Zentaur's page

Organized Play Member. 25 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


See it now, thanks.

The links lead to the adventure packs. My question pertains to the Nightmare decks of those adventure pack. Here is an example:

http://paizo.com/products/btpy93l4?The-Lord-of-the-Rings-LCG-The-Hunt-for-G ollum-Nightmare-Deck



Hi, I'm posting this here because couldn't find anywhere else that seems suitable.

I am trying to acquire the nightmare decks for the first cycle of the LOTR: LCG (Mirkwood Cycle) from Fantasy Flight Games but I noticed that the nightmare decks for adventure 2 (Conflict at Carrock) and 3 (A Journey to Rhosgobel) are missing. I don't mean out of stock, I mean its not even listed.

Wondering if this is deliberate?



Vic Wertz wrote:
I suspect you won't want to use your rule for Skull & Shackles.

I'm going to assume you meant the house rule I mentioned.

The irony is that I generally don't house rule games but I feel this makes it so much more tactical. So I hope S&S is going to give us more reasons to stick characters in the same location OR, even better, punish players for seperating, which is the current dominant strategy.

Finally, its just plain cruel to make such a statement if you don't plan to tell us more...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually house rule that if another character is at the same location, we get to choose which character closes the location, which is what happens if a temporary closing situation comes up. More importantly there is currently very little incentive for characters to stay in the same location beyond healing and specific powers yet there are MANY location cards that interacts with multiple character per location. I personally belief it was meant to be a push your luck mechanism, stay together and risk AOE or seperate and avoid that. However it doesn't work if there are so little reasons to stay togther.

Was wondering if the new character decks will be available outside of the play programs. Doubt I can find any stores running it and even if they did the nearest is 1.5 hrs away. I suppose they won't be part of the subscriptions?

Is it possible to cancel a particular product in a subscription or do we have to cancel the subscription and resubscribe?

Dice Tower best of 2013:

Number 1 from Eric (who is primarily a Euro gamer) and the listeners.

Enchanter does not deal combat damage. In contrast, the Scout does, as indicated on it's card. It's a combat check only when the check/power says so.

Yes. See it as number of characters rather than players. All soloable multi-player gamed have this problem.

I was wondering the same thing myself. Although the rules specifically state "you" I think it would make things more interesting strategically. Right now, there really arn't many reasons, beyond character specific powers, to stay together.

I know there is nothing stopping me from doing so but I definitely play it the "official" way.

Vic Wertz wrote:
the_Widowmaker wrote:
Zentaur wrote:
As you pointed out, it makes no sense to combat a chest.

<joke> Mimic? </joke>

Big Cheese wrote:
Next, the only thing that causes damage on a failed check is when that check is to defeat a monster—and that damage happens whether it's a Combat check or not.

Just to clarify, this means that something like a Siren, which has a check to defeat of Wisdom 8 if I'm not mistaken and not a combat check does damage because it's a monster and has nothing to do with the Combat trait that it is lacking?


Rules: Attempting a Check wrote:
Take Damage, If Necessary: If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals damage to you.

Might want to consider including this in the FAQ. It's a pretty important clarification imo. Especially for people making their own home brew cards.

Fromper wrote:
I'm thinking there's one big RPG concept that wasn't included in the card game that probably needs to be added in to deal with this: character level. That way, if they publish adventures that aren't part of an adventure path, they can specify what level character it's for.

I have always felt the level method of differentiating power felt artificial. On the other hand, I really love the way it was implemented currently in the PAGC, feels a lot more naturalistic. So I hope we won't see levels anytime soon in this game.

the_Widowmaker wrote:
<joke> Mimic? </joke>

Actually the would be awesome :)

Vic Wertz wrote:

This clearly needs to be added to the FAQ, but "Combat" is *not* synonymous with "check to defeat a monster."

First, it's only a Combat check when the check actually says "Combat" above the circle.

Next, the only thing that causes damage on a failed check is when that check is to defeat a monster—and that damage happens whether it's a Combat check or not.

Finally, damage only counts as Combat damage when you're failing a Combat check against a monster, or if the card otherwise tells you it deals Combat damage.

Wow this really helps explains things in very clear terms. Especially for cards like Siren and the Spectre. Thanks!

Personally I think the pdf is a great solution.

That probably because I'm rather OCD when comes to consistency and since I sleeve my cards, I can use the solution mentioned above.

I also want to add that I appreciate Vic's effort in resolving this situation and even though I have had some problems with customer service recently, I still think Paizo is one of the few companies that really take an interest in what the customers are saying.

Thank you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
The fact that low and high numbers of players require different strategies is actually a cool detail that I like about the game.


My experience also seems to indicate that with more players, the game is tighter. The first time we played 4 players, we was choosing not to close locations when we defeated the henchmen, hoping to get the boons below. After losing by mile twice, we stopped fooling around and got to business. We were, granted with some luck, able win twice in a roll.

Regarding the balance issue, as someone pointed out, with more players means more card selection as you progress through the scenarios. I can see individual being a lot more customise and hence, powerful, in my 4 player game than my solo character game. Also a wider range of abilities to deal with threats I suppose.

The check to defeat Barriers are typically not Combat checks, hence you do not the difference in damage.

As you pointed out, it makes no sense to combat a chest. Basically you either open it or you don't. You can even decide whether to keep it around if you fail, hence the part about optionally banishing it.

I view the chest type barrier as hidden boons. As for your last point, there is in fact a trapped chest, the one that gives you an armour card but I believe it is the only one.

magicm wrote:
martryn wrote:

For example:

Valeros flips a card for a pit trap, which has a WIS or Perception to defeat. In his hand, Valeros has the ally that gives an extra 1d10 to a Perception check. Now, Valeros doesn't have Perception. Can Valeros use that ally to add that modifier to his WIS check? Or does that particular ability on that card not have any effect unless played by a character with the Perception skill?

Forgive me if this is addressed in the rules somewhere, as I don't have the game on me, having let a friend try it out for a few days.

I say no. Look in the Rules. Page 11

If your character doesn’t
have ANY of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the
check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page
15), but your die is a d4. You may use a skill that isn’t listed on your
character card ONLY if another card gives your character that skill.

Because he has WIS he must make a WIS-Check and he can not ust the Card.
But if he plays a Card that gives him the Perception SKILL than he can play the Card.

If he dosent have WIS AND Perception he can use the Card. (1d4 + 1d10)

In that case, the ally does give him Perception, making it legal for him to either choose Wis (in which case the ally bonus cannot apply) or Perception (a d4 + d10 w the ally).

However, I think his main question was more, if the character does not have the particular trait, can I use the stat that trait is supposely associated with? The answer, as you pointed out, is no. Although most traits are more or less associated with a single stat, some are not. Arcane is the only example I can think of but there may be more in the future.

1. Any character can use a spell. The only catch is that, unless you have the relevant trait (i.e. Arcane or Divine), you have to Banish it instead of Discarding it. You can see this as the equivalent to using a potion. Also you would have to use a D4 for the base die as Sajan doesn't the above mentioned Traits. Take note that when you can recover a basic (unless you are at adventure 3 and up) spell when you rebuild your deck at the end of scenario because the numbers must match the Card Feats.

2. Only the character that is exploring is making the Combat Check and hence only that character takes damage. All the characters can assist using Blessings, Strength Spell, Lem's ability etc but the Combat Check belongs to that character, so unless specified, only that Character takes damage. Obviously, for things like Black Fang's acid attack, all characters at the location would be affected. But that is a pre Combat Check so I just it's irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

To me, guns are to combat what psionics are to magic. Both have a "modern" feel, leans towards sci-fi and have the potential to disrupt/destroy a fantasy campaign setting.

Now I do acknowledge that, mechanically, psionics is much more likely to have that effect. However, flavourwise I would rank their potential gamebreakingness as almost equal.

Maybe its my nostalgia of 2nd Ed Psionics Handbbook talking but since they included guns, I sorta hope they can integrate psionics somehow into Pathfinder. I know its a challenge but hey its Paizo so maybe they can pull it off.

How bout a Vudra based AP and as a result, Paizo needing to release support material (as they always do) for "the land of the psychics" i.e. Psionics stuff!

Bam, AP set in an exotic land. (To most Pathfinder players, not so much for me since I'm Asian)

Bam, fill the huge gaping hole that is Psionics.

Double win!

I just want to say that imho I think you guys are taking this in the right direction. At this point I'm definitely of the opinion that the campaign setting line is definitely the superior of the 2 and I think one of the reason for this is the variety and the depth the CS line has. I also agree that the format of the companion seemed a bit hemmed in, although I could specifically identify the issue until I saw this thread.

Having said that, I just want to add that I'm super excited by everything Paizo puts out. Knowing that you guys are commited to improving despite the already high quality of your products really blows my mind. You have my upmost respect and Kudos to everyone who works at Paizo.

I have to agree with the posts on fiction. I really like the fiction and have been reading them. However, since Paizo already has the Web Fiction and Tales line (which will be my next subscription), I concur that the space can be put to better use.

Perhaps expanded deities content, fluff and crunch on a AP relevant unique race that syncs up with the ARG or more general info on Golarion/Planes/Planets.

Just my 2 copper.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love a Planetary AP.

I would also love a Numeria/Irrisen AP.

I would love it if those are the next 3 APs.

Don't ask me to rank them, that would be like ranking my cats (If I had any).