StrykerWolf's page

20 posts (140 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


Rebel Song wrote:

Now, this came up at OP on Tuesday. Athnul wanted to discard an ally that would allow her to explore and get a bonus to her check. Is she allowed to skip her first free exploration to discard the ally to explore?

I ruled yes because the rules say in the steps "Explore Your Location (optional)." But I'd like other people's thoughts. :)

Yes, this came up in a thread a while back (sorry, my search-fu is weak). You may use a card to explore in lieu of your first (free) exploration. However, doing so forfeits your free exploration. So you can't use an ally to explore, then get your free exploration after the ally generated exploration is completed.

Longshot11 wrote:

Get a Weapon card feat. Combat Spells are all good and well- Oh wait, this is RotR so Divine spells are not. You should probably start with the 2 Inflicts in your deck, and once you get your hands on the 2 Holy Light (available from AD1) - you've pretty much hit the ceiling. With all the other things you need spells for (healing/scout/utility), you'll probably not need more than a couple Attack spells. Until you get the Weapon feat, as others said, your best bet is that other players toss you a ranged weapon , but considering you play with Ezren and Seoni, that might be an issue. Still, thanks to her other power, Lini is pretty handy even when bare-handed.

I actually like to get Lini a (particular) melee weapon. I think it is the Scythe+1(?). Anyway, it turns all d4s that roll a 4 into a 5. There is also a loot weapon early in AP5 (Fanged Falchion) that turns all d4s that roll a 4 into a 6. Give Lini that, and toss a blessing her way, and she is rolling 5-6 d4 + animal bonus + weapon bonus + str bonus. (d4 strength, d4 animal, and 2d4 weapon plus any dice from blessings) I think both of those weapons require weapon proficiency to use optimally, but that's usually my 3rd power feat for her anyway (after maxing her animal bonus, since I know I'll be going for those weapons). Without the animal or strength bonus, you have an expected value of 12 and 14 with those two weapons respectively, without a blessing, and with fairly low variance. That's good enough for most mobs in RotR, allowing you to save your spells for the villains or henchmen. Add a plus 3-4 for your animal bonus, and maybe a point in strength, and you can almost auto-defeat many mobs, and stand a decent chance against a number of henchmen or villains.

Rebel Song wrote:
But you're INVINCIBLE!

This immediately made me think of that hacker guy in Goldeneye (first Pierce Brosnan as James Bond movie for those of you who aren't familiar) right before a bunch of liquid N2 pours over him freezing him into his victory pose...

Depending on which barrier or bane you hit, it's something like that.

Theryon Stormrune wrote:

We (those of us on the boards) are a minority of the entire customer base. Most customers won't even be looking at the message boards. And while we have opinions on how much and how often we'd like to see new PACG products hit the streets, Autoduelist is right that feedback from distributors and retailers is very important in this decision.

And while we represent a microcosm of the entire population, from some of the responses on this thread, the break is warranted. Personally, I've always been worried about quickening the release schedule since we heard about it. Not worried that Paizo would outpace us here but would release product too quickly for it to be sold at stores. As people see new products for the same game keep hitting the shelves, some will see it as too much to get caught up with and simply abandon a game. Some LCGs are like that. I also look at Zombicide on store shelves and wonder if they released too much too fast.

Also, not every gaming group will abandon other games just to play PACG. Most groups like variety. There are too many games that come out in a year and, therefore, plenty of competition (timewise and fundwise) in groups that play games on a regular basis.

Theryon hit it on the head right here - I mostly lurk in the boards pretty regularly, but I was actually planning on stopping my subscription until this announcement (I just hadn't had time to call Paizo yet). I still haven't finished WotR due to lack of time (2 really young kids), and don't want to get into another AP immediately (due to funds, time, and the stack of unplayed games I have piling up). I would have initially intended to pick up my subscription again for the next AP, but the reality of it is, once I stopped my subscription, I'd stop visiting the boards, and the likelihood of me actually remembering to re-subscribe in 9 months is pretty low, since I have no other connection to the Pathfinder universe.

The scenario kind of reminds me of my move to my current location - my family had cable TV previously, but didn't get it at our new home. As my wife pointed out, before the move, she couldn't imagine life without cable, but after a couple of months, she didn't miss it at all. As much as I enjoy PACG, there are a ton of great games out there - if I don't have a subscription anymore, likely I don't miss it after missing an AP. So, the key is to not have people drop in the first place. People aren't going to drop a subscription due to less content, but could easily drop it due to being overwhelmed with content.

Another option is the Quarterstaff of Vaulting (?). It allows you to recharge to succeed on an acrobatics check. I got it in AP1, and I'm not letting it go.

Karloch wrote:
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Myfly wrote:

Release date is SOON.

Does it mean 2015 or 2016?
They didn't say. Soon.

Yes they did; here (Posted by Nathan 31 March 2015 - 08:12 AM)

So, unless a delay is officially announced, ETA is still 2015.

Being a developer myself, you generally want to take what development says about release dates with a grain of salt. We all tend to think that our code will be perfect (or at least good enough) the first time, and also have a tendency to underestimate the amount of effort it takes to do something (We also have a tendency to downplay the severity of bugs in our code). Unless we get something official that says 2015, I wouldn't take a post by a developer as gospel truth, at least not on timelines.

Don't forget that Padraig (Balazar's Eidolon) can also interact with monsters in Balazars hand to add to combat checks. You may wish to discard a spell or two to pick up a monster or two to have them ready in case you have to fight something, but then want to try to do something else once the danger has passed.

I've found that I get the most use out of this power with arcane spells with the attack trait that I've managed to pick up (or even divine spells), since Balazar would banish them anyway upon use - particularly if I want to keep them around for another character. Crowe loves new arcane attack spells, but Balazar is a bit better at acquiring them.

Anyway, the power is situational, but sometimes useful.

In my team of 4 for RotR, I hit one of the AP6 bosses with a spell - I think holy light, along with Lini's animal reveal, several other allies for 1d6/1d8, Merisel firing a bow into combat, Aid spell from Seelah, a Blizzard and Wand of Inervation from Seoni, and 4 2 die blessings (2 Pharisma, 2 Lashmatu).

So, 9d10, 6d6, 1d8, 3d4 + 14

Expected value is 97 (max 160), actually rolled 135ish

Frencois wrote:

BTW Pirate a character with hand size of 0 would be nearly invulnerable: she would nearly never die!

Actually, depends on how many characters are playing. Given Pirate Rob's theoretical character with hand size 0, you would almost certainly die if playing solo, unless there is some mechanic to ensure recharging or reshuffling of discards. Assuming having to explore 5 times per location on average and 2 moves, that is 17 cards that are required to be drawn on average (32 worst case scenario, assuming all banes are defeated first go).

Frencois wrote:

"if you would take Combat damage, take Poison damage instead."

You replace one word/trait by another.
I strongly vote that other traits remain untouched, cause if not we open yet another nice can'o'worms.

So yes a Fire Magic Ranged Combat Damage would become a Fire Magic Ranged Poison Damage.

Now an interestning twist is if you would have for example a location saying :
"At this location, all damage are Fire damage." it wouldn't be clear whether you add this trait or replace existing ones. So Vic would certainly make sure to write either :
"At this location, add the Fire trait to all damage."
"At this location, all types of damage are replaced by Fire damage."

It would have to be replaced, otherwise you are making the location easier. You only need to match one trait of the damage for protection to work. For example, if you have an armor that reduces combat damage, it works if at least one of the traits of the damage is combat (it works on both combat damage and ranged combat damage). Using your example, it follows that Fire Magic Ranged Combat damage could be reduced by that armor (or an armor that reduced fire damage or magic damage or poison damage).

Perfect. Thanks much!

Longshot11 wrote:

Actually, there're at least two way and that's the thing. My biggest red flag that the Knights do not apply to Stealth et al. is an *argument from the contrary*: if it was intended to work with those skills, the card could easily say either of the following:

"a Strength/Dexterity/... check"
"a check with the Strength/Dexterity/... trait"

The fact that this is not the language used indicates for me that it specifically wanted to exclude derivative skills. mind you, this is not the first PACG to see the light of day, and as each edition gradually improves wording and gets more attention to detail, I don't believe this can be just an oversight, especially on such gard that's granted to get a lot of exposure.

Depends on what they were trying to do - in some cases you can add an additional skill to a check (such as with Poison Flasks, etc. from S&S). In that case as Damiel, could you be considered to be 'using' the Craft(Int) skill, even though the check is a Ranged Combat check because you have added your Craft skill to the check?

I would also note that if the 1d6 doesn't apply to the derivative skills, the Knights of Kenabres do practically nothing. Even in combat checks, most of the time you'll be doing the check with your melee, ranged, arcane or divine skill.

EDIT for spelling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are mis-interpreting the power. In all fairness there are almost multiple ways it could be interpreted (silly English), but Vic and Mike have stated that you only get the bonus for one check.

When you attempt a check, you may display any number of allies; for each Ally displayed add 1 (◻ 2) to the check.

1) (Bubbe's interpretation) For every check, determine how many displayed allies there are - take a bonus for each ally. In this case "displayed" is an adjective. For this to be the correct interpretation, you would need to switch the word "Ally" with the word "displayed" (and even then, the interpretation could be argued either way)

2) (Correct Interpretation) The act of displaying the ally is what gets you the bonus. You therefore do not get the bonus for a single ally on multiple checks. In this case the word "displayed" is being used as a verb, not an adjective.

The rule about displaying cards on pg 10 is a non-sequitur for this conversation. As First World Bard has already stated, you aren't using the power on the ally to get the bonus, the bonus comes from the action of displaying the ally (unless you had an ally that said while displayed you get a bonus to all checks - in that case you could get the bonus the entire time the ally is displayed)

It seems like I'm not the first to notice this, but my promo set for WotR PACG pack 2 didn't come with a Sweet Dragon Costume.

You have some feats in the base that don't appear in the Tactician of the Holy Light Role card and one for the Mystery Cultist as well.

If I select recharge to add to a check at another location, what happens to that power feat once I get a role card? If it sticks around, a reveal to add 1d4+X to any combat role anywhere is OP.

Tne divine skill for Mystery Cultist doesn't really work - you've got a base d4, with a max skill bonus of +1. We're looking at a max roll of 10 for divine, with 3 power feats after getting the role card (and a max of one spell).

I'd add burying corrupted blessings to the base card - you've got it on both roles, why not on the base as well?

Just looking at the roles, I can't imagine taking the Mystery Cultist - the extra hand size is nice, but there isn't really anything else I'd want.

Paul de Senquisse wrote:

Specific text says:

"On your turn, discard this card to examine the top card of your location deck. Succeed at an Intelligence or Knowledge 7 check or put that card on the bottom of the location deck. Then explore your location."

Let's try some formal logic here. The way the card is written, we are saying:


A = Succeed at Check
B = Put card on bottom

If A is TRUE, then B may be either TRUE or FALSE - it's your choice.
However, if A is FALSE, then B must be TRUE.

The exception would be if the OR was actually an XOR, but that doesn't seem to make sense in this case.

In plain English - logically speaking, it is always acceptable to put the examined card on the bottom, regardless of the status of the check.

Wait a second - Fog Bank says that if you play a card or use a power to examine the deck, you have to reshuffle. Lookout duty is neither of those. I've been playing that Lookout Duty in the Fog Bank doesn't reshuffle for that reason. Is that incorrect? If so, the text should be modified to say that if you examine any card in the deck you reshuffle.

Myfly wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Two of each.
Which makes FOUR characters in the CLASS DECK (as pictured on the box cover?) according to German math. :)))

Depends on how you count - If Lini A is identical twins with Lini B, but Lini C is fraternal to the other 2, that could sort of work... Although I don't know how you'd count the number of fraternal siblings at that point.

I'm not sure that I care so much about whether the release schedule is monthly or bi-monthly. I care more about the volume of content that is released in a year.

If Paizo were to release 2 complete APs in a single year, that would probably be too much content for me, both in expense and in time. What would almost certainly happen is that I would discontinue my subscription for an AP, intending to start back up again with the next AP. But then I would likely never pick it up again because I will get distracted by something else.

If Paizo would continue to release about 1.5 APs in a single year (what they are doing right now), I'm ok with that. It gives me a little less time to completely explore sending multiple parties through each AP, but still gives me sufficient time to at least run through once or twice prior to the new AP starting, and still give me some time for other gaming. A couple of months buffer between the end of one AP and the start of the next gives sufficient time to finish 1-2 run-throughs, assuming a monthly release cycle.

If Paizo were to release only 1 AP per year (bi-monthly), that might actually be a bit on the slow side for me. I do think there is sufficient content in a given AP for a year's worth of plays, and a full year would give me sufficient time to completely explore all of it, but I will also start to get bored. For example, with RotR, I ran 3 different parties of 4 all the way through (and more parties through up to the 4th/5th pack). It started to get a bit stale after that.

So, to sum up, I like what Paizo is doing right now - having the monthly subscription makes sure that I always have some new content to work with, but the break between APs gives me sufficient time to wrap up the previous AP before starting the new one. Without that break, I might not continue my subscription.

My subscription is still showing that I will be receiving another copy of Skull and Shackles base set in my September shipment, even though my August copy has been processed and shipped. I really don't feel like I want (ok, well, want to pay for) a second copy, and payment authorization is coming up soon. Will this issue be addressed before then?