... 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.
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.
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.)
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:
(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.)
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:
I ask that you post comments on that thread, so as to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks.
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:
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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):
(Note: Paizo's site is wonky at the moment - I kept retrying and the pages did load)
...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.
Hypothetical 5-Pointed Sun wrote:
This looks functionally identical to me.Paizo designers - can you clarify if the "When..." phrasing is meant to convey a different meaning?
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.
I am unable to find a definitive answer in the rulebook or forum.
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.
Peakhope on boardgamegeek.com posed this interesting question:
MM 5E Scenario wrote:
The (much beloved) location Five-Pointed Sun says:
5-Pointed Sun wrote:
Peakhope is playing the Inquisitor Class Deck character Varril and has taken this Knight of the Rose role power feat:
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.
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.
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.
See the Skill rulebook text I cited on your other thread.
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:
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.)
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*.
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?
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.)
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"?