pluvia33's page

Organized Play Member. 818 posts. No reviews. No lists. 4 wishlists. 19 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, good point. Well, the "once per round" thing can just be added to my hypothetical addition to Quick Bomber: "Also, once per round, when using the Quick Alchemy action to create at least one bomb, you may Strike with one as part of the action."

That way, Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity would still be meaningful abilities for a bomber.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, was it intentional that Quick Bomber lost its interaction with Quick Alchemy in the final version? The feat was a bit different in the playtest overall, but it had a mention of how it interacted with Quick Alchemy while the final version has no such thing. With how integral Quick Alchemy is to a Bomber Alchemist, this omission seems odd.

It feels like Quick Bomber is missing an additional sentence which should say something like: "Also, when using the Quick Alchemy action to create at least one bomb, you may Strike with one as part of the action."

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
morairtym: I think it's still better to be Dying 5 than dead... Why wouldn't it take longer to recover?

Also, from how I understand it, being slowed 5 for 1 round is no different than being slowed 3 for 1 round; either way you can't spend any of our main actions during the round, and then it goes away. It doesn't take any longer to recover from waking up, no matter what slowed value you end up with.

CommanderCoyler wrote:

The suggestions for the recovery DCs are also (still) vague and overly complex.

It should be something like a DC 10 flat check (so 1 is +2 stages, 2-9 is +1, 10-19 is -1, 20 is -2) or a DC 14 + attacker's level fort save rather than faffing with individual DCs for wether the attacker is using magic or physical attacks, the phase of the moon, the season etc.

Personally, I don't have any issue with how the DC is figured out. It's no worse than a lot of the other things the GM has to come up with. And I for one would despise having recovery changed to a flat DC check.

Actually, what I'd really want clarification on is what happens when you get rid of your dying condition via Recovery Saving Throws. From the looks of it, if you make your saves and no longer have the dying condition (reduce it to "dying 0"), then you are still knocked out and at 0 HP. The only way to regain consciousness is to either heal your hit points or wait the 10+ minutes to regain consciousness naturally. Is how it is intended to work?

I mean, it definitely makes more realistic sense this way. However, while the instantly-back-up-when-healed rules seem very much in line with the stated goal of getting "people back into the fight more consistently by removing the recovery roll for unconscious characters", the fact that characters now seemingly cannot regain consciousness at all via recovery rolls seems completely counter to that goal.

Personally, something like this is what I'd like to see:

(1 Action) FLYING KICK - FEAT 4
(Monk) Frequency: Once per round.
Make a Leap. If you're adjacent to a foe at the end of your movement, you can immediately Strike that foe. You may perform the single action version of Long Jump provided by the Quick Jump skill feat in place of a Leap if you also have that feat.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
So essentially Flying Kick is giving you the potential to move up to twice your speed and strike as only 2 actions.

Hmmm, okay, when I originally read Long Jump, I thought your total movement couldn't be further than your movement speed.

However, this is still just a riskier, much more restrictive version of Sudden Charge which can't be taken until three levels later than the fighter. And why even have the "once per round" stipulation if it's supposed to be 2 actions? I can't see any way that you'd ever be able to do more than one named 2-action things on a turn anyway. It still seems rather odd.

While reading through the classes, the Monk's Flying Kick feat seemed rather odd to me. For a Feat 4, you can spend 2 actions to either do something that any character can do already (Leap and Strike), or you can save one action on a very situational and/or potentially risky Long Jump and Strike.

It really seems like a pretty pointless feat with the 2-action cost (furthermore being limited to once per round), so I have to wonder, should this instead be 1 action?? That would make it much closer to the purpose of the UC Monk's Flying Kick Style Strike.

So is the action cost a typo? Is it just a very situational feat? Or am I missing something? Thanks! Really enjoying the book so far!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping they'll launch the update shortly after Ultimate Wilderness is out since that seems like it may be the final "First Edition" PFACG release.

Thank you every much for the community-made sheets in the meantime!! A friend and I recently got back into this after being distracted by many other games (mainly Gloomhaven) and are quickly nearing the end of our Goblin playthrough of S&S. We'll likely be doing a Hell's Vengeance re-play of Wrath using the OP scenarios next. ^_^

Zhayne wrote:
Not really my bag (I just can't see me ever using a 'screw your teammate' power), but I know a couple of people who will love them.

Personally I tend to hate "take that" mechanics in tabletop games, but I don't really see these powers as all that mean-spirited. They seem more like "screw WITH your teammate" powers than "SCREW your teammate" powers. There can be plenty of situations when a character would be plenty willing to discard a card (they have junk in their hand), take more damage (they're being hand wiped or using a "reduce damage to 0" power anyway), or even banish a card that they acquired of their favored card type (such as acquiring a lame Basic card after Adventure 3; banish that crap and remove it from the box!).

It's also worth remembering that your character is always considered to be "a character at your location" so these types of powers can be used on yourself whenever appropriate. To me, these powers look like they'll be really fun and versatile.

Can't wait to get this and the second villain deck!

SenahBirdR wrote:
Agreed with the above. I have four or five copies from the subscription and have all of them in my Skull & Shackles box.

I believe you're thinking of the Blessing of Zogmugot as that was the blessing promo for S&S and the one that they provided 5 copies of via subscription.

I remember one of the developers for the game stating that it isn't recommended to use multiple copies of this blessing as it can be rather powerful (can't find the specific post at the moment), though you can do whatever you like in your home game if it's fun for you. However, I believe that this rule makes it so any blessing that shares the god's trait is considered to meet the "matches this card" requirement for recharging. Therefore, if you play a game mixing in either or both of the Goblin decks you will eventually have 2 to 4 more blessings with the Zarongel trait in the mix that can potentially let you recharge the Blessing of Zarongel.

A couple of friends and I are currently gearing up to play a super-goblin, non-organized-play edition of Skull & Shackles using both of the Goblin decks and as many goblin promos as possible (I may or may not break the normal 12-promo limit, but will definitely be using all five of my Blessings of Zogmugot). I'm really looking forward to having Poog, Mogmurch, and Reta sail the Inner Seas, wreaking all kinds of havoc.

Opening Notes: Two player, two character game. Didn't use the Character Add-on deck since we didn't use any characters from it, but we did add the cards from both the Alchemist and Paladin Class Decks. Also, since using two class decks was making some of the stacks rather large, when we got to Adventure 5 I implemented a minor(?) house rule of removing any remaining Basic cards (both bane and boon) from the box when we began removing Elite cards. Otherwise all of the Armor would no longer fit in its slot in the insert and Items and Allies were uncomfortably snug (like I was afraid it would cause damage to the cards). Hope doing this doesn't make our data invalid.

Character Name: Damiel (Class Deck version)
Role Card: Mindchemist
Skill Feats: Strength +1, Dexterity +4, Constitution +1, Intelligence +4, Wisdom +1, Charisma +1
Power Feats: +2 hand size, would banish (or discard), (or shuffle it into your deck), (or any 2 cards), (or your Strength...), You may bury..., bury (or discard), (+2), (or Wisdom or Charisma), (Then you may draw a card.)
Card Feats: Weapon +1, Spell +1, Armor +1, Item +3, Ally +1, Blessing +2
Weapons: Deskari's Tooth, Flame Cannon, Marksman's Bow, Master's Lash, Mournful Razor
Spells: Cure, Divine Fortune, Major Cure, Restore Mythic Power
Armors: Alchemist's Shield, Laboratory Coat
Items: Alchemist's Fire (x2), Alkali Flask, Liquid Ice, Potion of Restoration, Sunrod, Tears of Death
Allies: Deathtrap in a Jar
Blessings: Blessing of Abadar, Blessing of Erastil, Blessing of Nethys (x2), Blessing of Norgorber
Mythic Path: Mythic Trickster

Character Name: Seelah (Wrath of the Righteous version)
Role Card: Inheritor's Blade
Skill Feats: Strength +4, Dexterity +1, Constitution +1, Intelligence +1, Wisdom +2, Charisma +3
Power Feats: +3 hand size, (+1), (if the character defeats...),
(if the top card has...), You may be dealt 1 Combat Damage, (or any damage), (2), (3), When you play a blessing...
Card Feats: Weapon +1, Spell +2, Armor +1, Ally +2, Blessing +3
Weapons: Dawnflower's Kiss, Demonbane Longsword +2, Holy Radiance,
Noriznigath, Spellsword +2
Spells: Cure (x2), Winds of Vengeance
Armors: Ebon Thorn (x2), Fortress Shield, Stole of the Inheritor
Items: Chalice of Ozem
Allies: Anesthetizing Slime, Celestiel Unicorn, Pit Gladiator,
Blessings: Blessing of Iomedae (x5), Blessing of Nethys (x2)
Mythic Path: Mythic Marshal, then Sword of Iomedae

Cards Redeemed: Blackaxe, Soulshear

Closing Notes: No cohort or character deaths during the actual Adventure Path, but a REALLY bad set of die rolls from Seelah's second check against Deskari (four d20s all rolling single digit results) got us killed in Justifiable Deicide. It was sad and a little anti-climatic, but I guess he was just too powerful for us. In retrospect, I (as Damiel) probably could have taken two of the checks instead of Seelah, but you live and learn. It also would have made the final scenario much easier if I would have played Arueshalae as a third character when we unlocked her, but it would have been kind of awkward playing two characters at once and I'd feel kind of bad for taking twice as many turns as my friend. Oh well, you live (or die) and you learn. Anyway, back to the Adventure Path scenarios, we never had to replay any, but I think we had three really close calls.

Two players, no deaths, no failed scenarios but one scenario did come down to the final blessing card. This duo was pretty effective.

Character Name: Mavaro
Role Card: Channeler
Skill Feats: Intelligence +4, Wisdom +3
Power Feats: +2 hand size, or a check by another character at your location, you may also add any of that card's traits to your checks during this turn, then you may shuffle your deck, Arcane: Intelligence +1, Divine: Intelligence +1
Card Feats: Spell +1, Item +4, Ally +1, Blessing +1
Spells: Canopic Conversion, Chain Lightning (x2), Cure (x2), Dune of Doom, Eruption, Ice Storm, Mummify Self, Remove Curse, Ride the Lightning, Spite Cloud
Armors: Skyplate Armor
Items: Life Lantern (loot)
Allies: Kafar, Khai-utef (loot), Sand Elemental
Blessings: Blessing of the Elements (x4), Blessing of Pharasma

Character Name: Zadim
Role Card: Executioner
Skill Feats: Strength +2, Dexterity +4, Intelligence +1
Power Feats: +2 hand size, or Acid or Undead, (or recharge) a weapon, Stealth skill (+2), You may ignore a monster's immunity to the Poison trait, you may use the result of that check for any subsequent combat checks
Card Feats: Weapon +2, Armor +1, Ally +2, Blessing +2
Weapons: Chakram of Ruin, Disrupting Rapier +1, Glacial Khopesh +1, Ooze Falchion +1, Scorpion Whip, Shattertouch Shotel +2, Thousand Stings Whip
Armors: Scarab Buckler (loot), Silken Ceremonial Armor, Steel Ibis Lamellar
Items: Scarab of Mummy Defense (loot), Sun Falcon Pectoral (loot), Ushabti of the Willing Servant
Allies: Fire Gecko, Hearth Elemental, Nefti the Bard, Reta Bigbad
Blessings: Blessing of the Ancients (x5)

Doppelschwert wrote:
elcoderdude wrote:

I'm concerning about what would be necessary to reduce the price. The game is $180 for a complete set if you pay full price (but, most people don't; you can find it for $150 or less). That is a lot of money. But reducing this would have to mean fewer cards, in my mind. I'd really regret that.

I think the easiest way to cut the prices without shortening the game is to make the game even more modular, so that more parts can be reused.

Actually, the easiest way to cut the price is to include more cards per product. Card games are cheaper to print per-card when the set includes more cards. The character and adventure expansions are 110 cards for $20; that's 5.5 cards per $1. The current base sets are over 500 cards for $60 which is about 8.4 cards per $1. Using this logic, they could potentially have the same number of cards that were in the five adventure expansions split into only two expansions instead and sell each of the two sets for $35. That'd be $70 total for the additional adventure content instead of $100. It looks like the Apocrypha Adventure Card Game is using a similar release strategy.


There are options for players who want to add just a little magic to their character (ranging from the Connection Inkling and Psychic Power feats to the phrenic adept archetype, which can be accessed by any class), but significant magical ability is primarily in the hands of the mystic and technomancer classes....

Mystics' studies also grant them access to mystic spells, ranging from 0-level to 6th level, which represent a significant part of their power.

So, if the mystic is one of the two primary spellcasting classes and it only gets spells up to 6th level, does Starfinder magic perhaps only go up to 6th level? Does anyone know if this has been touched on? Not that I mind if that is the case; I tend to prefer 6-level spellcasters anyway and I think it'd be an interesting and appropriate move for the system and setting.

Come on August!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roscoe Rackham wrote:
Also, this is going to sound really weird, but I am noticing that all of the Vesk art so far trends toward the same general body type. Do the Vesk lack sexual dimorphism, or are they a hermaphroditic species? Cause that'd be WILD. I am very happy to not have to deal with Inexplicable Lizard T~*%.

Don't worry. I was wondering the same thing and read through the comments just to see if anyone else had thought about it. So yeah, are there male and female Vesk, or do they all look like this and essentially cover both sexual functions?

Theliah Strongarm wrote:
Yeah, there is. I've seen several write-ups already. Just search "Starfinder Interview" and you should be able to find the write-up on a blog-post for the Operative, which I'm too lazy to go and look for right now.

Yes, I've found the interview posts that briefly talked about the Operative and Envoy already, but I'm talking about giving them full Meet the Iconics write-ups like the one for Enora the Arcanist.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see rules for space mecha, a la Macross and Gundam.

I am VERY excited for this! By the time this book comes out, the campaign I'm running may actually have some space elements to it. Can't wait!

I was wondering, is there an ETA for when we may start to see full Meet the Iconics write ups for Starfinder? I love those stories and feel that they add a lot of flavor to these books so it'd be nice if at least most of the ones for Starfinder are posted before the book is released. This is of course under the assumption that there will be Meet the Iconics write-ups for Starfinder; please tell me that's a safe assumption....

Marco Massoudi wrote:

-"Adventurer's Guide of Golarion"

Limits this book's appeal to people.

-"Adventure Group Guide"
-"Adventure Guild Guide"

Still sounds generic, but includes the group aspect.

The title as it is now is so broad, that it appeals to a maximum number of people, which is understandable from a marketing pov, but sounds wrong somehow in context to the content.
Of course a character doesn't has to become a member of a group to pick up a feat, spell or item, but it has been developed by that group.
This should somehow be reflected in the title imo.
Otherwise the content could be anything with this title.

Personally, I think Ultimate Organizations would be a fitting title.

Might be a little late to change it at this point, though. In general, I'm perfectly fine with this book and look forward to it. Since its primary focus seems to be on character options instead of fluff, the RPG line seems like the best place for it. Should be interesting.

Please cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. Thank you very much and have a great day.

Crai wrote:
Ah well. I guess I missed out. I look forward to reading the reviews! Cheers!

I don't think you missed out. By my count, you made it into the 10th and final slot. It just doesn't look like the free copies have been distributed yet.

So the description says, featuring demons, daemons, devils, and more.... The "and more" wouldn't happen to include aliens, perhaps? From Outer Space, maybe?

Looks very cool. I'd love to get a free copy.

Yeah, that's definitely understandable. A book of 18 or 19 Talented class, plus the abilities of 10 hybrid classes would probably be gigantic and needing to wait for 5 or 6 more classes to be tackled in addition to the 6 core classes that need to be finished up would make the wait for a Deluxe compilation much longer. Also, if this compilation is restricted to just the core classes (leaving out the Cavalier, Witch, and any other classes that might be done before the Deluxe book is ready to go live) that would provide some standardization and you wouldn't have to worry about working on the abilities of the Shaman hybrid class yet.

And Talented Prestige does sound like a really cool idea. It's great getting to watch the Talented Hero Line evolve. This is the perfect system for advanced players who want to have every bit of customization possible when they build their characters.

Owen KC Stephens wrote:
I've also already decided I feel the same way about all the core classes. So druid, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard are also in planning stages.

I don't know if you can or would like to answer this at this time, but as far as the paladin goes has there been talk of opening the Talented Paladin up to all alignment types even though Pathfinder has not done this in an official capacity (yet; as far as I know)?

Owen KC Stephens wrote:
By the same token, I'm pretty sure we're NOT going to release talented versions of the hybrid classes. That's because I'd MUCH rather take the things the hybrid classes have, and add them as options (with appropriate prerequisites) to both parent classes.

I totally agree with this design choice. I've already been hoping that the Investigator abilities would just be part of the hopefully inevitable Talented Alchemist. Applying this design style to the Magus seems like it would be rather challenging since the Wizard and Fighter are so different in build (particularly with the difference in BAB), but I guess the same can be said about the Bloodrager.

Although I would prefer it if all of the pre-occult classes were taken care of first and included in it, I'll definitely support a crowdfunding campaign for a deluxe talented hero book in whatever form it takes. Good luck in tackling everything!

Okay, so I wanted to see how much of a jerky-jerk Gashgelag was and now I think there might need to be some clarification. He has the following two powers:

"Any character dealt damage during this encounter may not use character powers until the end of the encounter.

Before you act, each character at your location attempts a Dexterity or Acrobatics 16 check. Characters who succeed are dealt 2 Fire damage; characters who fail are dealt 2d4 Fire damage."

So with the second power, no matter if characters succeed or fail, they have damage coming their way during the encounter if they're at the villain's location. So is it intended that unless the character can reduce the fire damage to 0, he can't use character powers? Or is the first power only concerned with combat damage, mainly coming into effect if the character botches the first of the villain's two checks to defeat?

I can see it being intended to work either way, so I figured I'd ask the question.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I've noticed several suggestions for additional products in this thread. Please note that the solution to the problem "you're producing things too quickly" is *not* "produce more things to fill the gap you just created!"

I would definitely never suggest any additional physical products to fill the gap. That would definitely be silly. However, I do think that extra products in the PDF/print-on-demand format like the upcoming Runelords OP season could be good ways to keep the more active players engaged while they're waiting for more physical content.

Keith Richmond wrote:
Or Season of the Regent, Reign, or Rebels?

Tease. :)

But yeah, I'm hoping Vic meant Righteous. There should be a month or so break between the end of Righteous and the start of Runelords, so I'd think that should be plenty of time for the developers to make the adjustments. It should just be a matter of picking which feat rewards to drop/change and updating the chronicle sheets.

While I'm a little disappointed in the delay of Mummy's Mask (mostly because it would be another set designed with Alchemist characters in mind and now I won't have a third version of Damiel to choose from next OP Season), I feel that the pros definitely outweigh the cons for me.

Rebel Song wrote:
I actually don't own Runelords because I started with OP. Now that the next season is Runelords, makes sense for me to get it! :D

I also hadn't bought Runelords up to this point, despite being one of the original open playtesters for the game. A friend of mine had bought the set for us to play and since it was still a little rough around the edges (both mechanically and literally with some of the decks having slightly different card sizes), I didn't really have a good reason to buy it since I went on to playtest S&S then got the final version of that set. I've mostly been focusing on organized play since it was started. Now I kind of regret not buying Runelords sooner because if I had, I'd have a little extra money in my gaming budget for a while. And now I need to be really careful to make sure that I get only second printings of the set (hopefully my local game store's distributors don't have any more first printings hanging around in their warehouses or something).

Mike Selinker wrote:
Mmmm, Gunslinger deck in Runelords. Sign me up.

Yes! In my book, Gunslinger is probably the most important Class Deck for home-play character options that hadn't already been released/announced. I'm glad that it's coming out sooner rather than later. Although I mainly use the class decks for organized play, I definitely see the Alchemist and Gunslinger decks getting a lot of home use during the off season.

Speaking of the "off season", Season of the Runelords is a good way to keep us Card Guild players happy while we wait for Mummy's Mask. However, if one set per year becomes the norm (which I think is a good idea), are there plans for the off season between future sets?

Also, any news on the release of revised Season of the Shackles files to support the Tier system?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

With Adventure Deck 6 of the Wrath of the Righteous set shipped/shipping for most subscribers, it is now that time for many of us to request to have our subscriptions cancelled and wait for the option to restart our subscriptions with the next Character Add-On Deck. This is typically done to avoid higher shipping fees for the much heavier Base Sets and/or to be able to buy the Base Sets at our local game stores to support them, while in either case still having access to all PFACG promo cards.

However, although getting the subscription cancelled is usually a pretty simple process, around the time when Wrath was getting ready to come out Vic was mentioning that Paizo was working on some kind of new "subscription management" feature that would make excluding the Base Set from our subscriptions easier. I was just wondering if this feature was still in the works and if it will be out in time for Mummy's Mask, or should we go ahead and request our subscription cancellations for now?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Right now, the scheduled dates show one per month.

November - Druid
December - Barbarian
January - Oracle
February - Alchemist
March - Inquisitor

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as my Alchemist is out in time for the next season of organized play, I'll be perfectly fine. Good luck Tanis and Co.!!

I'd be very interested in a free copy. Looks rather interesting.

GLRob wrote:
Does Tarlin have an entry in any of the Pathfinder books? I'm coming up with nothing and I'd like to learn more about his backstory, assuming he's actually an established character.

As far as I know, Tarlin has only been given an actual identity (name and backstory) in the card game. His artwork came the book Inner Sea Gods to depict a follower of Iomedae. The same is true for Zarlova who is the artwork for Nethys' follower in the book.

The owner of my local store had this card as it was included in the most recent issue of GTM. The first power the card has is this:

"If the current scenario lists cohorts, treat this cohort as if it were on that list."

So I'm assuming this means the cohort is an extra cohort in addition to the ones listed and you don't have to replace any of the existing cohorts.

My main question is, is Valais Durant legal in organized play? That would be a rather nice promo to have if that's the case. Since the scenarios don't usually offer very many cohorts, adding an extra one to the pool can be huge. If it is legal, I'm also assuming that the "only one copy of each promo" restriction still applies? Regardless, it seems like it would be a good card for players to keep handy if they can: "Hey, organizer, do you have the Valais Durant promo? No? Well, I have a copy. Please let us use it. Thanks!"

I was a little sad that Wrath didn't seem to have a lot of Alchemical support, so I was going to wait until the Alchemist Class Deck came out to play another solo Damiel (or other Alchemist) run through Wrath like I did with S&S. Now I can just dust off my completed S&S Damiel and play him through the second half instead! Nice!


I like having iconics in the class decks. I know some people may feel different, but I actually want that second or third version of the characters! I'm especially ecstatic about getting two new versions of Damiel around the same time!

Possibly interesting perspective: I was a Pathfinder RPG fan first. However, when I began playing the game, coming from D&D 3.5 play, I was a pure homebrew world player. I had next to zero interest in Pathfinder's Golarion world. The setting books and adventure paths weren't anywhere on my radar; I'd rather discover or create original worlds to play in. Exposure to the card game changed that for me. I started getting interested in these iconic characters that used to be nothing more than artwork in rule books to me and I got interested in the setting. As the Advanced Class Guide was getting ready to come out, I was reading every Meet the Iconics blog that was released and began reading the old entries for the rest of the characters. Now I'm running Jade Regent for my gaming group pretty much by the book with them using iconics as their characters (Harsk, Kyra, Merisiel and Valeros). I'm falling in love with Golarion as a setting. Paizo has expanded my interest in their RPG products with their card game. I don't know if many other people have had similar experiences, but it felt like a very natural transition for me.

I'm more interested in if the other three characters are the final line-up. Looks like what seems to be a Nagaji character, which I never really considered before but could actually make a solid beat-stick oracle. Maybe the other new character could even be a Changeling? I like how they've begun to use non-core race characters in the class decks (with the monk deck having a Tengu).

Tengu monk, yay!!

Urath DM wrote:
Nice that there are 7 miniatures instead of 6 in this set. :)

Yeah, good solution to the "more than one small-or-smaller mini" problem.

Lem is finally on his way!!!

It's also interesting that Set 6 is listed to come out one month after Set 5. Is that accurate? That'd be nice.

Zaister wrote:
In OP, in theory you play each scenario only once, and the possibility exists that you fail at a scenario and still advance to the next one, for example if you go to a store for a single weekly scenario, you don't have the opportunity to replay a lost scenario.

I don't understand this assumption at all. In OP, myself and players I've run for have played many scenarios multiple times. Just because you might end up advancing to the next scenario doesn't mean you actually get to "Advance" your character.

Rewards and Tier advancements are only gained for completing scenarios successfully. On OP Adventure sheets it clearly says: "COMPLETE THESE SCENARIOS IN ANY ORDER"; that is the condition to gain Adventure rewards. So when you complete (successfully; a fail scenario is not Completed) the last of an Adventure's scenarios, you gain the reward.

zeroth_hour wrote:

It could be done the same way as Mythic Paths. "When you begin Adventure 4, choose a role card. For the rest of the AP, when you play a scenario in Adventure 4 or higher, the card you chose is your role card. After you choose, gain a power feat."

As much as I loved being able to only take two power feats on my base card for some characters in Season 0, I think the best way to handle it with the tier system is gaining your role and a power feat when you advance to tier 4. With the rule you suggested, there can be some really funky game-working attempts to try to only having to take two power feats on your base character card. Just advance to Tier 3. Play one scenario to get your skill feat. Wait to play an Adventure 4 scenario to get your role and a power feat on it and then complete the scenario to get another power feat from your tier also applied to your role. Then you go back and finish the Adventure 3 scenarios to finally advance to Tier 4 and gain your die bump and whatever rewards are available for Adventure 3 completion. With the help of your Mythic Path, you probably won't be missing that Tier 3 power feat while you finish up Adventure 3, especially if it wasn't something you wanted for your character anyway.

The Tier System is meant to make it easier to get people to play in sessions that will let their characters advance. If we use rules that reward people for being more selective of the scenarios that they play, it is counter to the goal of the Tier System to begin with. So yeah, link roles to Tier advancement, please.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the simple fact is that some characters would be far better off just playing in a standard game. They'd be able to make a much more appropriate starting deck and at least have a chance to get nice, powerful upgrades as they go on that are appropriate to their concepts. Having a "specialized" set of cards to choose from is supposed to be a major advantage with the Class Deck/Card Guild system. That's why we only get one regular upgrade per character per scenario. When a large number of people I play with are passing on upgrades regularly, not due to lack of upgrade cards gained but lack of good upgrades available in their class decks, I think there's a problem.

I'm very eager to see if class deck design is going to improve with the new three-character decks. If they're perfectly awesome, maybe there will be a reduced need for this system. Maybe it would be best to just offer some kind of Class Deck Add-On Packs or something for the original 7. That can be a pretty viable and flexible option with the connections Paizo has made with DriveThru. But even if the new decks leave nothing to be desired and there are ways to "fix" the old decks, I still think that something like this would be a nice way to bring in a new level of customization that can freshen up the OP program (and potentially sell more Class Decks) without being too MtG-level crazy.

Andrew L Klein wrote:
I'm not looking at it in terms of the RPG. I'm looking at it in terms of general theme. Multiclassing, thematically, makes sense when adjusted right. Adding a second deck just because they have better cards, not so much.

Where have you ever heard of "multiclassing" outside of an RPG? And as I said, that's why it probably isn't the best title to give this proposed system. Also, they aren't "better cards", they're just a better variety of cards. Maybe better for some characters, but they need it. The Wizard deck sort of needs it in general. I'm sorry, but I don't know what happened when they were designing that thing. Rapier and Cutlass? Really? Unless Melindra was originally going to be a Finesse fighter that at least had the option to get Weapon Proficiency on her base card, I have no idea why those cards would be anywhere near a wizard deck.

Wow, my old thread kind of blew up today. It's nice to know that people are interested and that it's being looked at.

Andrew L Klein wrote:
Jim, if you are a level 5 Fighter that decides you want to learn Sorcerer magic, you don't instantly become a level 5 Sorceror. You are a newbie Sorcerer, and have the power of such.

You're right, Andrew. However, multiclassing cards in the card game is not the same as multiclassing levels in the RPG. In the card game, the cards you have in your deck represent little more than equipment. Spell cards are nothing but scrolls or potions to someone who doesn't have the appropriate skill to retain it in their deck. In the RPG, a 5th level fighter can buy the exact same scrolls or potions as the 5th level Sorcerer can cast as spells.

I've said it before that "multiclassing" probably isn't the best term to use for the system I proposed because it isn't exactly appropriate. It has too much baggage when thought of in terms of the RPG with examples like the one Andrew gave. Calling it the "Dual Deck Option" or something might be better. Because really, to have actual multiclassing that is like the RPG, card game characters would have to have access to new Skills and Powers. This is only about have more appropriate equipment for characters. In the RPG, that is only limited by how much gold you have. In the card game, that amounts to having more cards in your deck and cards of higher adventure deck number.

They're planning a major revision for Season of the Shackles to put it in line with the new Tier system. After that happens, it may be much more difficult to covert the AP for standard home play. However, until that happens, as Parody said one of the only things you'd really need to change is just give out loot cards in the standard way instead of using the temp replace system. Also, the weirdly worded extra skill feat given in Scenario 0-4A, "during any one encounter in this Adventure Path, gains 1 skill feat" was originally the genie loot card Vailea. It was changed because of potential complications that could come up in OP. You should probably just gain her as a standard loot card instead. Nothing else really comes to mind that you should consider changing.

1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>