Vandrair's page

34 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


Longshot11 wrote:
Vandrair wrote:
I would prefer, however, if largely for reasons of "feeling", but also to get rid of the Damiel problem (it may, however, create problems with other characters, I don't feel like fact-checking right now), to display the eidolons instead of burying them.

It might be just me, but I find it really counter-intuitive to continuously design around a single card/power, instead of *fixing* that one card/power, if it's indeed deemed too offensive. Homebrew is one thing, but I really hope Lone Shark don't take that approach.

Also, the fact that some people may *chose* to play a perfectly viable character in a manner that others would consider "exploiting", does not create a "Damiel problem", per se. (In the sense, no one can force *you* to retrieve your Eidolon with Damiel, and if other players prefer to do it - they're allowed to enjoy the game in their own manner). My two cents, I don't own a CD, so I don't have a particular bias for CD Damiel or Myrtle.

I apologize for not making myself clearer the first time around. I did not sit around and desperately searched for a solution for a "Damiel problem" (especially since it is not even my problem to begin with). Instead I wanted to propose a change to the eidolon powers that I, personally, found aesthetically more pleasing. When I wrote it down it suddenly occured to me, that it would also take care of Damiel's power, so I put it in my post to point out that particular advantage. It sort of just fell into place. Apparently, Ron beat me to it anyway (just as he beat me to this whole thread, as I too wanted to make a variant WotR adventure path, but I wasn't yet ready to share anything about it as my ideas are not very far along).

Ron Lundeen wrote:
Wow, I step away for the weekend and come back to some great ideas and questions! Some of these are things I hadn't considered before, but some of them are already in the works.

Well, that's just how we roll ;-)

Ron Lundeen wrote:
I've already got a comprehensive list of cards that need to be removed from the WotR box because they don't fit with the adjusted rules (but props to Vandrair who mentioned Elemental Bombardment, which wasn't on my list!). That leaves a lot of gaps that need to be filled in, and I'm filling them in with Skull and Shackles cards. The largest switch is to remove all Blessings of Ascension from your WotR box and replace them with Blessings of the Gods from your S&S box. But there are other switches, too. You'll need both sets to play, but you won't need any cards other than those found in those sets.

I have to say I don't like that much for two personal reasons, which I'll allow you to completely ignore: 1. Elemental Bombardment is awesome and my by far favorite Attack spell. 2. I don't own S&S

Ron Lundeen wrote:
To Longshot, Doppelschwert, Brother Tyler, and others: no armies, no Arboreal Blights, and no Demonic Hordes (the latter because the "Servitor" trait means something different in my set, so there are no servitor demons). I agree with you that removing them is a good way to smooth the difficult curve.

I'm intrigued. What exactly will the "Servitor" trait mean in your Adventure path?

Ron Lundeen wrote:
I really appreciate all the thoughts about the Godcalled Eidolon powers specifically. I'm revising these, and I'm also adding a minor incentive to use them: while the card is buried, it provides some static bonus (like adding +1 to your checks to defeat barriers), so there is a disincentive to hold onto them all game (but not really an incentive to bury them at the first conceivable opportunity, either). I won't be tying this to mythic charges specifically, since there are no such...

That sounds like a cool idea. I would prefer, however, if largely for reasons of "feeling", but also to get rid of the Damiel problem (it may, however, create problems with other characters, I don't feel like fact-checking right now), to display the eidolons instead of burying them. This way they are still in play (which could help players to remember their existence and would prevent Damiel from retrieving his eidolon), but their other powers can not be used, as they would likeways require them to be displayed as an action. Then you could easily add a power that adds to your checks while your eidolon is displayed.

I think - in general - it's a great idea. However I do have a problem with the complete removal of Mythic Power. The addition of more feats would help - to a certain extend. Wrath is already designed to give you 11-12 power feats (or at least these are the numbers I always ended up with) and enough skill feats to easily improve your combat skills to the highest extend possible. So, adding feats to an adventure path that is already stacked with them would, at least in later scenario's, not be of that much help.

I'm curious about the scenario benefits, but I believe it will be very hard to come up with new ideas for every scenario (by adventure 2 or 3 you will almost never not need such a boost). They will definitely help with the problem I outlined above, but I would consider making them adventure based rather than scenario based, unless you have an imagination far above my own limitations (you probably do, but we better don't get into that ;-))

Now on to the god-called eidolons: their powers might be quite strong, but they come at a costly price (they are basically one-offs every scenario, which I personally don't like for cohorts who should feel like they are somewhat important to their master). Maybe there could be other powers to choose from which do not require the bury (but are considerably less powerful).
Overall, though, I like the idea of the god-called eidolons very much and they could be a good replacement for a mythic path. Maybe they could even take over some of the mythic paths features like adding d20, which would otherwise be largely disregarded in your version of the game (judging only from the bits of information you gave us here).

Another point to consider are boons (and banes) that care about your mythic charges (Elemental Bombardement and the likes). What are you planning to do with those?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
skizzerz wrote:
MightyJim wrote:
Does a Myfly barrier require you to reveal a promo card or bury your hand?
I believe you mean 5 promo cards.

I believe you mean 5 identical promo cards.

Frencois wrote:
Myfly wrote:
Mike Selinker wrote:
elcoderdude wrote:
I downloaded bluestacks for free from, installed it, installed Pathfinder Adventures, and played the tutorial and the first three scenarios. The app crashed twice...
That it only crashed twice under that chewing-gum-and-baling-wire configuration is a blessed miracle.
May be the engine/emulator cant handle the massive amount of 1200 cards. And dont forget the quintible promo cards...

I am SO amazed that MyFly is able ina single sentence about technical issues on a PC to bring back promo cards.

You should be in politics MyFly.... wait... Drop the disguise Angela, we know it's you :-)

As if Angela Merkel ever did anything in a single sentence...

Theryon Stormrune wrote:
MightyJim wrote:
Does Puppy's Mask come with more Dogslicers?

I love how you just shut him down like that. It's a rare talent, really.

NyteJKL wrote:
I just sent an email about the Champions of Mendev card not being available in the Resource section.

Is there any news about this? I would like to have a printable version of that card available.

The thing that makes Tyrannomancer better is the ability to recharge spells to draw monsters instead of discarding them. At least that's what made me take it.

I picked Tyrannomancer because I thought it would be much more powerful (and I still believe it is), BUT I discovered a massive downside when I ran into scenario 5-1. if I had picked Eidolomancer I woudn't have had the problems with the Rites of Heraldry and the Lady of Valor I described in another thread. So I think both roles have their merits (as usual for PACG).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calthaer wrote:
Hawkmoon turned me on to the idea of storing all the henchmen in alphabetical order in the box. They are never randomized / shuffled together as a group, so there's no reason to divide them up by adventure deck in your box once they're in. Makes it a lot easier to find them.

I do that too. Makes life much easier because you always know where the relevant henchmen are even if you don't remember their ADN.

Those charges don't help at all if you do not have the relevant skills. If I just don't have a specific skill I'm rolling d4s without a bonus or mythic charges to use.

As to closing a location: would if I could but with just a few d4 plus maybe a d20 for a Iomedae card I haven't even been able to defeat the Rites of Heraldry, so there was never an empty location I could close. Plus you would need 10 d4 to even have a theoretical chance against the Lady...

What I found much worse was the Lady of Valor in my two character group of Tyrannomancer Balazar and Elemental Master Seoni (I admit we could have chosen characters that complement each other a little better). Since the Lady is a villain and has to be defeated and has a difficulty of 40 we decided to house rule that we could use Knowledge to defeat her.

Althougj technically Adowyn isn't the cohort but the character. Her cohort's name is Leryn

I don't get why people make excuses for redeeming the Ghoul Hide. I think it'S a great choice and I am proud to say that my Arueshalae redeemed it! I think Rod of the Viper and Stalker's Cross Bow were the other cards, but who even cares about those...;-)

Zanzar wrote:

I got Skull & Shackles after i heard that Runelords has very bad german translation for a lot of cards which makes everything very confusing so that you have to play with errata list.
so should i abandon Runelords and only get the adventure decks for Skull & Shackles? i also read that this version has much better rules.

It's true that the german translation for Runelords is bad, but there is a second (german) edition out, which might be a lot better. As long as they took to put it on the market I sure _hope_ they ensured the translation was better this time, though I'm not 100% sure that's true.

On the other hand I just love RotR and haven't played S&S all that much, so I can't just go ahead and advise you to buy the latter. I think Runelords is good despite the bad translation and you can actually make it work (plus, as I said, it might have gotten better with the new edition, though I can't verify that). It's a tough choice to make, but I wouldn't base it entirely on the translation problems is all I am saying.

But since you have both base sets you can actually decide for yourself. If you have played the german RotR version (at least the base set and the first adventure), you can tell if it worked for you or if you had to second guess everything because they aren't consistent with their vocabulary. Then you can compare it to S&S and see if the translation is better (as I don't own it, I can't even say whether it is or not).

Longbows let you use your Dexterity or Ranged skill plus your Strength die (maybe other weapons do that too, but I'm only sure on longbows. So Merisiel's power means she can use a d10 (or d12 instead of the Strength die if she uses such a weapon (So Ranged skill plus d10/d12). For a weapon such as the light crossbow, this power has no meaning.

Edit: well, too late :D

Wow, this is a cool idea. I hope I can help you balance out some of his features so you will have even more fun playing him.

First off, the skills: He has just a 40 if you add up the dice, so you might want to get that Intelligence die up to a d8 (would make the most sense in my opinion). For a wizard he sure has a lot of secondary skills and bonuses, so maybe you could reduce the Fortitude a little (or did you want to balance that out with him having worse dice than he could have?).

The card list seems fine to me. Favored card spell is the only thing that makes sense for this character. He has quite a number of armors, but I guess that'S okay.

His first power is in my opinion waaay too powerful. I mean, consider that Crowe has to bury a card just to get a d10 for his checks. You not want to add a d12 for nothing but playing an attack spell... Have you ever considered making him cast his spells from Strength instead of Intelligence from the start? Because the way it is he is, he can use d6+2 + d12 + 2 d4 on every combat check, which is actually kind of in line with what Balazar does when he puts a card on top of his deck and banishes monsters, but the costs are higher in that case. I think this needs some thoughts, because even in Wrath this power is too good.
The second power could need some rewording. Something along the lines of: "If you play a weapon, you may gain proficiency with weapons for the rest of the encounter. Banish the weapon after the encounter." But it's a fun idea, I like that power a lot.
Overall you see that his base card is very combat-heavy, but I guess that is what you were going for.

The Swordslingers powers seem very interesting, especially the one that lets you keep weapons instead of spells (even though with the current incarnation of your first power I don't know why you would use it as you get your Strength die on Arcane spells anyways, so they should be a lot stronger than weapons. And I think with the weapon-healing power you could just go straight to discard a spell to recharge a random weapon. Burying doesn't seem necessary here.

As for the Punchmancer, I don't think having arcane on 2 different skills is a problem here. You could however state that it would replace your current arcane skill, but that'S up to you.
His last power is cool. I think the ADN is a good way to increase its power without having to spend to many power feats on it. The last part however ("You may also play another spell on this check") is unnecessary, as you never actually played a spell so far. You just recharged one for your power. You can play another spell anyway.

I hope this helps, really looking forward to eventual changes you (may) make.

So I'll take a stab at this one...

First things first, I think creating a Gamblr character is a great idea and I was really excited when I first read this thread. I have some concerns with your design though, but I think it can all be worked out.

The skills seem perfectly fine and reasonable, I don't see any reason to change anything here. Same goes for the Card list, even though you haven't set a favored card type (I would either recommend items or your choice). Hand size and proficiencies are totally fine, even though you could argue that he has (thematically, as a Gambler) no reason to be proficient with weapons. On the other hand I find characters that prefer fighting with a weapon but with no proficiency quite useless, so I'd keep it.

On to the powers, the first thing I noticed is, that in the first power there isn't specifically stated what would happen if the card is an ally or spell (I assume nothing at all, so it might make sense considering the length of text to leave them out as you did). However I would change the item power to "Add 2 to all non-Combat checks this turn" (feeling-wise at least).

With the second power I don't really see the advantage you'd get if the card was a least for the combat at hand. I would change it to a decrease of the difficulty equal to the increase if it were a bane, but that is totally up to you.

Now the roles: The Sleight of Hand's last power is propably a bit to powerful. I would either increase the punishment for a 1-4 (by discarding or even burying a card)or increase it to a 1-5 or even 6, as this way the power is very likely to help you and very unlikely to harm you (as a gambling power should be able to do).

For the Roulette's first new power (the one with the Constitution die) I would like to refer to elcoderdude's statement. Additionally you should define if you would round up or down when you divide the check in half. Then there's the issue of multiple checks. If it has sequential checks, to you need to attempt them all, or do you just defeat it (as the power states) when you succeed at the first one?
Also, what happens to the combat if you fail the check? Sure, you need to bury the top card of your deck, but how is other damage calculated? And even though I assume that the monster would be undefeated, I think the power should explicitely state that.
I get the second power, and I think it is a really fun idea. However the wording is (as in some other cases) open to interpretation (which isn't desirable for a playthrough, as you would often be confronted with questions whether you could do a specific thing or not. Also I don'T get why you would use your Constitution die (or skill?) for the rest of the turn from a thematic standpoint, but that could be overlooked. Maybe a reworded version of that power could go like this: "When you play a spell (with the attack trait, I assume), you may immediately attempt to recharge it. If you succeed, double the result of your check and subtract your Arcane skill. If you fail, use your Constitution skill instead of any other skill for the rest of the turn." This might be a way to get around the complication of adding some dice that are referred to on the spell, but leaving another one out (believe me, I had that problem before...).
The last power, I think, should be more like the first role's last power, where you just role a d10 instead of using an unmodified skill (which is kind of a problem, as Acrobatics is a skill that already modifies another skill...). Also, the way you put it, there's no possible way I could think of that you could role a 1 or 2 (as you always have a +2, which you accounted for on the high end of the scale). There's also no reason (except maybe a thematic one) for it to use your Acrobatics skill, as it isn't a check (so powers like the one of the Quarterstaff of Vaulting won't apply anyway) but simply a luck based mechanism. Also maybe the punishment in this case is too harsh, where it was not harsh enough in the first example. But this lust point is just pure speculation.

I hope I wasn't to hard on your character, as I just want to help you make him work in a way that he is fully playable and doen't always face questions about one of his powers. I think you did a good job overall, as all of his powers feel unique and gambling-oriented, so keep it up. Sorry for the wall of text by the way...

The blog says that the deck introduces three new character including Zadim, so it sounds like he won't come out before. ..

Keith Richmond wrote:
Knowledge is power!

Guard it well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it would increase the difficulty of the check it would usually say just that. If you add something to a check (be it dice or modifiers), you add it to your (or someone else's) dice and modifiers. I don't think that this minor change in wording makes a difference here

nondeskript wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Monk. Hands down. I am dying for that Monk deck.

+2, Sajan was a beast in RotR. My first character and to this day the one I enjoyed most.

Calthaer wrote:
The banes in Wrath are brutal, and after all of that I feel like I rarely get anything for it - the boons are weak. Not to mention the fact that, when a location has more than 5 banes in it, it by definition makes boon-acquisition much less likely. I loved seeking the Holy Candle, the "stat gems," and other cool boons of the prior sets. There really aren't any boons in Wrath that are too exciting, that would make you delighted to discover.

That is where Balazar comes in, who turn almost every card in the set into a boon. Sure, he may not be able to keep some after the scenario (monsters), but it sure is a lot of fun to acquire them. I'm having the time of my Pathfinder-life playing him. Especially exciting are Unfettered Eidolons :-)

Myfly wrote:
Doing jokes in a foreign language is quite difficult...

I really thought about a nice way to say this, but since english is a second language for me too (maybe I should just do this in German instead), I didn't find one: Maybe your just not that funny...

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
It's the new Roadfinder Adventure Card Game: Mommy's Mask.

Where can I buy this? It sounds almost as awesome as the idea is ridiculous :D

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I wonder if the army henchmen would've scaled better if, instead of requiring all players to successfully defeat, it was something like half the players rounded up.

That would probably make them too easy for a 3-4 player group, but at least makes them feel less punishing in groups of 5-6.

Maybe it could be something like "succeed at a number of different checks to defeat equal to the number of characters, or at least 4 if the number of characters is higher than 4." That would (maybe) make it easier for big groups but wouldn't change anything for 1-4 players.

The story has to end at some point, doesn't it? I mean sure, it's a little weird to get a reward at the end of an adventure path, but that's the way it is. I'm not quite sure you would be happier if there was absolutely no reward for completing the adventure path but a little note that says: "You won. Congratulations!" Maybe it's even a push from the design team to think of your own way to continue the legacy of your heroes or something like that. Plus, it's (at least in RotR, haven't played S&S)just a card feat. Wouldn't you be way more bummed if you would get a power feat and had a new great power you could not even use? A card is just a card, if it makes you feel better, don't add it, no one will notice ;-)

I thought I wouldn't like Ezren, because he has no blessings and because I thought spellcasting wouldn't be my thing. Plus he is really old :D turns out I loved playig him. He definetly is of the loveable old man kind.

On the other hand I thought I would like Crowe. But I found him pretty much useless for everything that wasn't fighting. Didn't enjoy my time with him at all...

Longshot11 wrote:
I don't imagine "mendevian' would be of any value outside of WotR, and you just might wanna throw a 'Mendevian Crusader' in another set...

Yeah, but it's not like every trait so far has an impact on the game (looking at you, xulgath with the xulgath trait).

Frencois wrote:

Hum, beer is like PACG in that it is YOUR game: wathever is fun and pleasurable for you is king.

This said, forgive me for being French but the best beers don't need additional flavor.
Now I'm talking to a country that adds cinamon to coffee so I guess mine is a lost cause. I feel like the Dwarven paladin of true beer lost in the Elvish Abyss of marketing.... ;-)

Being from Germany, I second that.

Talonhawke wrote:
The problem I see with that power is it encourges cutting combat close, which especially with monsters that have a if you fail condition it could go badly for more than just one player.

Which is kind of the point though. You don't have to use the power anyway (or play the character for that matter), but since I tend to roll pretty badly it happens more often than you'd think that I would acquire a monster without really trying. I just think it makes the character more unique and interesting since I don't want to draw up a character that is more or less a copy of one of the iconics with a minor twist to it.

I very much appreciate your input. I did not think of those kinds of situations (and that after I played Balazar in WotR...). However I would like to keep the veteran power around, so I'll have to do some work to cut the number of words down a little... But that's something for tomorrow as it is already getting late this side of the Atlantic ocean.

Yes, that was (almost) exactly what I was going for. Even though my interpretation was that if he overkilled a monster, he would deem in unworthy to make a trophy out of it. But I like your take on that part very much. Its likely a combonation of the two now :-)
Thanks for the feedback!

I have a concept for a power and I'm not quite sure it's going to be understood the way I intended it to. For a Hunter-Character:

When you defeat a monster by exactly the scenario’s adventure deck number plus 1 ( 2) or less, add that monster to your hand. You may banish a monster from your hand to add 1 d6 to your check to acquire an ally.

How would you think that would work?