abyssal Rift card that can address all these issues, and I think that everyone who defeat's a villain at this location will run into the confusion around whether the location is open or closed for escaping.


Or make the card a Cohort that happens to have the power "While this card is displayed, you may use 'blah' for your Combat check and add the Melee, Slashing, Magic, Pirate traits to the check. This counts as playing a weapon".


I read "that monster" in the power (plus Vic's comment) to mean that each character at that location all together encounter the (singular) monster. Which we all agree is weird by the rules without some supporting text in the location.


I didn't think the Canyon was monster infested, but instead was a choke point where the hero's could fight the monster's efficiently.

Assuming that's the correct flavor, couldn't you keep a similiar result if the Canyon read something like "when you would encounter a <blah blah> monster, choose a character at the location to encounter the monster instead".


Bumping this thread to continue this discussion.

My initial impression of the location was the same as splemieux, if there are multiple character's at the location Summon and Encounter a monster for each. But as pointed out above, that isn't what it says.

My next through was "Ok, so the monster isn't a summonned monster, but it otherwise plays the same in that we each get a copy of the monster to fight ourselves", except again that isn't what it says.

The only reading I can come up with that's consistent with the location text is "all characters at the location (as a group) encounter the monster (singular)", and like Tali implies we can choose who encounter's it first and if the monster is defeated the other character's are done.

Is that correct, and if not what is the Canyon trying to tell us to do?


First World Bard wrote:
Calthaer wrote:
Well, both his roles include a power that involves the Intelligence skill. I would say it depends in part on whether or not you plan on taking those powers. One of them adds INT to his combat checks, so even if you're unlucky with spells, he can benefit from the mythic archmage.

If you're talking about the "Play a Sword to add your Intelligence skill to your combat checks", Mythic Archmage won't actually help with that, since it's still a Strength check and not an Int check. If you go the other route and use Ranged: Int + 2, then yeah Mythic Archmage would help.

Given your party, I'd probably go Marshal, with the expectation to go Spellblade.(Adowyn is going to want all the sweet bows, so might as well double-down on Swords and see where things go with Radiance).

Spellsword is the plan (though in another party Marauder + Archmage would be attractive). Marshall is the safer (but boring) choice, Archmange's power is better, and offers some valuable out of combat support. I assume I'd basically balance Strength and Int skill feat's with the Path either way, but I don't know (any no one knows) if we'll need a full stack of skill feats plus the mythic bonus to be functional in the later AD's, or if a more balanced path is viable.

Seltyiel is in a weird spot since he can legitimately choose two different stats as his combat stat and is somewhat setup to balance them.

I may just go with Archmage and see how it plays out for a few scenarios.


So we just finished Adventure Deck 1 as our duo of Andowyn and Selytiel, and I'm looking for opinions on which Mythic Path to take.

Andoywn took Mythic Trickster (Dex cause duh, and it makes her Int check functional).

I'm looking at Marshal or Archmage which gives us someone with a 'decent' Charisma check. Marshal seems like the safe bet since Strength is Melee and a fine default, but Archmage has a better power (ignore Immunities) and Int applies to a lot of random checks.

Part of my choice paralysis is that I've been pretty lucky with weapons, and unlucky with Spells (all basic).

So what would you do with Seltyiel at the end of AD1?


jones314 wrote:
If someone evades their summoned encounter, then not every summoned creature is defeated and that particular barrier is not defeated.

Evaded monsters are neither defeated or undefeated, so the results of an evasion can vary based on the summoning card. The villain of AD0 Scenario 1 summons as random monster and states that she is undefeated if the monster is undefeated (so evading counts as a loss). A later villain (AD0-6?) summons the servitor demon but doesn't care weather you defeat it or not so evade away.


Sorry, if I was unclear (writing posts before bed unwise), Shuffle randomly (like Cure) is perfectly clear how you are supposed to process the effect, but those effects without the word Random are not since they lack any of the other magic words (draw, select/choose) that would indicate how you are supposed to "shuffle x cards from your discard pile into your deck".

What's the right way to process that text in the absence of a defined magic word, or should that effect be read to implicitly include the word random like the Cure spell.


Query

The Cure spell and some others use the words "Shuffle X random cards from your discard pile into your deck", yet others use the words "Shuffle x cards from your discard pile into your Deck. Examples include Sacred Prism, Cathedral of St Clydwell, and Mythic Hierophant.

Is there intended to be a play difference between the two wordings? If so, how do you choose what cards to shuffle back, top of the discard pile?, or just pick.

When we first encountered the text on Sacred Prism we assumed it was a typo and treated it like the Cure spell, but once I started looking at the wordings on other cards I became less sure.

Thoughts?


Related question, Scenario B5's villain has a similar power "If Undefeated, evade and blah blah blah" I assume that you would take Combat damage from the failed check (since it's already happened?) and any other resolved effects, and it's not 'pretend this combat didn't happen'.


Another metric to look at is the difficulty to defeat Henchmen and Villains in each scenario. Not in front of my cards, but B-3's villain needs a 15 combat, and henchmen need a 12. Looking at AD1, no villain exceeds 13, and most have 'easier' alternative checks to defeat.

I also suspect many of us here are early adopters and also received the character add-on deck which added more demonic hordes, more arboreal blights, and more carrion golems.

Lastly, as other's have suggested I will say the other basic cards power level does contribute. There's no equivalent of the SnS base set eyepatch, or cabin boy to provide cheap extra 1d4's on difficult checks, pretty much it's a blessing or roll what your mother gave ya.

Our pairing had a death on B1 (Balthazar couldn't hit a 12, then got carrion golem'd), Elven Entanglement we were on our last turn (2 arboreal blights slowed us way down), but had no problems on B3 (scouted villain early and were able to chew through the other locations with little fear).


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
They give a way to be declared defeated or undefeated because other things might care about that. Imagine a location that said "At this location, if a barrier is undefeated discard 1 blessing from the blessing deck." Or "At this location when you defeat a barrier you may explore again." Those kinds of effects wouldn't work if there wasn't a way for the temptation barrier to be declared defeated or undefeated.

Thanks Hawkmoon, that's what I thought but I figured I'd ask. WotR uses more of the "After you act..." wording on cards, and so far I've found then to be more confusing rather than less (looking at you Giant Fly).


Hello folks,

This has been bothering me for a few sessions now.

All the Temptation barriers offer some cards, and you can choose 1. If you do, the barrier is undefeated and <bad thing> happens; otherwise the barrier is defeated. Seems clear, but then at the end they all include the line "After you act, banish this barrier"

I read that as (much like the previous treasure chest type barriers) that you banish the barrier no matter what. If that's the case, why all the blather about whether the card is undefeated?

Seems like another case where the text got more 'rule-y' but less clear compared to SnS's treasure chest cards for no benefit.

Am I missing something?


Yep. Claw Racial and Feral Combat Training cover the main objections (Natural attacks + Unarmed Strike). To hit looks correct, but I don't see any reason you'd get Strength and a half on Claws, putting your base damage at 1d3+8 (4 Str 2 WS 2 WT).

Elemental Fist is a combat feat, but that may be one of those 'familiar doesn't have the capability to use the feat' things. Your DM will have to decide how many uses per day your familiar should get if he allows it. I would see 1 as a reasonable number since the familiar has no class levels. Likewise, you'd have to work hard to convince me that your familiar can 'enter a style' to get the extra damage from Efreeti Style. Furthermore, a Koala's Wisdom is 9, so it's kinda moot even it allowed.

For a 11th level fighter, two attacks doing 23.5 a few times a day, or 15.5 per claw the rest of the time, even accounting for 5.5 x2 from the familiar isn't cool. Especially since more than half your damage is contingent on the critter not having any elemental resistances, and bleed-able and precise able. At 11th level, that isn't a good assumption (Resist Energy, Blur's are cheap at that point).


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I'd say to works for any perception check made by any character at any location. There are no limits on the card about whose check it is or where they are.

Scenario: Jirella needs to make a WISDOM/PERCEPTION 7 check to defeat a barrier. Jirella's Wisdom die is 1d8+1, but does not have Perception. I can't reveal my Lookout to help (since it's a Wisdom check). Jirella could have choose to make a Perception check at 1d4 in which case the Lookout could have helped.

Correct?


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

I'm sure customer service will check your account for you, but just to let you know, subscriptions don't create orders in your sidecart. So unless you've ordered something in addition to your subscription, you should see anything in your sidecart. Your subscription items will create a new order when they run authorization.

If you saw subscription items in your sidecart previously, that was probably just due to the problems with the Skull and Shackles items. They had to put them in sidecarts because they weren't ready to be shipped at the scheduled time.

I'm also a PACG subscriber and I have no items in my sidecart. And the only time a PACG subscription item has ever been in my sidecart was in September when the character add-on was in my sidecart due to the problems with the printer.

All that to say, I think you are probably fine, but like I said, I'm sure customer service will take a look at it for you to make sure.

Thanks Hawkmoon, that's actually very reassuring. S&S ACG is my first subscription, and so far all the shipments have taken manual intervention to get completed.


Lemmy wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

With full BAB it would be too strong as a dip.

- At will ranged attack with damage greater than a sling
- a wild power, some of which are strong

For 1d6 + Con? With CL 1? That can't be used with magical weapons?

That really not worth delaying you class progression... You're better off grabbing a crossbow. Or, if you really, really want a ranged attack, a level of a class that gives you proficiency with longbows.

I'd agree. It would likely be a ok dip for a limited selection of builds. I could see a rogue picking up a ranged touch attack, and some utility, but that's still true at 3/4 bab. Ultimately, slayer, barbarian, fighter, brawler all give excellent value for one level, but I haven't seen rampant dipping into gunslinger around the table for some reason. I would also have no objection to the 'monk' solution and just give full bab with the blast.


Hello Support,

I suspect my account is still having issues with the ACG subscription. I still have no items in my side cart (and in fact, don't have a side cart section at all on the My Account page), and I'm not optimistic that a order will be spawned for Adventure Desk 3 here in a day or two.

Thought I'd try and bring this up before the order cycle rather than get left out like last time.

Best Regards


The gunslinger comparison is most apt to my mind.
Gunslinger has better skill selection, but doesn't have any of the 'magic' type support that the kineticists could have access to. The kineticists has less ability to pierce DR or gets to be subject to SR and elemental resistance.

I think 'elemental flavored' gunslinger is not a bad place to aim for balance wise.


RogueMortal wrote:
I gotta say, I'm disappointed with the Mesmerist. Was looking forward to a crowd controller, and while their gaze ability is neat, they feel far more focused on using those Tricks to set up situational buffs around the party. They don't even get Dominate Monster on the spell list, only as a capstone ability, usable on a single creature at a time, with a DC based on their expended spells and with a likely 5 point DC reduction, that the target gets immunity to if they make the save.

I agree Rogue Mortal.

This is hot-wash analysis, not play analysis, but based on the review, I wouldn't likely play this class while I have played a 3.5 Beguiler from one to twenty plus in a long running campaign.

I don't see any real reason to choose this class over the Witch. The gaze effect partially offsets the Spell DC lost due to being a 6th level caster (as opposed to full caster), but that's it. Increasing the penalty to -2 at 9th level (when full casters have 5th level spells and you have 3rd), and again at 15th and 19th would at least keep the effective penalty at -1 most of the time. I don't view the lack of a saving throw as a major factor since I'm comparing to Evil Eye.

The tricks are neat, but again comparable to abilities that full casters get, and not as mechanically strong as the party benefits of say a bard. Given the situational nature (the need for a triggering condition), I would expect that tricks go to waste pretty often.

So the only advantage of the class is it at least includes some way of effecting mind-immune creatures, but I don't really view 'being able to use your class abilities' as an optional choice.

The capstone bothered me in that a Dominate was out of the blue compared to the other abilities. A stun, sleep, or unconciousness effect seems like a more natural progression from the other gaze effects.

Last whine, one advantage of the Beguiler was casting like a sorceror and 'knowing' all the beguiler spells. This ensured that even in the face of immune creatures, or say a True Sight you still had options (lots and lots of Slow). You should consider whether the mesmerist has enough spell known choices to be able to build a useful spell list in a variety of circumstances. Given the large number of duplicate spell effects in the list, giving them a large number of spell swaps (instead of 5th, plus 1 / 4), or something like the arcanists pick and choose method would help. Again, my serious recommendation would be 9th level spells, and turn the gaze into a standard action, plus minor rejiggering of the trick/bold stare progression.


VM mercenario wrote:
Rings could be in all schools, then you could have a Mandarin type character with rings in every finger each with their own powers and spells.

See, this guy gets it.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Demiurge 1138 wrote:
With bells being used as a possible implement, it is unfortunate that neither books nor candles are as well.

I would not at all consider the list of implements to be final. Not by a long shot.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I too quibble with the implement assignments.

Mirror should be Divination, not Conjuration.
Bottles,Jars,and Bowls are obviously Conjuration.
Candles should be Necromancy, but I have a hard time imagining a historically significant candle.

There may just be too many historical/literary/d&d magic rings, but illusion seems like the worst choice. If you took rings off Illusion, and made a feat that let you use them with any school, I would nod sagely at your wisdom and foresight.

Gloves transmutation?
Veils on illusion.

Book is another tough one. I'd be inclined to vote evocation (the weight of years of fantasy art of wizard with book in one hand and fire in the other), but I could see it being another special case.

Super excited to give the occultist a try soon.


Hello Order 3280999 is still showing pending on the site, and I haven't gotten a ship email. Can you look into it and send me an email if there's a issue on my side.

Thanks!


Thank you Sharaya and Sara. Looking forward to my Add-on Deck :)


The subscription is still in my cart, and if moving the items into my side cart lets these orders go forward, that would be lovely.


Like many posting here over the last few days, I attempted to subscribe to the Adventure Card Game. Like many, I too just got stuck in a loop of 'confirm order' 'shopping cart'. Like many, I too sent an email to customer service to get this resolved. Like many, I await any response.
Since I don't even know if my order processed or if my card was changed, I'm certainly not going to purchase anything else from paizo.com until I see some confirmation that the website is functional.

Can one of the representative give a update on the status with the store, and some path forward for anybody else stuck in limbo?