I'm enjoying it, but I'm concerned about the complexity level increase. There's a lot going on with a lot of the cards, and it reminds me of why Magic had to introduce New World Order. I wouldn't use it to introduce a new player to the game.
At this point, Skulls and Shackles is still my favorite set.
I'm thinking about rebuilding Jhod. My party already has a cleric of Erastil and he seems overly duplicative if I keep him as is. I'd even choose the same domains for him that my player has (law and community). But I'm having a hard time deciding which class to rebuild him as.
I have a five person party: human sorcerer (destined bloodline), human cleric of Erastil, half-orc warpriest of Gorum, half-orc inquisitor of Gorum, and elf slayer. Therefore, I'm slightly disinclined to rebuild him as a warpriest or as an inquisitor.
The other choices don't seem that exciting though. I don't like any of the oracle mysteries for the character. (Likewise for the shaman's spirits, since they're the same pattern.) Druid just seems off somehow, but maybe it would work? He'd have a hawk animal companion, I think, if I go that way.
Part of me actually wants to go adept. It's a nerf, but I already have a five-person party and will largely be trying to keep the NPCs out of combat. Adept Jhod could serve on their council just as easily as Cleric Jhod.
All that said, from a back-story perspective, given his troubled past, maybe inquisitor is best alternate fit? It has all the right skills to be a woodsman, and inquisitor seems like a good class to get caught up in the sort of trouble Jhod did. An inquisitor of Erastil seems like it shouldn't step too badly on the toes of an inquisitor of Gorum.
You may have already included a nice red herring. Canonically, the Red Mantis refuse to go after monarchs. It has to do with Achaekek's place in the pantheon as an agent of divine will and his inability to target a divinity combined with a divine right of kings theology for the Mantis. (Although, to be fair, the restriction is that "rightful" kings are safe, so if they could be convinced that the Surtovas are not "rightful"...)
Who else have they interacted with geopolitically? Any of the other major houses of Brevoy, along with Mivon and Pitax could be good suspects.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Thanks, I didn't have the card handy.
So, if you were going to play an attack spell, I'm thinking that you would need to play it first, to set the skill being used. Then you would want to play this, but I'm still not sure if you can.
My brother's poor Lini had already rolled the dice for Geyser + Blazing Servant on a combat check when it occurred to me that I didn't think it worked. We took the results and moved on, and I said I'd asked the forums.
The text of Blazing Servant says, in part, "You may play another spell on this check." Since it only adds to your check though, you would have to play it in part 3 of the Attempting a Check Sequence: Play Cards and Powers that Affect the Check. Playing the attack spell happens back in part 1, though: Determine which Skill You're Using.
In order to use Blazing Servant with an attack spell, it would need to say "You may play this card even if you've already played a spell on this check" or something similar, right? Or am I overthinking this?
The first power adds 1 to "your Constitution, Fortitude, Wisdom, or Survival" check or 1d8 if on a ship.
In two player, extra explores are nice but not necessary. I used allies for their non-explore powers probably about half the time. The one I dreaded was the Albatross, which never seemed worth using.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
The Immortal Dreamstone does the displaying itself via one of its powers. It doesn't let you use any displayed ally, only ones that it displayed. It's basically an Emerald Codex for allies.
My brother (Lini) and I (Merisiel) just finished "The Toll of the Bell". About halfway through the scenario, it suddenly dawned on me that he was under-utilizing Besmara's Tricorne. (He had it as Jirelle in our first campaign, and I think we were just tunnel-visioned into seeing it as a Fortitude and Survival item.)
He can reveal the Tricorne while on a ship to 1d8 to his Divine combat checks, right, since it's Wisdom-based? And then reveal it to add 1d8 on the recharge, since it's a different step?
I had this as Damiel in our first campaign and never figured out how it worked with allies that use more than one card. For example, the Capuchin has "Reveal this and discard another card to add 1d6..." and a lot of the captains have similar language. The Dreamstone lets you banish a displayed ally "for its power as though you had played it as an ally."
I see two possiblities:
A. The Dreamstone's banish effect replaces everything before "to". The Capuchin then becomes "Banish this ally while displayed to add 1d6..."
B. The Dreamstone's banish effect replaces what you would do with the ally itself. The Capuchin then becomes "Banish this ally while displayed and discard another card to add 1d6..."
I went with the second reading, but I'm really not sure.
Final versions of these characters, following completion of the AP and the bonus scenario, which we played last to be able to use those final goodies. No deaths. Damiel got the bonus skill feat from the genie because I won high roll.
Character Name: Jirelle
Character Name: Damiel
S&S has a non-divine blessing. Pirate's Favor which is a Loot blessing to boot.I have also never read Mummy's Mask so am uncertain what could be the possibility.
Oh, neat. Our copy of Pirate's Favor in my brother's Jirelle deck as opposed to my Damiel deck, so I didn't realize it was non-divine.
My brother's and my characters at midpoint, no deaths:
Character Name: Jirelle
Character Name: Damiel
Just anecdotally, when we played OP at GenCon I think we had 6 every time. We might have had 5 but we definitely never had 4. We got through the scenarios (1-4) in 2 hours (or less) each and only lost once.
That is very strange to me. I was only in four-player tables, which they seemed to be working very hard to maintain. I saw a couple of 5 but never 6.
It could be both. "Banish from your hand or for its power."
This also make this Damiel question overlap with the question about his recharging displayed spells.
Edit: for what it's worth, to me "for its power" makes more sense. Being able to get around banish costs in a power makes him better at using the item. Getting around other banishings just seems like a gamey loophole. If that's what's intended, though, perhaps what is needed is just outlawing the unintended version. "If you would banish an item with the alchemical trait other than by failing to acquire it, recharge it instead."
Edit: we don't actually know yet which version would be more powerful. We don't know the ratio of displayed alchemical items to other banishings over the whole adventure path.
Is this card missing some once-per-turn language? Relevant part of the power:
"Reveal this card on your turn and choose a category:boon or bane. Then examine the top card of your location deck. If that card matches your choice, encounter it."
Can't you just reveal it, see what the card is, reveal again knowing which category to choose, and repeat until you've cleared a deck? Assuming that you can handle all of the relevant checks to defeat?
I played twice over my short weekend at gencon (thurs/fri). Short summary of my experience: new characters are interesting, scenario one is very hard, event staff was enthusiastic but not very knowledgeable. (I won't be expanding on that point because I don't want to harsh on volunteers, but two out of the three I interacted with seemed to me to have a poor grasp on the rules. Last one was very good.)
First night I played Kyra at the last session of the night. My teammates were a shaky Ezren, a ok Wu Shen, and a good Valeros. Ezren died with about ten turns remaining, exploring into 3-card location, one of which was known to be the villain, with any attack spells. Wu Shen almost died, I spent like four-five turns trying to closing a divine 8 checkwith 1-2 haunts stuck to me, and Valeros pretty much saved the day.
Second day I played midday as Bekah, who I quite enjoyed. Pretty solid group of the gnome fighter and sorcerers (husband and wife players) and radillo. Very cooperative group, very ready to spend blessings on each other. That might have been our downfall, actually, because we lost on time with about two and a half locations to go. Radillo died, and the gnome sorcerer came close, but I finally cured her back up.
My main takeaway from organized play is that I would anticipate having to replay scenarios quite frequently if that first one is any indication of the difficulty level.
My Kyra, now in a two-person party with Lem (my friend playing Valeros is bored with the game), at the end of Hook Mountain:
Skill feats: Strength+2, Wisdom+2 (alternating Wisdom and Strength)
Power feats: Weapon proficiency, Hand size 6, healing 1d4+2, with one to-be-chosen (in order)
Card feats: spell, ally, weapon (in order)
Weapon: Impaler of Thorns, Bastard Sword+1, Longsword+1
Even when we had Valeros, I focused on melee capability. I think I briefly had an Inflict, but the divine spells really lend themselves to utility usage. I love Find Traps - it really shores up a major weakness for Kyra.
I've been happy with the skill feats. I'm alternating between Wisdom and Strength and will probably continue to do so until I run out of boxes to check. After that, I'll probably go Charisma for picking up allies.
Not much to say about the power feats; turning undead just hasn't happen often enough to want to upgrade it yet.
Cards/card feats: Choosing the weapon card feat during Hook Mountain was taking advantage of a quirk in our available card pool at the time. Broadly speaking, I would have preferred spell or blessing. (I'm also considering item, since so much of the loot is that card type)
My blessings are probably too combat oriented at this point; I'll be looking for worthwhile blessings to pick up as we keep playing. I'd particularly like some Abadar and Norgorber.
What are people thinking for role cards? I love what the Healer card does for Kyra's spontaneous healing ability, but since I'm melee-focused, I feel like Exorcist might be better for my situation. I wish I knew just how prevalent outsiders are going to be in the future.
Two questions about Shield of Swings:
1) Shield of Swings lets you trade half your damage for a shield bonus to AC when full-attacking with a two-handed weapon. Trip, disarm, and sunder maneuvers are allowed to be substituted for the individual attacks of a full-attack. Rules-as-written, can you substitute out all of the attacks for maneuvers, dealing half of no damage, and get the shield bonus?
2) The SRD's definition of a full attack runs like this: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones." Can a character whose base attack bonus is not high enough and not fighting with two- or double- weapons declare that they are making a full attack if they otherwise follow the rules for full attack (no other actions except a five foot step)?
This question is also known as "Is Shield of Swings useable before sixth level?".
A character with a base attack bonus of one or more is tripped. On his turn, he announces that he is going to stand from prone as a move action, provoking an attack of opportunity. The opponent he provokes chooses to use the disarm combat manuever as the attack of opportunity, and successfully disarms the character. Utilizing the rule, "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move", can the character now draw a second weapon as part of the stand from prone?
Put another way, the "Stand Up" action is defined as "Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity." Is this a "regular move" within the meaning of "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" rule?