Ranger

elcoderdude's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter, 9 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 2,169 posts (2,521 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Greetings, old friends. I was staring at this Magic: The Gathering card, which is a preview from the February 2023 set "Phyrexia: All Will Be One", and I was thinking, "Haven't they used this 'Corrupted' mechanic before?"
Magic:The Gathering card: The Seedcore
...and finally I realized what I remembering was Wrath.


Longshot11,abridged wrote:
... what is this Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite brand? [Is it that] players can now publish (and sell!?) PACG content based on Paizo's own adventure paths [?]

Clarifying for folks who did not chase Kamicosmos' link:

Kamicosmos' link (which hopefully I've made usable here: pathfinder/starfinder infinite link) explains that the answer is "Yes" to Longshot's second suggestion. Starting Oct 13, 2021, you can create and sell products using Paizo's intellectual property -- IF you follow the guidelines (Tyler said elsewhere that Paizo gets half the proceeds from Tyler's sales of his adventure path).


Wow, is this entire thread a blast from the past.
Most of what I'd offer has been mentioned already. In particular:
-- when playing Wrath with less than 5 characters, I'd never add the Character Add-On deck (so as to avoid its copies of the three worst banes);
-- when fighting Armies, pay attention to powers characters have that can defeat barriers (also, note Kyra can take any skill check against an Undead army, using her power);
-- playing the Army scenarios twice with 1/2 the party each time is a sound option IMHO.


Yewstance wrote:

I will however note that, RAW, you still cannot explore the Fishery or Dark Forest if there's only 1 card there.

Thread necromancy because this thread on BGG raised the question of what to do if a Trigger caused one of the examined cards to go away.

Peakhope on that thread opined that the player's selection of a card to shuffle and a card to encounter is not a sequential choice, but, in effective, simultaneous. By the Rule of Limited Resources, if only one card remains, you do not have enough resources to fulfill both choices, so I think you decide whether or not to encounter the remaining card. This resolves both Yewstance's and the BGG poster's dilemmas.


Here's the updated Discord server link for the effort led by skizzerz, cartmanbeck and others to create new fan content for PACG:
https://discord.com/invite/fwGgZK7


Posted to BGG in the PACG Core Set forum:
BGG cross-post


cartmanbeck wrote:

To join the server, please click the following link: Skizzerz's Discord

Hey Tyler -- will you be posting this info on boardgamegeek? (If not - would be OK if I do so?)

My thanks to you and skizzerz and all involved in this noble effort.


Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Do you know whether they've considered crowdfunding, like LSG did with Apocrypha, to cover costs up front?

I don't know, but I am guessing one disincentive to crowdfunding is that two companies (Paizo and Lone Shark) have to agree to the plan (at least in some fashion).


Brother Tyler wrote:
Note that I've flagged this discussion as being in the wrong forum. This isn't an issue that is solely of interest to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Society: it's of general interest to the entire Pathfinder Adventure Card Game community. In my opinion, it belongs in the General Discussion forum.

For the record, as the thread's originator, I object. My OP responds to a post in this form (PACS) by the Organized Play manager. I posted a link to my OP in the PACG General Discussion forum. I see no point in moving this thread now. No PACG forum-watcher should be unaware of this thread's existence.

(FYI, I was not sure if the Powers That Be are monitoring the PACG forum at all; I chose the PACS forum in part because I think the society forums get more eyeballs.)


FYI, Keith responded at length to my thread:

a few words from the president of Lone Shark Games


7 people marked this as a favorite.

THANK YOU, MR. RICHMOND!

I imagine that was difficult to post. I very much appreciate that you did so. (My apologies for being the gadfly who pulled you into this thread.) Knowing a little more about what went on helps me process the loss of the future of PACG. I hope it does the same for others.

You have my sympathy for the hardship you have endured, as do all the folks at Lone Shark. Thank you for all you have done to bring us some of the most enjoyable gaming experiences of our lives.


Regarding this point:

Brother Tyler wrote:
If Paizo is interested in continuing PACG and Lone Shark made the decision to stop...

My conclusion that the decision was Paizo's and not Lone Shark's is based on this remark:

Lone Shark's president wrote:
Jayjazz wrote:
Can we expect Lone Sharks Games to continue to use the PACG type Games in the future ( like apocrypha ) ?
It's a good question, and we haven't really pondered through all of our options there. We've got a few games and puzzle projects in flight, and I've only just started to ponder how to fill the PACG design hours with something new.

(The above exchange is in the #general_chat_acs channel of the Org Play Online Discord, here)

(Brother Tyler was right, this wasn't mentioned in the comments to Tonya's post; I misremembered.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Tyler wrote:
...the lack of an explanation is out of character for everyone involved.

The problem is, everyone is not necessarily involved: Lisa Stevens, Vic Wertz step back from active roles

(Did you notice Vic's most recent post on the Paizo forum was in November 2020?)

My concern is that the lack of explanation is part of a new norm. I am hoping to be proven wrong.


With due respect to my esteemed card-gaming colleague Brother Tyler, a close reading of the responses to Tonya Woldridge's blog post (linked in my OP) tells us that the termination of the Adventure Card Game was Paizo's unilateral decision (Lone Shark was still, um, game).

Radio silence about this jolting about-face is "a slap in the face to loyal customers", as said above. I cannot help but wonder if this is simply the conduct we should expect from the new management at Paizo. I created this thread hoping that a Paizo representative would convince us that that is not true.


FYI I created a post in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Society forum asking Paizo to tell us something (anything) about the decision to terminate the product line:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43e9p?Dear-Paizo-Please-tell-us-why-you-killed -this

I ask that you post comments on that thread, so as to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Earlier this year Paizo ended the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game product line. The only public indication of this decision was a single sentence at the beginning of this blog post by Organized Play Manager Tonya Woldridge:

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
As we continue winding down our Pathfinder Adventure Card Game program, we’ve decided to end it with a bang!

That head-scratch-inducing line implies the product line's termination had been mentioned elsewhere. (It hadn't.) The fact that the Organized Play Manager posted this in the PACS forum led many to believe that only PACG Organized Play is scheduled for termination, not PACG itself. (In fact, both are).

PaizoCon just came and went with nary a mention of the card game's demise, AFAIK. Now - I know Paizo is an RPG company. But Paizo's near-total lack of communication about this decision disregards three facts:
(1) Loyal card games fans have spent $800 to $1000, or more, on Paizo. MRSP for the complete sets is $820; organized play decks and PDFs push that higher.
(2) Many card game players are long-time Pathfinder RPG players. When an RPG player accidently posts in the card game forum, nearly always a card game player is well-versed enough to answer the RPG question. And, despite having very few friends, even I know more than one five-star Pathfinder GM who plays the card game.
(3) Many non-RPG-playing card game players have now started playing the Pathfinder RPG. Myself included. The first RPG purchases I made in my adult life were for Pathfinder, because I first played the card game.

Paizo's non-communication about the card game's demise conveys a very non-Paizo-like disrespect for customers which is reminiscent of Another RPG Company Which Will Not Be Named.* Dear Paizo: can't you do better?
(*Wizards of the Coast. There. I said it.)


No worries - this happens every now and then (it is easy to do). If you're lucky, someone who plays both may even give you a solid answer (I cannot, unfortunately.)


Chad Turn: Closing a location on your character's first turn of the game.
(Originally I thought this was named for Chad Brown, the Lone Shark developer, but the Hawkmoon/Eliandra/etc playing contingent enlightened me that it's named for a gamer they play with.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kamicosmos wrote:
Well, the official news is out and the game is 'dead'...

To be clear: the end announced here is the end of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Society, not necessarily the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. (Or, at least, it's unclear.)

It's a loss, to be sure, but I'm still not certain if we've lost both, or just the former.

UPDATE: I'm sure y'all are familiar with stage 1 in Kubler-Ross's five stages of grieving. (Denial - it's not a river in Egypt.) That was me seeing this 15 minutes ago. The online VC Tyler Beck states unambiguously in the blog comments that this is the end of PACG, not just PACGS.
As wkover aptly also commented, the blog post is the "strangest, most out-of-the-blue backdoor eulogy that I've ever seen." I really wonder exactly what went down inside Paizo.

My wild guess is COVID-19 caused a sharp downturn in Paizo's profits (like so many companies), forcing Lisa & Co. to axe the least profitable products.


Glad you are enjoying PACG!

The first adventure of Rise of the Runelords is the B adventure, Perils of the Lost Coast; the first scenario of that adventure is Brigandoom!. I assume that's the one you will be playing.

To build your character's starting deck, the rules are:
(1) You can only use cards which have the "B" or "C" adventure deck 'number'; and,
(2) You can only use cards with the 'Basic' trait (or, if you happen to have a B,C or P card marked 'Owner:<your character's name', you could use that, but no such cards appear in RotR itself); and,
(3) The mix of cards in your deck must match the count and type of cards listed on the back of your character's character card (for example, Harsk starts with 5 weapons, no spells, 1 armor, 3 items, 1 ally and 5 blessings).

To build the location decks when playing the B scenarios, you take all the monsters with the B adventure deck 'number' (and also the C adventure deck 'number', if you happen to have the Character Add-On deck), shuffle those, and randomly select (face-down) the number of monsters indicated by each location type. The same for each card type. You won't use the adventure deck 1 cards until you play the first adventure deck 1 scenario (Attack on Sandpoint). When you play that scenario, you shuffle all the AD1 cards of each type with the 'B' and 'C' cards of that type before building the locations. And so on.

You are correct about rebuilding your deck: you can use any boons the party acquired during the scenario (whether or not you banished cards - you can replace cards you started the scenario with by using boons the party acquired during the scenario or as rewards). Your rebuilt deck must match the card type and count list on the back of your character card (as modified by any card feats your character earns). If your party lacks enough cards of a given type for a character to make a complete deck, you can go to the box and select a card of that type (but you have to choose a Basic card, until you are playing Adventure 3; after that you can pull any card with an adventure deck 2 or more lower, meaning in adventure 3 you can pull an AD1 card, in adventure 4 you can pull an AD2 card, etc.)


Brother Tyler wrote:
I would play (display) this card as soon as I could, not waiting for my turn.

I just re-read the card twice. The final power ("At the start of your turn, recharge this card and banish the stack") is not optional. As I read it, if the Wondrous Rod is currently displayed when your turn begins, then you must recharge it and banish the stack.

[Note to folks just traipsing across this thread: Brother Tyler and I are discussing the *final, unpublished* Wondrous Rod card shown in the blog above.]


During the game, when can the 'final' version of Wondrous Rod be played?

At first, I thought it could not be played during an encounter. But, the displayed Wondrous Rod does have a 'When encounters' power. Can I play the Wondrous Rod whenever any character encounters a card?

Regardless, I think I would typically play this card before my own Explore step (unless playing Wrath of the Righteous, in which case I would wait for a Horde or Blight). The card seems most useful for large parties.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's something marvelously ironic about Hawkmoon making one of his rarer-than-a-blue-moon errors responding to a question about Aspect of the Hawk...


Snake0202 wrote:

I really think the game could have worded some of this stuff better. All they had to do with that ability was say "when you attempt a check during the before acting step of an encounter you may use divine instead of the listed skill."

Boom much clearer.

Except, the published version has 38 characters before "you may use Divine" and your version has 70. Space is at a premium on character cards (all cards, really).

Although, I do agree some of the game's wording is infelicitous.


During Paizocon, both Tyler Beck (the online VC) and Keith Richmond (who I assume y'all know*) confirmed that Remove Curse definitely does not remove Core Set Scourges. This is by design.
(*If not, see the names on the outside of the Core Set box.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Try the official Seasons...

More about that here: https://paizo.com/pacs

In particular, scenario PDFs can be purchased here (but mind, only the latest were written for the Core Set):
https://paizo.com/store/pacg/pacs

(Note: Paizo's site is wonky at the moment - I kept retrying and the pages did load)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 to Malcolm. 18 is too much (in the example in which the check as a difficulty of 15).
I'm staring at the errata and finding the use of "at least" to be very odd. Is it grammatically correct? I think "does not exceed the difficulty by 3 or more" would have been easier to understand.
EDIT: ninja'd


Calthaer wrote:
...so that the boonosity can become even more supreme.

Seldom have I seen someone's play style expressed so concisely. (If someone had quoted this line to me from this forum, I would have immediately have said "Calthaer".) I could readily imagine a T-shirt with some variant of this phrase... :)

(My own would be along the lines of "If we solve the scenario, I'm happy.")


I do agree the "When you end this turn at our location..." phrasing is odd.
Does this more-obvious wording have any problems?

Hypothetical 5-Pointed Sun wrote:

AT THIS LOCATION

At the end of your turn, each character is dealt d4 Cold damage.

This looks functionally identical to me.

Paizo designers - can you clarify if the "When..." phrasing is meant to convey a different meaning?
(Keith-signal activated.)


skizzerz - can you confirm that you are saying that both the Peakhope example and my Amiri-like Lem example are invalid? Or does the moving-away situation work differently here than does the moving-to?

EDIT: It seems the Amari-like dodge definitely does not work.
In this Shadow Clock discussion, Mike Selinker says the nearly-identical Shadow Clock end of turn effect cannot be foiled by moving away during the end of your turn*.
*Caveat: Mike wrote that in 2013. The official understanding could be different now.


My good friend Frencois - I hate to say this, but I do not understand what you are saying in your post.
(I'm sure if you posted it in French it would be crystal clear. I still would not understand it, but that would be entirely my fault.)


I am unable to find a definitive answer in the rulebook or forum.
My first instinct is to apply the rule "if the game does not specify the order, you choose the order", and to agree with Peakhope.
But, my second thought is to reverse that position, and instead adhere to what I will call the "skizzerz school" of end-of-turn effects, based on this post:

2015 skizzerz wrote:
I play start of turn/end of turn in PACG like I would play those phases in Sentinels of the Multiverse, where you evaluate the set of all available start of turn effects and then choose one of them to resolve. After that's finished resolving, you evaluate the set of all available start of turn effects (which may be different now based on what just happened) and then choose one of them to resolve. Lather, rinse, and repeat until you're out of start of turn effects to apply. End of turn works exactly the same way.

Applying this to Peakhope's example gives:

1. Varril's End Your Turn step begins
2. End of turn effects at Varril's current location are applied OR Varril moves away from that location before they apply
3. Varril arrives at Five-Pointed Sun
4. Because Varril is at the Five-Pointed Sun during his End Your Turn step, the location's "At This Location" power applies, so Varril takes 1d4 Cold damage.
5. The location Five-Pointed Sun is occupied during Varril's End Your Turn step, so the scenario's power does not add a monster to that location.
But. My final judgement is to switch back to agreeing with Peakhope, due to the scenario's first power. Why is it there? Burying a random card from your deck is *extremely* expensive. Isn't this power intended to permit the Peakhope maneuver? And also the more obvious "classic Amari-like dodge":
1. Lem (let's say), at the Five-Pointed Sun, begins his End Your Turn step
2. The Five-Pointed Sun is occupied, so no monster is added to the location
3. Lem buries the top card of his deck to move away from the Five-Pointed Sun
4. Lem does not suffer 1d4 Cold damage, because he is not at the Five-Pointed Sun
Belatedly, I just noticed that the Five-Pointed Sun's Cold damage applies to every character, regardless of location*, which makes burying a card to move away make a lot more sense, even if the downside is adding a monster. But I've spend over an hour on this & I have to start my day, so I'll leave it be.
*Mummy's Mask is a distant memory for me, apparently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Peakhope on boardgamegeek.com posed this interesting question:
The Mummy's Mask scenario 5E, "Tef-Naju's Bastion", says:

MM 5E Scenario wrote:

At the end of your turn, you may bury the top card of your deck to move.

At the end of your turn, if the location Five-Pointed Sun is unoccupied, add a monster from the box to the top of that location deck.

The (much beloved) location Five-Pointed Sun says:

5-Pointed Sun wrote:

AT THIS LOCATION

When you end your turn at this location, each character is dealt 1d4 Cold damage.

Peakhope is playing the Inquisitor Class Deck character Varril and has taken this Knight of the Rose role power feat:

Varril wrote:
At the end of your turn, if you are the only character at your location, you may move.

Peakhope asked, If Varril is alone at another location at the end of his turn, can he apply the end-of-turn effects in this order:

1. Apply the Five-Pointed Sun location effect, thus taking no damage.
2. Activate Varril's power to move to the Five-Pointed Sun location.
3. Apply the scenario effect, thus not adding a monster.
?


+1 to Parody.

But note: even if power which was (for example) "Recharge a card to reduce damage to [this character] by 1" could be used once during the "Before Acting" step and once during the "Attempt the Check" step. A character can use the same power once during each step of an encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 to Parody.

Core Set Rulebook, p.12 wrote:
Suffer Damage, If Necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, you suffer an amount of damage equal to the difference between the difficulty and the result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage.

Even when a Monster's Check to Defeat is a non-combat check, you suffer Combat damage if you roll less then the check's difficulty.

Note, however - this is only for banes with the type "Monster". You do not automatically suffer damage when you fail to defeat a Barrier - each Barrier tells you exactly what are the consequences of failure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are right: you've played both of those examples incorrectly.

Re Deathtrap: The cited Ring of the Godless power is nearly useless for a character who already has Divine: Wisdom+3 as a skill. When this character recharges the Ring, the effect is it *reduces* their modifier (it changes their Divine skill from "Wisdom+3" to "Wisdom+2"). As Scripted said, the card is not per se a buff.
I am assuming the character encountering the MDT is Drelm, and he has taken the power feat allowing him to use the cited power against a Trap (because the MDT is not an Obstacle, but it is a Trap.) If so: The way Drelm should defeat the MDT is to use his Disable skill against the Disable 5 Check To Defeat. He then would roll his Disable skill plus his Divine skill; assuming no skill feats, this would be d8+2+d8+3, which is 2d8+5. (Drelm is also a barrier-buster). Recharging the Ring of the Godless would make his check *worse* (at 2d8+4).

See the Skill rulebook text I cited on your other thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever Simoun attempts a Check To Defeat against a bane with the type Barrier, Simoun adds her Perception skill, which is Intelligence + 2. Any check. It could be a Wisdom check. As long as it is a check to defeat a barrier, Simoun adds this. Before Simoun gets an Intelligence skill feat, she would add d8+2. After she gets an Intelligence skill feat, she would add d8+3. And so on.

So in your example of a Disable check to defeat to a barrier, she rolls d12+1+d8+2, assuming she has no relevant skill feats. Simoun's a barrier-buster.

FYI Every since the second PACG set (Skull&Shackles), the term "skill" always means both the die AND the modifier. See here:

MM rulebook, Sidebar, p.11 wrote:

RULES: SKILLS, DICE, AND MODIFIERS

If your character card says “Strength d10,” and the “+1” box next to that has been checked, your Strength skill is d10+1, and your Strength die is d10. (The “+1” is called a “modifier.”) If your character card also says “Melee: Strength +3,” your Melee skill is d10+4, your Melee die is d10, and the Melee modifier is +4.


stormborn125 wrote:
any ocean creatures like this?

?

You do realize you posted this question in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forum, right?
As for the card game - sounds like Hirgenzosk to me.


+1 to Brother Tyler here. My understanding is that even in 'PACG 2.0'* a character can only use a particular character power once on a given check.
*If you'll pardon the expression.


This order is for TWO COPIES of the same small box. Bizarrely the shipping calculator is charging me for two shipments.
Um... wth?
I know we need to support the USPS, but... please ensure these ship in a single shipment. I'll wait if need be. No rush.
Thanks
Robert


OK, instead of buying 30+$ of product, I bought $6. This order went through. Perhaps something I pulled off caused the 404. No idea.


OK, instead of buying 30+$ of product, I bought $6. This order went through. Perhaps something I pulled off caused the 404. No idea.


?
It's been a week without even as much as a "We'll look into it." reply. I know y'all are short-staffed, but... ?
So, forget it. I am going to scrap my shopping card and start over.
My guess is: there is an item in my shopping cart that for some reason causes a 404 when I submit my order. (Perhaps more than one such item, but at least one.) I'll post here if I narrow it down to a single item that causes this 404.


?
It's been a week without even as much as a "We'll look into it." reply. I know y'all are short-staffed, but... ?
So, forget it. I am going to scrap my shopping card and start over.
I'll post here if I narrow it down to a single item that causes this 404.


eddiephlash wrote:
Oh no! If you are already in the server, you can find the channel under the Adventure Card Society group. Not sure why the link isn't working. It should work if you type "pfschat.com" in your browser.

Now it works.

pfschat.com as a Discord invite link literally just started working for me (tried it 5 minutes ago, it failed again, went poking around trying to diagnose the problem, tried it just now, it works.)


+1 that the link to pfschat.com just leads to That Site Can't Be Reached.
The Discord server is "Org Play Online" (which I am enrolled in) but I lack the Discord-fu to know how to post a link to that.
The Warhorn link above works, though.


Kind of wondering if this problem is somehow on my end, although I don't see how it could be, given that *no one else is complaining*.
I have an order in my Shopping Cart which gives me a 404 (Page Not Found) and the huge golem image if I try to:
-- View/Edit Shipping Details, or
-- Place Order (literally, click the Place Order button on step 4 of checking out)
The last one seems kind of important.
My hunch is: I have something in my cart which is causing the site to throw a 404 when I try to check out.
Can y'all look into this?
(And.... if you find the problem on Monday, can I still have the PaizoCon discount I tried to apply? I spent 20 minutes yesterday and 15 minutes today trying to force this order through.)
Thanks
Robert


Clicking Place Order on my shopping cart (after going through all 4 steps of checkout) gives me a 404 with the big golem.

Can you fix this?

Tried to check out for 20 minutes yesterday. And 10 more today.

Also -- PLEASE tell me you are not shipping 2shirts and 4 little boxes in 5 shipments.

Thanks


I figure so many production facilities are either shut down or swamped with backorders due to the pandemic, announcing a new PACG release doesn't make business sense ATM. (I *do* hope they have already designed or mostly-designed it though...)


Jenceslav wrote:
Don't forget that there are (many) cards with Curse trait in earlier editions of Pathfinder and this spell removed them as well, not just "removed Mummy's Mask scourges". For example, Curse of the Deep in S&S.

Many? Isn't it on the order of 3 or 4 unique cards across the first 3 sets?

Jenceslav wrote:
I agree that some Core scourges might qualify for getting removed - but definitely not all. Wounded, Poisoned, Exhausted are not really curses. Drained maybe, in some ways. Plagued definitely, if talking about Blood Veil. Dazed? I am not sure.

You've raised a solid point I had not grasped: Core Scourges are designed to be able to represent afflictions that are not brought on by a curse, and so are a broader category than Curses. Huh.

Although, I think you can't say 'this is a Curse and that's not' simply by looking at the condition: you say that Exhausted isn't a curse, and Dazed may not be, yet a character can suffer both of these by failing to defeat Core or CotCT barriers which have the Curse trait (Phantasmal Apparition can make you Frightened and Exhausted; both Mad Prophet and Evil Eye can leave you Dazed.)

Jenceslav wrote:
Is the card virtually useless in post-Core environment? Pretty much.

:(

Is it too elaborate to convert "Remove Curse" to "remove a displayed card with the Curse trait, or remove a Scourge a character suffered due to a bane with the Curse trait"?

1 to 50 of 2,169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>