Search Posts
I tried using this with Copilot. I copied everything from "You are Hawkmoon AI" through the Style and Behavior section. I will refer to this copied text as The Instructions.
Suggestions?
Thank you ever so much!
The player may have to remove some cards from the character's deck at this point. For example, if Core Valeros builds his deck using the Fighter Class Deck and the Ultimate Combat Add-On Deck, then he multiclasses as a sorcerer, he'll have to remove either the Fighter Class Deck cards or the Ultimate Combat Add-On Deck cards to include either the Sorcerer Class Deck or the Ultimate Magic Add-On Deck or some combination of the adventurer's packs that includes sufficient spells. I'd suggest that if said Valeros was required to remove, say, the Ultimate Combat deck, he'd be allowed to swap upgrades taken from the Ultimate deck with upgrades from the Multiclass deck of the same type and level. Obviously, he'd be behind the curve on spells since he wouldn't have had any spell upgrades, but at least he'd have upgrades for card types such as items, and allies. Another option would be to allow swaps to include the deck he's keeping (in this example, his original Fighter class deck). Otherwise, weapon upgrades would be completely lost. In this case, these would be upgrades he could have taken, so this seems more straight forward. After all, if the weapon 4 from the Fighter deck was better than the weapon 4 from the Ultimate deck, he'd have taken it in the first place. However, this is homegrown rules stuff, so it wouldn't be usable in Guild play anyways. The only reason we would have to make it usable in Guild play is if my pipe dream is realized and this concept is incorporated into the official rules . . . It's almost as if you're questioning the value of making rules for Society play if they wouldn't be Society-legal. There will be people who will still follow Society rules, even if Paizo couldn't care less. Providing options for those who want to use the Society "system" is still worthwhile. Sure, these players wouldn't be able to report their sessions as official. However, as I've mentioned before, I know players that just prefer the structure of Society play and using class decks, whether I report their sessions or not. It would be nice for such players to have cool new options.
I think this makes a lot of sense. I don't see a problem being generous with the number of cards being swapped as long as the cards type given up is important to the original class. A character choosing that class for multiclassing would then use that deck as their second deck in Guild play..." It seems implied here that characters are being built with a single deck. Since many (most?) Guild characters are built with a second deck (or Adventurer Packs) when created, are you saying such characters couldn't multiclass? That would eliminate the flexibility to decide to multiclass in the middle of a campaign, whether to shore up a weakness discovered in the party ("Well, we thought we could get by without a healer, but...") or someone simply deciding their not satisfied with some aspect of how their character is playing and wanting to change things up.
I don't think you want players to be able to take a multiclass card before their character has a role card, either. You've set a limit of twelve power feats. Why such a high number? Can a character get anywhere near this limit? Curious what you're thinking.
I am pleased to see this exercise continue! I still wish I was less busy these days so I could better participate. The two things I would consider changing with this iteration are: 1. Giving cohorts for free. Cohorts are a strong class feature. Many are stronger than some of the feats on the multiclass role cards. 2. The 2/3 rule. Too much math. If you don't want single-feat dips, I'd say something like, "Unless you have 2 feats selected on this role card, your first power feat taken at level 6 must be selected from this role," but honestly, I don't think a single-feat dip is so bad. I'm interested to learn your thinking on this. Also, is there any reason why a character must multiclass at level 3? Using Core rules, that's the start of level 3 - pretty early on. Why not decide at level 4 or 5 that you're not enamored with your remaining options and want to switch things up? (Maybe the feat tree you've been planning on is seeming like a dud.) Compounding this, if you have to multiclass at level 3, the 2/3 rule would mean you must take a multiclass feat at level 3. That seems to exacerbate the concern of weakening the class role (which we discussed when the original plan was to pick a multiclass role instead of one's own role card. Continued thanks for the work you're putting in on this!
Brother Tyler, the time and effort on these is commendable! You are a boon to this game we love. Unfortunately, my life is a bit busy now, making it difficult for me to parse everything you've been sharing, but I'll add some thoughts. You propose multiclass archetypes as roles as an alternative to a character's own role cards. I'm unsure how I feel about this. Role cards are often when class powers take off. Taking only a couple feats on one's basic character card (which usually only offers a couple of real powers, along with a proficiency feat and/or a hand size feat or two) then most likely taking 4 (or 5 if bonus power feats) in a different class seems odd. It makes the original class seem more like the "dip". I imagined multiclassing more the way the RPG handled it in 2E (not Remastered, which may or may not have changed; I have no idea). You don't sacrifice your own feat progression options, you only open new options. I would like to be able to dip into a multiclass without sacrificing my own role. Maybe be able to get that Bardic performance or get a little healing power as a 2-level dip, but still get a couple of my own progressive feats. (I liked what 2E did to tone down multiclassing so that you'd no longer see level 1 Fighter/level 1 Swashbuckler/level 1 Dragon Disciple/level 1 Champion/level 1 Zen Archer/level 1 et cetera. The first feat gives you the basics, but the real power comes when you take the second feat.) If I were designing these (which I admittedly don't have time for right now), I'd have them as optional at any level from 3 and up. They would be in addition to one's own role card (I don't feel beholden to the Blackjack template because I was never a fan), and a character can only take one additional archetype, whether multiclass or otherwise. (I also want to see non-multiclass archetypes, perhaps even more than MC archetypes.) Taking the archetype would be a power feat itself, and it would give the basics, such as traits, proficiencies, deck-building substitutions, and probably a skill feat*. There would be no need for 8 or 10 check boxes (though there could be), since one still has one's own role card. The "iconic" powers would be the actual check boxes on the cards. It would be interesting to see how each version would fare under playtesting. Would multiclass characters under either system seem too strong? Too weak? *Honestly, proficiencies, deck-building substitutions, and skill feats each represent power feat options for other characters, and I'm unsure how powerful it is to give them for free.
I thank you SOOO much for the heads up! I bought one each of the ones I don't have (all but 3). I'm now hopeful for the day when Mummy's Mask becomes available!
I find this very interesting. From Fox of the Asterisk, I'd imagined archetypes from the Advanced Player's Guide, such as Beastmaster, Dragon Disciple, Medic, Pirate, or Shadowdancer. I hadn't even considered multiclass archetypes, but as you have presented them, they look like a great option!
My only concern is power creep. I thought Blackjack was a bit overtuned. I would want archetypes to be more about flavor than power level.
Brother Tyler, shame on me for not leading with how much I enjoyed reading and imagining your vision for the game. I, too, would love to see your dream realized, and I appreciate that you took the time to share it!
Unfortunately, Brother Tyler, I think it literally is a pipe dream, at least as you envision it. For physical product, I agree that crowdfunding is probably the only way this would happen, and the price would probably need to be on the high side since the game doesn't have mass appeal. Even then, we'd be lucky to get one new AP, so a new AP like Curse, using the new design model, would be the best hope. I'd be fine with Return of the Runelords or any other AP. Unlike Deekow, I wouldn't want to see the PACG engine used on a different IP. Cartmanbeck did that with Starfinder, and I just had no interest because I'm not interested in Starfinder. More PACG is what I want. I agree with foxoftheasterisk that compatibility with old material is best, though I wouldn't change heritage traits on the cards (eg Aiuvarin instead of Half-elf). In the story it can be noted that there are newer terms, but needing to know all the new names and which old racial traits to which they're equivalent is too much for many casual players. Setting expansions, revamped class decks, archtype decks*, and such fanciful ideas are unlikely to be big draws, as fun as they might be. These would be better as Pathfinder Infinite projects. Let's hope I'm wrong, and the obvious first project - a new Core era AP - would do well enough to spark interest in trying a myriad of new products, but it's probably better to stick with what would have the broadest appeal to maintain profitability and continued new development. (*Actually really like this idea if they were toned down a bit compared to Blackjack)
Once again, showing that this game is not dead. Way to represent! I still dutifully report the sessions I run in Society play. These days, I'm starting to run more fan-made content, so to Paizo it may appear that a few fewer games are run each week*, where it's really just that I'm running fewer Society scenarios. *Like they care
Better late than never! That's just about the age my daughter was when we first discovered the game! I hope the two of you have many exciting adventures together! I'm always open to running games on TTS, but I have to admit my schedule is kind of busy these days.
I'm writing a new AP, with the intent to offer it via Pathfinder Infinite. It will use the Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne, with around 100 new cards (mostly locations and story banes). As of today, I'm a slightly over halfway done writing it (3 complete adventures of 4 scenarios each, plus adventure 4A) and have now playtested the first 3 adventures using 2 different parties of characters (one party of 3, one party of 4). I will also playtest it at least once more with other players. Stay tuned!
Are you saying a player leveled Sajan up to level 4, then used that level 4 character in level 1-4 adventures along with a new character? I'd say at that point, said player has already broken the system to the point that what difference does it make if Lem gets an extra skill feat from Vailea? More practically, it sounds like new Lem essentially joined Sajan's campaign. Only one character could get the loot card, and Sajan greedily had snuck ahead and used it up before Lem showed up. It's that player's game to play how they want. If they really wanted Lem to have the skill feat instead (the decision they could claim they'd have made if both Lem and Sajan had been together from the start), they should just take a skill feat from Sajan and give it to Lem. Alternately, knowing the loot was coming in Adventure 4, they should have played adventures 1-4 with new Lem and a new clone of Sajan in an all-new campaign. Then, Vailea would be available for Lem.
How do I download the guide? Did you specifically want version 6.0? Here is where you can download the final version of the Card Society guide. The final version was 6.2.
Is it intended to be a Year of Rotting Ruin reward? It doesn't come up in Year 6. Maybe it was to allow them a reward to offer later. (Year 7, before it got truncated?)
Oops! My mistake. You posted this two places. I did respond to the other post last night. I'm far more likely to catch a message on Discord than here.
Can you message me? I don't know of those assets being available in a TTS mod, or anything like that, but I believe I could help you get what you need. (I tried suggesting reaching me on Discord, but I don't see the reply I felt sure I posted here, so I wonder if that wasn't allowed.)
Sorry I didn't see this earlier. If you message me on Discord, I'll try to help you! (I couldn't find a way to message you here.)
Afraid not.
I'll start with healing. It's been stated over and over that you can't heal in the middle of an encounter, combat or otherwise, even if failing the combat will kill you. I seem to recall reading that cards that are one step removed from affecting your check aren't allowed. Thus, playing a spell that lets you search your deck for a weapon to use on your combat check wouldn't be allowed, even though you could argue it relates to the combat, because it's one step removed. The spell itself doesn't affect the combat. Same argument for cards that let you draw cards. Same with moving someone to your location so they can play cards that help locally. Their movement itself doesn't affect the combat, so I don't think it's allowed. However, in the latter case, let's say you're alone at a location with the power, "If you are the only local character, the difficulty of combat checks is increased by 1d4." Then, moving someone to your location would affect the check. (If they can subsequently provide further help, that's a bonus.) Someone else may be able to provide a line to the "one step removed" rule. (Or, they may tell me I'm wrong. That happens too.)
Short answer: It says equal to his Craft skill. His Craft skill is his Intelligence (a d10) +3. Any check boxes you've put in his Intelligence will of course add to his Craft. We're obviously talking about the Skull and Shackles version of Damiel, who has the power "When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill until the end of the step" First of all, the FAQ for Skull and Shackles amends the wording of this power to read "You gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill while you play or when you would banish a spell that does not have the Attack trait". Much better wording! There are few non-Attack Skull & Shackles spells where having good Arcane or Divine skill matters. Most S&S non-Attack spells just give a set bonus, reduce damage, or some other utility effect. The two examples I can think of are Animated Weapon and Telekinesis. In these cases, Damiel would replace Arcane or Divine with his Craft skill. Why this power of Damiel's matters most, however, is when he would banish a non-Attack spell. Usually, if you play a spell and don't have the appropriate skill (Arcane and/or Divine), the spell is banished back to the box. ("After playing this card, if you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish it.") It's like the character used a scroll, and now it's gone. Damiel's power, however means that he does have the skill and can try to recharge the spell, and even if he fails, the spell is simply discarded, not put back in the box. I hope this was clear. Things work a little differently with Core rules. If you need any help with those, let us know.
Welcome! The Year of Rotting Ruin and the other adventure paths sold as PDFs at Paizo were written for Society play. Therefore, they use the default Society rules, as outlined in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Society Guide.
So, those adventure path scenarios don't mention hero points because they are assumed. Of course, you still receive whatever other rewards are mentioned for each scenario - loot cards, deck upgrades, and such. Also, if you aren't playing in actual Society games being reported to Paizo, you can bend the rules any way you want. These Society adventure paths are terrific additional material regardless of how you play them! If any of this is unclear (due to language barrier or my inability to explain things well), please let us know!
I'm interested. It would all depend on timing. I can certainly run the second group, too. I'm actually running an out-of-the-box S&S campaign right now, so it would be very interesting to compare the differences. I can't say regarding the story component. Someone wrote expanded stories* for the original base set APs and posted them on Board Game Geek, but those helped supplement and support the original product, so maybe they get some leeway? * In case you're unfamiliar, here's the one for S&S
You're in the rules forum for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.
I replied in the Org Play Online Discord server, but I'm going to leave a message here too, in case anyone else comes this way.
No, but thanks for asking!
No, just projecting, I suppose. For me, getting something looking that good would take me far longer than editing the wording to say "local character" instead of "character at your location" and such and check the Core Conversion site. I greatly prefer this style character sheet and thus haven't wanted to use the Core-style converted sheets someone made.
Thank you for sharing these! I'm curious whether you have considered taking an additional step to update the wording on these to Core. I may be way off, but it seems like that would be a much smaller task than getting the character sheets completed with original wording.
Excellent catch, jenceslav!
How do I have all these "missing" character sheets if you didn't already do this? I wish I could remember where I got them.
I doubt it.
That quote from Vic references the Mummy's Mask rules, which were the newest rules at the time. Choosing to activate a power on a displayed card also counts as playing it. The wording changed with the Core Rulebook Choosing to activate a power on a character or on a displayed card also counts as playing that card. I don't think there was a subsequent post in the forums about this, but the change in wording seems to indicate a change in intent.
You are essentially correct in your interpretation of the time span during which you can't play check-independent and non-reaction cards. (Well-described!) 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. Thus, if you took damage, you may display and use your armor to reduce that damage.
Do cards that "Examine" then "Encounter" (Some Harrow hours start-of-turn effects, Fortune-Teller Ally, some Blessings) not count as an "Explore" for the sake of still being able to use your Explore step "free explore"? You are correct. The Fortune Teller is a good example. You still get your "free" explore.
I don't think the original six need the Base. The Base is a CotCT thing. Perhaps if we'd gotten random scenarios 9 and 10 in the next AP, they'd feature something unique to that AP. Honestly, I wish the Base wasn't listed for scenarios 7 & 8. I mostly use The Wandering Way as a way to add a "side quest" to campaigns, perhaps something to play if one player can't make it that week and we don't want to get ahead of them in our campaign. To have to use the Base for a scenario I'm skinning as some very non-Korvosan setting feels foolish. I'd have preferred a sidebar saying that if you're playing a random scenario with characters who are in a campaign that uses supporters, include the Base. (Those are the only characters for whom the Base will be any good anyway. Otherwise, it will just close the moment no players are there.)
Now the notes I shared with the writer. I'll be interested to see how anyone else handles the items about which I had questions. Overall impressions: I loved it! Thank you! Of course, having new material is great in any case, but this is a fun and engaging story. The short synopses are a nice touch for those who want to speed through, even though I like the full story.
Scenario 1-A: By the end of the scenario, the checks to defeat a story bane were a bit easy. Having the danger be another Rescue, and a location with “Defeat the danger” as the closing condition, meant a fairly easy final check. I’m noting this, but not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing. It is the first scenario, after all. Scenario 1-B: During This Scenario reads, “To win the scenario, the Rescue pile must have at least two proxies in it and the Evidence pile must have at least one proxy in it.” It wasn’t 100% clear whether this meant that having the stated number of proxies was the winning condition, or (as is customary in scenarios without a villain) the winning condition was close all locations, but in order to win you also needed the stated proxies. If this is the sole winning condition, you could simply add a parenthetical "You do not need to close all locations" to leave no doubt. Scenario 1-C: Setup reads, “One player may add the supporter Lear Prescote (represented by Cressida Kroft) to their hand. This card does not count against the player's deck size when rebuilding.” Setup for 1-D reads, “One player may add the supporter Lear Prescote (represented by Cressida Kroft) to their deck for this scenario.”
During This Scenario states, “When you would encounter the Kobold Champion, summon and encounter the danger. If you do not defeat or evade the danger, shuffle the Kobold Champion into a random location.” I’m unsure what to do if I DO defeat the danger. Banish or encounter Kobold Champion seem the likely possibilities, but it’s unclear. Scenario 1-D: Setup:
Adventure Reward:
I'm starting with a couple notes on your notes:
It has been a while since I playtested this (late 2020!), so I can't be sure how I read the instructions back then. Looking at it now, I read that you make the initial story bane pile out of a number of Proxy A'a equal to the number of locations minus 1, and an Ashwing Gargoyle. Then, after shuffling one into each location, you obviously add a Proxy B to each location. If that's the intention, it should probably be written more like Scenario 6B or CotCT, which lists a single non-closing henchman first, then closing henchmen afterward. That way, you go through the list as normal - one of each, adding additional copies of the final henchman on the list for any additional locations.
Maybe the instructions should list Goblin Troublemaker as Core set Monster 0? You are using the Core Set, right?
That seems to be the case. Philetus previously was taking a break from the game after the first two adventures. We might not get any more of this adventure. If you want to share your notes here, I can do the same. We might at least be able to tidy up what's been shared thus far. It certainly seemed like a promising start!
Blessings might actually need the least explanation. Pathfinder deities have been shown to be capricious, so any given deity could have their own reasons for blessing you. We don't have any way to understand their rationale most of the time. That being said, sometimes there could be clues as to the reason. You could recover a religious relic or holy symbol. If you defeated a villain, for instance, they could have stolen the relic or holy symbol. A good deity might bless you for liberating the relic, or they might bless you for avenging the person from whom the holy symbol was stolen. An evil deity, conversely, might reward you for your victory - the person you defeated obviously wasn't worthy anyway. Or the person you defeated may simple have blasphemed in the deity's eyes, and they are rewarding you for putting them down.
Since I am now playing the RotR box, I think I should stick to the WotR rulebook (because they are for the same 1st "generation"), should I? As jenceslav notes, Mummy's Mask rulebook is usually the preferred reference for pre-Core rules. Paizo improved the rulebooks with each new set. May I ask you - in Society play, if you only have cards from RotR and SnS boxes (+all the scenario add-ons), which rulebook do you follow? In Society play, you use the most recent rulebook, which is the Core Rulebook, but you refer to older rulebooks for rules specific to that set's cards (like using the Skull & Shackles rulebook for ship and plunder rules). I'm sorry I muddied the water by bringing up Society play. Since you made references to playing cards "freely", it sounded like you were using Core Set rules because that was a term that was introduced with the Core Set. I thought, "Playing RotR set with Core Set rules . . . must be Society play."
I think the question boils down to whether the "You may use another item on this check" means the card may be played freely for any of its powers. The answer is no. That sentence is tied to the first power. (The first power is the only one affecting a check anyway.)
These are two separate powers and thus, it would be playing the card twice on the same check, which is not allowed. I don't think the point was playing both powers at once. (The "third" power isn't one that could be played during a check anyway.) I think the point was when using either power, can you use the power on the Robes, each of which allows you to do something with a card - shuffle it into your deck or discard it - and use the Robes as that card.I believe the answer is yes, but I'll let an expert handle it.
So, in Society play*, you can play Incendiary Cloud before temp closing (guarding) locations. *I suspected you were in Society play because another question asked about freely playing a card, which wouldn't normally be a concern in RotR.
You may skip your free exploration and use another card. I'll try to get you a quote or link if I have time. Don't assume the app is always accurate.
Might this have been posted in the wrong forum? I don't recall those locations in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.
A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.Does recovering a card invoke all traits on that card because you are doing a recovery check against that card? Absolutely!
|
