WesWagner's page

Gah, you're right. I was thinking it said "immune to the Attack trait" for some reason.

Though thematically, if Sacred Weapon is simply creating a weapon for you to use against a monster... It makes zero sense for the spell to not work on the golem. But oh well.

IMO, and I know I am repeating myself, theme is important in a game like this and given the artwork and name of the spell, and the implication that the weapon you are summoning is not actually real, it would make much more thematic sense if the power on the card stated that you should add the divine and magic traits to your check.

Think of her like the shopkeepers daughter.

Rules as written would say that the check is being completed with only the attributes of the summoned weapon, but theme and design implies that this should be a sacred weapon, e.g. magic+divine, but the sacred weapon spell itself merely confers that you use the item as if your melee/ranged skill is ____.

It may be worthwhile to check with design if their intent was to actually confer that this is a magic divine weapon, aka, the text of the spell should also read, and add the magic and divine traits to this check.

(In my personal opinion, given the graphic art on the card -- it would be highly anti-thematic to not edit/rule this as the divine and magic traits should be added to the check)

Do you retain the traits of the spell itself ? (Magic, Divine, etc?)

The design team doesn't see a problem here. (In fact, they see an opportunity...)

So yeah, go nuts.

So Weapon(s) of Awe(somesauce) it is!

Keith Richmond wrote:

Wrath Kyra also has a pretty neat trick for dealing with Undead Companies and Demonic Platoons, using her first power.

Yeah, being able to roll your divine + 1d8 for *any* check to defeat a bane with the Undead or Demon traits is pretty awesome. Stealth 12? Think I will do that by BLINDING THEM WITH MY HOLY RADIANCE. (Not the sword Radiance thought, that's different).

Well it is stealthy in the sense that it was "holy" unexpected.

Wrath appears to have only two daggers... he he

Yes and I have one +1 , and the hand crossbow, and weapon of awe ... and if it would be pretty cheesy to recharge one ranged weapon, recharge another for the extra d8, then on top of that play the dagger 1d4+1 .. and on top of it all with weapon of awe add +6 instead of +3.

I plan to play it as only a single +3 unless I hear otherwise.

The Weapon of Awe spell has some rules and grammar inconsistency. I believe the intent of the card is to confer only a single +3 bonus, hence the singular title and it is not Weapon(s) of Awe.... however, read as written, you would get a +3 for each weapon that character plays on a check.

"when that character plays a weapon on a combat check" would be invoked for each weapon (even though it was not a explicit each) because "when" is a conditional phrase that is invoked at each incident of a condition, unless the language is clear that it is referring to potentially plural incidents.

This would need to read for avoidance of doubt, something like:

"Whenever that character plays one more more weapons on a combat check, add 3 to that check."

If I am wrong and this card was intended to be allowed to be played with a sword and dagger and get a total +6 .... I will henceforth refer to it as weapon(s) of awe(somesauce)... but I suspect that is not the case.

In life, you can only expect to get two of these three things:

Lowest Price
Fastest
Best Quality

I am not sure you can even expect to get 2... I have seen 1 and 0 quite frequently ;)

On 5-6 player games you need to make risky checks, hope they succeed and use your blessings and allies for explores. That is just the dynamic.

I fought the owlbeartross last night as Seoni in OP... I used my entire hand. It worked ... but I used my entire hand!

Saturday, October 25th I am participating in a fundraiser for Doernbecher Children's Hospital in the Extra Life Campaign at Guardian Games. This is a national fundraising event to gain donations for hospitals in the Children's Miracle Network. more information on Doerenbecher is available here.

I will be running Pathfinder Adventure Card guild play at Guardian from 10:00am until 4:00pm and invite anyone who is interested to come down and join me or one of the other board games that will be played all day long. <clip>

Hey! My regular group will be there for our massive game day... though we will probably be playing Myst, or BSG, or something else. See you there :)

Another successful night at our third location in town. We are looking to make Thursdays downtown a regular thing, if you are interested please post here or message me. We now have 4 shops that want to host regular PACG GP nights, we just need more players!

So far the record for this group on a single check is 47. Come beat it!

I would like to hire Hawkmoon as an analyst. He's like a research terrier!

He is just demonstrating the "Hawk" part of his name.... just don't make him demonstrate the other part!

A Paladin In Citadel wrote:

Here's another plea to jettison d20s, i'll take 2 d10's or a d12+4 over a d20 any day.

Not gonna happen. Wrath's d20s are used for Awesome Things™.

Well maybe if it is "Choose to either bury your entire hand; or make a saving throw using a d20 and instantly die if you fail." ;)

I would like to see the difficulty ramped up without making the game more dicey.... IMO the better way to create difficulty and tension is to force players to make more hard decisions. Situations where you are presented with two bad choices that are bad for different reasons, constantly grinding you down creates real tension and doubt of success.

(For example, in Battlestar Galactica, every crisis card is bad, and every choice on it is bad, and whether you win or not depends on your ability to manage all these difficult choices)

PACG has been somewhat carebear in this regard to date. Most of the time when playing there are optimal choices that result in no loss, sometimes modest gain, and I rarely ever feel horribly resource depleted or in a situation where we have to throw people to the wolves in order to survive.

Is it wrong that I want the occasional scenario to devolve into people screaming at each other that it is their fault everyone is dying and if I am going down I am taking every last ______ ________ ____ ___ __ ___ _______ with me?

Then we can all reroll new characters and start over :)

I don't like the d20 ... the variance on a d12 is annoying enough... having to rely on a d20 roll would be aggravating.

I had a player (Wes specifically) who pointed out a problem with the sessions screen.. The characters are defaulting to fighters, even if you go back in and change them to the correct class. I looked at mine as well, and they are back and forth between cleric and fighter.

Anyone else noticing this, and is there a way to get your characters to "stick" on the right class?

About a week ago I asked them to unleash the database goblins and tell them that bugs are tasty. I have not heard back.

I have been in email contact with NOG and Guardian is booked up and not offering a table. He says he is going to stop by there to discuss a regular time with them but the prospects for tonight are not good.

Thank you all. I was playing correctly, but had an uneasy feeling I was getting it wrong.

Don't forget your structural damage when you fail... and the sad sad tale of woe as all your plunder floats away.

I can probably help with Thursdays.

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Theryon Stormrune wrote:

Greyhawke, that's the exact reason I was asking. I'm investing my time into playing a character. And to have to banish an upgrade card for whatever reason and not get a replacement back seems punitive. I'd have to waste another upgrade to get that potential card back.

In a normal game if you banish a higher level card you can't get it back, so why should you in an organized play game? It's a sacrifice that you're making. If you aren't comfortable with making that sacrifice then take your damage.

In a normal game, you can get more than one upgrade. In most cases, you have options. In Organized Play, there is only one upgrade potentially. So banishing a card then having to replace it with another upgrade seems extreme.

Well that I guess is the risks you take as an adventurer... sometimes your stuff will get broken and there will be no smith around to help you.

I use one of these.

WTF .. why didn't I ever consider a liter and attendants.

Something came up today and we weren't sure how to adjudicate the situation.

Zarlova had to banish an armor to avoid death as she is not proficient with armor. This was a level one armor that was unlocked as a booty card that was reflected on a chronicle sheet When rebuilding, does Zarlova get to replace it with another level one armor, or does she need to start over again with a basic/basic armor?

It made sense to us to allow her to rebuild with a level 1 armor, but we couldn't find a reference to be sure.

As she never gains proficiency, it seems it would never benefit her to upgrade armors, as she would always need to rebuild with a basic/basic if upgrades are not persistent.

Thoughts?

I was there when she first earned that armor... it did not last long :)

I know what is not in the box ;)

If I see the VO in Portland Oregon has volunteered, should I just contact them directly to ask to get involved?

That card should be in a hidden easter egg compartment and only not this Mike should be told of its existence, write a comic about it, seal it in his will to be revealed only after everyone who has ever read this thread is dead so that it will make no sense whatsoever.

#thecircleoflife

Great see.. now through the art of creative interpretation of english we have Mike and his Mike-clone loading mini-the-other-Mikes into the next version of PACG.

Do you think he is even more of a smartass when he is mini ?

One thing Mike said at PAX in the forum with that one guy and his one game that he was developing who was completely inconsequential to the convention (not ;) ) stuck with me too ... when the other Mike that is not this Mike said that Mike told him: "You do not come in the box."

All the FAQ threads, Q&A, Vic rewrites, etc., all go to show how difficult it is as a game developer to get everything right so that it is interpreted by people correctly. The vast majority of people on these forums are native speakers of English -- and general, just by the nature that we are in this hobby typically have greater than average linguistic skills ...

And yet this is still so hard :)

Mike, you need to clone yourself and stick a little mini-Mike in the box.

Let's compare.

So, Feiya's is fueled more by the card you recharge. In the Base Set, Lem will be better. But over time Feiya will start to catch up and eventually pass him.

I was thinking that is possibly what it was about ... until you start getting 3,4,5 and 6 cards it is a bit of weak sauce.

Thanks.

Feiya's power to reduce the difficulty of a check seems weak to me ... when compared to say Lem who adds a d4 (average 2.5 and can increase with skill points)

Am I missing something that should be obvious like, "oh this can be done AFTER the dice are rolled because it is not part of assembling the dice pool" or something like that?

At Paizo, we're very aware of we're good at, and what we're not good at. Even more importantly, when we want to do something we're not good at, we're good at knowing when we should acquire the skills to do that thing, or partner with somebody else. Creating a digital card game ourselves would be a money sink*, while licensing it to an established publisher with an excellent reputation brings rewards with minimal risk. We're also very capable of writing contracts that don't give away our IP.

*Heck, just the cost to put 3 software developers to work for a year (including benefits and other costs) would be in the neighborhood of $300,000.

Vic's instincts on this are 100% correct... not that he needs me to tell him that because he knows it is right. Though I do have the pedigree if someone was going to make an Argumentum ab auctoritate they would clearly state that my saying Vic was right was a reason to support what he is saying.

He is simply right thought for the reasons he is stating. The SWOT analysis plus the risk-v-reward matrix says to outsource and license it.

Vic Wertz wrote:

We are willing to hear proposals from established publishers with excellent reputations.

You'd be better off hiring 3 developers to do it in-house. An established publisher is just going to eat your profits and take your IP.

Except that part where they also eat most all the risk of the project because they have to pay the staff, manage the project, and eat the loss if they release a stinker.

Opening the mailbox reveals collapsing boulders 0.o;;

I was willing to suspend disbelief for the bunyip, because we all of him so much... but collapsed boulders? That's it... I am not playing this game anymore!

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

So... you want a PACG version of Zork?

You are standing in an open field west of a white Sandpoint Cathedral, with a boarded front door.

>open mailbox
Opening the small mailbox reveals a bunyip.

>

But how do we get on the playtest list!?!?!?!? ;)

I have only ever done play testing for War of the Ring 2nd edition forward (and all expansions) -- but understand the concept that your primary objective is to break the game and detail explicitly how you broke it and sometimes some suggestions for fixing it.

If you are short play testers in honest, I am willing to help. I can only reliably playtest 3 or fewer players with real humans .. that is all I have to muster of people who are analysts who are competitive enough gamers to break things.

Two notes:

Scenario setup time is and will continue to be a very important design factor for us.

Also, an ally that can't be chosen at random to go into a location deck *isn't an ally*. It would need to be something else.

I think scenario specific cards could be "any card type" ... they just need to be kept in a different slot. That way you can on the scenario card setup these cards in specific locations or random locations, but they are just married to that one scenario, like henchmen, only they are distributed differently.

The setup time increment would probably be minimal this way ... not too different than digging through the henchmen deck looking for henchmen and it only affects scenarios that have scenario specific cards.

Nathaniel Gousset wrote:

About the falling bell, that is one card I really really dislike because it is so much specific and will keep accompanying us in our next adventure, up mountain, down crypt, into far jungle(?), anywhere we go from AP2 on we will have to keep an eye up there for a Falling Bell.

It has the Elite trait, so the first time you encounter it after starting Chapter 5 will be the last time you encounter it.

The game is fun... hopefully though for the next big box expansion we can learn from these theme issues and have better mechanics for scenario specific cards (beyond henchmen).

Just to add another vote: I'd print the PDFs to place in my sleeves with the original card. Then pay for corrected reprints.

I am in this boat with PDFs first ... I would do the POD after AP 6 has been thoroughly checked for errors , omissions and clarifications and then buy it for my archive copy ... because by then I would be on base set #2 :) -- and probably occasionally whip this out for a marathon game weekend with friends.

It has arrived!

I somehow wonder if a "Divine" or "Arcane" check should be "magical" by default when you determine which die you are going to roll and say ... hey I am going to use my "divine" skill .. which is wisdom + 1.

Bam... magical.

To me it seems odd that a cleric, druid, mage, paladin, etc who is using the spell-casty part of their character is somehow not engaging in a magical act.

h4ppy wrote:

It's what happened with Scrabulous on Facebook - they got in trouble because they used the official Scrabble (TM) board and had a name that sounded like Scrabble. They changed the board layout and their name then they were fine. The letters were still all worth the same number of points, they used the same dictionary, you had the same number of tiles on your rack, etc.

The simple* version of copyright and game mechanics is this: Actual game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, but the written expression of those game mechanics can be copyrighted (and, under US copyright law, they automatically are copyrighted).

So when it comes to "copying" Scrabble, a tile with a letter and a number on it can't be copyrighted, so as long as you rewrite the rules in your own words and avoid stepping on any trademarks, you can do it.

However, when it comes to games like the Pathfinder RPG or the Pathfinder RPG, or most Fantasy Flight games, or many, many games in our industry, things get tricky because the expression of the mechanics often *is* the mechanic. Which is to say, there's not an easy way to reproduce many of the mechanics without using the original copyrighted text. Which is to say if someone were to take all the cards, replace the art, and give them all new names, we would still have a very solid case that it infringes on our copyrights.

*Pretty much nothing related to copyrights is actually simple. Sorry!

I think there is an old saw, solid mechanics without a strong theme will me a mediocre game .... a solid theme with poor mechanics will make a terrible game.

In order to get the results of PACG - you had to have both. That is why it is selling so well.

(Note BGG rankings as of today: Board Game Rank: 75
Thematic Rank: 5 )

I think this game would be nowhere near ranked 75th if it's theme was not so strong.

Re: the original topic:

Paizo would be *very* interested in hearing a solid business plan from an experienced software publisher with an excellent reputation in the industry, and I'd frankly be surprised if we aren't approached by one in the future.

The largest problems with setting up a game like this is the overall philosophical architecture. In the past people would try to do things like write a central logic engine to "operate the game logic" as it were... which eventually turned into a Gordian knot.

Fortunately most modern game developers cut their teeth on game engines (like Unity and such) ... and learned to attach game logic to game objects and define a game via how those objects interact with the universe.

(as a mental exercise, think about what it would be like to write a logic engine for magic the gathering ... if you did not make it object oriented to the nth degree)

I think that there is an excellent business proposition in releasing the game in an online method on a properly staggered release schedule that would not cannibalize the traditional sales channels.

It also would probably kickstart (and ultimately greenlight) really easily which would significantly reduce the capital investment risk.

It would probably take me about a half a year to prototype something like that in my evenings.

That is if it had to enforce the rules ... which I suspect is the point.

I for one look forward to AARs where someone had to do 17 checks vs this one encounter :)

My subscription cart, which has been setup since about 5 or 6 weeks ago, now has decks 2 and 3 consolidated into a single shipment in december.

Just a few days ago it has a message that deck 2 was shipping "tomorrow"... the system is toying with me!

Payment method authorized: December 5

Should ship by: December 18

1x Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: The Skinsaw Murders Adventure Deck (Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 2), $15.99 (in sidecart)
1x Pathfinder Adventure Card Game—Promo Card: Blessing of Zarongel~
1x Pathfinder Adventure Card Game—Promo Card: Dance with Squealy Nord~
1x Pathfinder Adventure Card Game—Promo Card: Birdcruncher Crown~
1x Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: The Hook Mountain Massacre Adventure Deck (Rise of the Runelords Adventure Deck 3), $15.99

Thanks. I'll probably continue being me for a while.

I want to see him dress up as Colonel Sanders with a wizard hat and a magic bucket of holding.

Fromper wrote:

Yeah, I never understood why Ambush scouted the location deck for a monster instead of just summoning a random one. It's actually a good barrier to run into and fail your check to avoid, because it lets you scout the location.

...because it's an Ambush :)

It's great because it gives you a decision to make: do I fail it and face a monster with a penalty (but scout the deck) or pass it and carry on as I was before?

Would be nice to have more of these failing-isn't-all-bad type banes!

I scout the deck one card at a time from the top until I find a monster to lower the chances of seeing more than I have to.

The question I wonder is ... about when will it ship to subscribers!?!? :) My wife is chomping at the bit.

She also really wants the expansion to arrive.

Heh-yo!

I can generally tell which card is which now in certain runs, right down to if it's the villain, a monster, an ally or even a blessing. It's a skill I picked up from my childhood of trying to be a magician and doing tons of card tricks. It's drove me and my friends nuts because I honestly can't help it. I've resorted to having to buy coloured sleeves for the entire set.

Expensive but I really enjoy this game but my perception is ruining it for me so it was my only option.

Perception of d12 +6 ?