Tiefling

wkover - Radovan's page

552 posts. Alias of wkover.



1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

When playing Wandering Way scenario #6 in Organized Play (siege scenario), are the remaining location boons added to the upgrade pool? Or is the intention that players only receive the standard WW reward of a single new card per player?

A few comments:

Unless I'm mistaken, in all other OP siege scenarios, any remaining location boons are added to the upgrade pool. This is always specified in the scenario rewards, however, so is the intention that the WW reward overrides this reward - or adds to this usual siege reward?

This is relevant because we just finished a Tier 5 WW siege scenario, and we're hoping that the reward isn't a single new card per character. But we'll see. :)

Oddly, scenario #6 in the Dragon's Demand playbook doesn't specify that players receive the location boons even in the standard campaign. That's definitely an oversight, I'm guessing. But even if this were specified for the standard campaign, it's not 100% clear what reward is intended in WW#6 in organized play. So the DD sanctioning document for WW#6 might need tweaking to clarify.


Zvarbel (Magus) has the following role power:

"When you fail a check, you may draw a barrier from the box or draw a random card from your discard pile ([] or both)."

Would this card draw occur before or after any damage occurred from the failed check? Or could I pick the order?

E.g., Zvarbel might fail a before acting check that deals damage, or she might fail a combat check. Does the damage or Zvarbel's power kick in first?

This is the relevant rules text, I'm guessing:

After you attempt the check, deal with any effects that were caused by the check. For example, if you failed a check to defeat a monster, suffer damage. If any cards played while attempting a check included their own checks, resolve the current check in this step and the new checks in subsequent steps.

P.S. The same question could be asked about Poog's "after the check" Leecher healing ability, when blessings are played on him.


The text for The Lost reads:

On your check, after the roll, discard to add the number of cards in your discards; you suffer damage as if you had not done so.

Does The Lost count itself after it has been discarded? So if I have 2 cards in discard, and then discard The Lost for its power, it will add 3? Or will it only add 2?

People have been playing both ways, looks like.


A question came up in our current Tapestry's Tides game: Does a ship's "When Commanding" effect only apply to the Commander, or does it apply to everyone - even if there is no Commander?

An example:

- An anchored ship is wrecked
- The wrecked ship has a nasty "When Commanding" power
- The active player is not at the ship's anchor location, so at the moment there is no Commander
- Is the wrecked ship's "When Commanding" power in effect, or is it ignored because there is no Commander?

The question is whether "When Commanding" is shorthand for "the party is using this ship" - or whether it really is a power that only applies to the Commander.

If "When Commanding" effects only apply to the Commander, strange things can start to happen. Which is another reason for clarifying the intent.

Note: We're playing scenario 5-5E, which starts with a wrecked anchored ship and SOT random movement. So this is a real question, not just hypothetical. :)


The Red Reaver has this power:

When encountered, each character who is not marked with the scourge Honor-Tested suffers the scourge Frightened and summons and encounters the story bane Collapse.

Let's say the encountering character isn't Honor-Tested and becomes Frightened. Does the Frightened scourge now also trigger, and that character immediately takes 1d4-1 metal damage before encountering the Collapse and fighting the Reaver?

Or will the Frightened scourge only trigger the next time that character encounters a monster?

This might be a RAW vs. RAI issue. We had a long discussion about it, then eventually gave up. :)

(In previous playthroughs of Crimson Throne, everyone was Honor-Tested when the villain was encountered. Not this time...)


Boomshaker Fumbus has this power:

During recovery, when you would banish an Alchemical boon or an Arcane Attack spell, you may discard it instead. ([] Then you may recharge a new Arcane Attack spell whose level is 0.)

This question is about the additional "[x] Then you may recharge..." power. One point is that Boomshaker Fumbus can also gain the Arcane proficiency (meaning that it's now possible to recover/recharge Arcane spells) - so let's assume that he has.

If Fumbus has both the Alchemical and Arcane proficiencies:

Do you get to recharge a new level 0 Arcane Attack spell only if you fail the recovery? Or do you still get the spell recharge even if you succeed?

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the "Then" grammar structure here. Thanks...


Discussion starts here - welcome!


Curse of the Crimson Throne

When the empire of Cheliax expanded north into Varisia, the Chelaxians found a Shoanti tribe living around an immense pyramid on the shores of a deep bay—a perfect site for a city. Much bloodshed eventually left the Shoanti defeated, driven back to the harsh Cinderlands. Yet as the new city of Korvosa flourished, few bothered to ask why the Shoanti had dwelt here. For the past 300 years, the Shoanti have spoken only in whispers of the troubles the Chelaxians will face for their outrages.

Today, Korvosa’s reigning king, Eodred Arabasti II, is feared by all the right people. To date, however, he has produced no heir to the throne, the latest in a line of rulers affected by this facet of the so-called curse of the Crimson Throne. When he finally wed late in life, his bride was barely a third of his age. Queen Ileosa was a woman of breathtaking beauty matched only by her desire for the life of luxury the queenship afforded. But with the seneschal Neolandus Kalepopolis guarding Castle Korvosa’s interests, the citizenry believes it has little to worry about.

It is wrong, of course. Like any city, Korvosa has its share of undesirables. Cutpurses, thugs, thieves, burglars, assassins, and lowlifes of every sort can be found in waterfront slums, creeping in the sewers, or hiding in the tangled rooftops known as the Shingles. The Korvosan Guard does what it can to keep the city’s criminals from causing too much harm, but the crooks will always outnumber the lawgivers.

One such undesirable is Gaedren Lamm, a despicable wretch who missed his chance at being somebody big in Korvosa’s murky underworld. The decrepit thief abducts orphans and forces them to support his parasitic lifestyle with petty crime. Many Korvosans have had their lives complicated by this foul old man. Yet no matter what he does, he always avoids answering for his crimes. But Gaedren Lamm’s luck is about to change; he has run afoul of some hard-driven people.

Specifically, he has run afoul of you.

Each of you has been drawn here by some offense caused by Lamm. Perhaps a family member was caught in his orphanage and fed to his pet alligator. Perhaps a lover expired due to an overdose of his dream spider–derived drug called “shiver.” Perhaps his fishery goons sunk your trawler off the coast of Veldraine. Whatever it was, it motivates you like no other rage you’ve felt in your days.

Finally, you have a lead on his whereabouts. A Varisian fortune-teller named Zellara Esmeranda has summoned you to her home in Korvosa’s Midland district. She claims to know where Lamm is... and how to defeat him. She promises to read the harrow deck to set the fates on your side.

By King Eodred’s good name, you will make your bones here in Korvosa. Into the city you go, with the wind of vengeance at your back.

DURING THIS ADVENTURE PATH:
Perform a harrowing at the start of each scenario instead of each adventure. At the end of each scenario, return your harrow to the vault.
When choosing deck upgrades, treat Harrow blessings that match the adventure’s Harrow suit as being level #.


The Dandasuka and Rakshasa monsters both have forced reroll powers: (also Bahor)

After the roll, if the check was not blessed, reroll 1 die with the highest value.

Is this ability meant to apply to both the Before Acting and Combat rolls, or just the Combat roll?

This question has come up at multiple tables, and people have played it both ways.

(Similar questions were asked about pre-Core cards in past sets, but I can't find the threads/FAQs offhand.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The evasion power for Keen Spiked Chain (Crimson Throne level 5) reads:

If proficient and you fail this check against a non-villain monster, you may evade it.

As written, this lets you evade the monster without needing to do anything else. So fail = auto-evade with no consequences. Should the chain need to be discarded, at least?


The rules for 5-4C (Inahiyi's Nightmare) state:

During This Scenario: When you encounter a monster, roll 1d6 then:

1–2. Summon and encounter the henchman Animate Dream.
3. You are dealt 1 Mental damage which cannot be reduced and the monster is evaded.
4. Discard a random card.
5. Succeed at a Constitution or Fortitude 10 check or bury the top card of your deck.
6. Succeed at a Dexterity or Acrobatics 10 check or you are dealt 1d4+1 Ranged Combat damage.

For reference:

Animate Dream:

SS Henchman 4
Type: Monster
Traits: Outsider Incorporeal
To Defeat: Combat 17
Before you act, succeed at an Arcane or Divine 12 check or you may not play spells that have the Attack trait. If the check to defeat does not have the Magic trait, Animate Dream is undefeated. If you fail a check to defeat the Animate Dream, shuffle a random blessing from your hand into your location deck. If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from.

The issue: If you roll a 1-2 when encountering a monster, you encounter the Animate Dream - which is itself a monster. So then you have to roll 1d6 again. This is intended? Just checking to see whether the intention was to roll for the original monster, but not the summoned Dream.

Otherwise fun stuff like this happens:

If you encounter a monster, you roll a 1-2 and then another 1-2. Nothing happens on the second 1-2 roll, since cards can't summon copies of themselves.

You encounter a monster, roll a 1-2, and then roll a 3. You encounter the original monster, summon the Dream, unsummon/evade the Dream, and take 1 mental damage.

A spellcaster encounters the villain, rolls a 1-2, and then rolls a 6. The spellcaster has to: take 1d4+1 ranged combat damage (probably), pass the Dream's BYA check, fight the Dream, and then double-fight the villain (THEN combat).

Anyway, thanks for your rules input.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For people who don't subscribe to the Recruitment thread, Outpost III signups have begun:

Click Me For Fun


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An observant player noticed that Embiggen doesn't specify dice on checks. Just dice, period.

That's the intention?

So Cure + Embiggen = heal 1d8+1 cards?

And if you take 1d6+1 ranged damage, you take 1d10+1 instead?


The Base location works great online, but in "real life" PACS games the Base is really awkward to manage. Whenever someone visits the Base, we can never remember who any of the proxies represent or what their powers might be.

So we'd like to replace the Base with a stack of supporter print-outs. Is there a single document that contains images (or even just the text) of all the Rotting Ruin supporters?

Thanks for your help...


I'm wondering if the post-Core handling of bonus deck upgrades in organized play might use tweaking.

In pre-Core OP campaigns, "bonus upgrade" scenario rewards seemed to coincide with gaining card feats. That made sense, since all players took card feats at the same time. Under the new rules, however, players can take feats in any order.

There's also the issue that bonus deck upgrades are randomly amazing/pointless, as in some cases you have a ton of acquired cards and some you don't. Interestingly, scenarios where players typically get a ton of cards (e.g., siege scenarios) often do not allow for bonus upgrades.

Anyway, I'm wondering if it might be useful in OP campaigns to change how bonus upgrades are assigned. Instead of linking bonus upgrades to particular scenarios, the rewards might be changed so that players bank bonus upgrades and use them whenever they like. This might even be applied retroactively to past seasons.

Paizo already has "boon upgrade" rewards for convention play, so why not make it a permanent part of all organized play?

Anyway, this is just a suggestion - after completing yet another scenario with bonus card upgrades and not nearly enough acquired cards. :P


I realize that Apocrypha isn't a Paizo or PACG product, so apologies if this should be moved elsewhere. But Apocrypha does share genetic code with PACG, and more than a few designers dipped their hands in both.

Anyway, if you're curious about the game and its 99 scenarios, resources are available:

A Comparison Between Apocrypha and PACG

Apocrypha: A New Player's Guide (with embedded impressions of each chapter)

A Multi-Colored Overview of the Hybrids Promo Chapter

If you give Apocrypha a try, good luck! I found it to be a lot of fun.


The spells False Life (Crimson Throne) and Mirror Image (Core) don't mention anything about being played freely - meaning that spellcasters can't play these cards from their hands to prevent combat damage when they fail to defeat a monster with an attack spell.

Just making sure that's the intention, particularly since the pre-Core version of Mirror Image could be played freely.


I finished Crimson Throne (great ride), but in retrospect I'm curious about the intended rule for respect points. The rule says:

When you succeed at a check to defeat by 20 or more, gain 1 respect point.

To be clear, if a monster has a check to defeat of 17, my final result has to be 37+ to earn a respect point? Not just a final result of 20 or higher?


The Dunes location from Crimson Throne says the following:

TO CLOSE OR TO GUARD
Acquire the top blessing of the hourglass.

What happens if the top card of the hourglass isn't a blessing?

Is it: (a) closing/guarding the Dunes automatically fails, (b) you keep flipping hourglass cards until you find a a blessing, then put the other cards back, or (c) something else?

This happened to us yesterday in scenario 4A, which has proxies in the blessings deck.


These questions are translated/reposted from a BGG thread.

When the Lair is built, is it added to the original circle of locations? If so, where is it placed?

Do the scenario rules regarding locations also apply to the Lair?


I'm playing Mother Myrtle in Season 6, and I'm trying to get her bugs/warts worked out before starting. This isn't necessarily easy, since she's been revised in the Conversion Guide and may have a mix of pre-Core boons (Alchemist's Fire, pre-Core spells, etc.) and post-Core boons (Noxious Bomb, Acid Flask, post-Core spells, etc.) in her deck.

Anyway, this post is about spells. As background, this is the new Mother Myrtle:

New proficiencies: Alchemical, Arcane, Divine, and Liquid

Revised powers:

You may use your Wisdom skill (▢ +1d4) for your Arcane (▢ or Divine) check.

When you attempt to recover an Alchemical or Liquid boon, you may instead attempt a Knowledge check with a difficulty of 7 plus the card's level. If you succeed, recharge it (▢ or shuffle it into your deck); if you fail, discard it.

My main question: Under the Core rules, does Mother Myrtle banish pre-Core spells?

The issue is that post-Core spells have a different template than pre-Core spells. For recovery, post-Core spells say "If proficient..." and pre-Core spells say "If you do not have the Arcane/Divine skill..."

Myrtle is now proficient in arcane and divine, but she doesn't have the arcane or divine skills.

The Conversion Guide explicitly gives an example with Lightning Touch that shows that the old wording on pre-Core spells (referring to skills, not proficiencies) is maintained under the new Recovery rules.

As written, it would appear that Mother Myrtle banishes pre-Core spells, regardless of her proficiencies. Just checking to see whether this is intended, as I'd hate for her Cure spells to banish mid-game. :)


Just a funny observation.

In my PACG groups, Fangwood Thieves has killed as many characters as in all other previous Adventure Paths combined. Here's the rundown...

Pre-Fangwood deaths:

Skull and Shackles: Mogmurch dies in final scenario because Alahazra does too much scouting and not enough healing.

Tapestry's Tides, scenario 1C: Seoni and Lirianne die to a structural damage barrage.

(We technically had one other death in Wrath of the Righteous, but that character got a mythic revival - so they ultimately survived.)

Fangwood deaths:

Deaths #1 and #2:

FT 1-A: The dreaded "3" is rolled. Comes with Ablaze (damage), Wounded (losing cards from deck), and Elementals (AYA damage and fire immunity).

Mogmurch immediately loses to an elemental (fire immunity!), takes a ton of damage, and gets wounded. Ablaze finishes him off.

Reta takes a few hits from barriers and elementals, then Ablaze finishes her off.

Death #3:

FT-1B (siege scenario): Raz can't handle the barrier and BYA/AYA monster damage, and passes away valiantly. (Note: The same guy who played Reta in 1A also played Raz in 1B - two consecutive deaths!)

Morals of the story:

- Don't play Mogmurch

- Scenarios that can do damage every turn are dangerous, particularly for level 1 characters

- Don't ever roll a 3!

Anyone else have similar deadly luck?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Transition Guide in the rulebook states:

On weapons and spells from previous sets, any power that adds to or subtracts from a check, or that rerolls dice, may be played freely.

So spells like Strength can be played freely, per this rule.

Is there any reason why this couldn't be extended to blessings as well?

Blessings like Bastet, Maat, and Starsong are definitely weaker now, since their addition/reroll powers can't be played on checks that have already been blessed. Extending the above rule to blessings would help.

Just a thought...


(this issue came up on BGG)

There are a few places in the rulebook where the phrase "once per check or step" is used. However, the rulebook uses the term "step" for two different things: (1) the steps of a turn (Explore, etc.) and (2) the steps of an encounter (Apply Any Evasion Effects, etc.). Which type of step is meant in these instances?

A related example:

The Exhausted scourge says: On each check or step, you may play no more than 1 boon.

So, if I'm Exhausted, I can't both play a blessing on a combat check and use an armor to reduce damage from the failed check - because both occur during the same Explore step? Or is something else intended?


We just finished scenario 2A in the Core and had a question.

Background:

There seem to be two ways of closing:

#1: Defeat Zombie Minions, pass closing check (standard method: Minions listed as closing henchman)

#2: After beating barrier/henchman, search for a boon. If you don't find any, summon and defeat Wight; if Wight defeated, may close. (special scenario rules)

(The third is to defeat the villain, I guess, but doesn't matter here.)

Anyway, onto our question...

Help us:

Defeating the Zombie Minions henchman triggers both possible ways of closing, above. So is this legal?

- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, find one, take it (per scenario rules)
- Attempt to close location (per normal "closing henchman" rules)

In other words, is this a case where two things trigger and I can stack them in any order?

If so, is the following legal?

- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, don't find any, fail combat vs. Wight (per scenario rules)
- Attempt to close location anyway (per normal "closing henchman" rules)

(Allowing the close would defeat the purpose of the Wight rule in the first place - so assuming that, if you defeat a henchman and search for a boon, you're automatically giving up the right to close normally?)

Undoubtedly there's a rule that covers this, but I failed my lore check on this one. Thanks.

P.S. For the first half of the scenario, we thought that the special rule was the only way to close. Then we noticed that the Zombie Minions were listed as closing henchmen. Whoops...


I played my first game of post-Core OP last night. It was fun (5 players), though we lost.

We had about an hour left before the organizer had to leave, so I suggested - to squeeze in another game - that we play the short version of the same scenario (i.e., using the smaller version of each location). I was surprised to learn that this isn't allowed, however. Sure enough, this is the rule from the new Guide:

The default challenge mode for PACS scenarios is Normal mode, but if all players agree, you may play in Heroic or Legendary mode as defined here...

In other words, playing "below" Normal isn't legal in OP.

I was mostly surprised because of this blog, which recognizes that different groups want different levels of challenge and have different amounts of time available to play.

Anyway, I get that OP has to have standardized play. I was just hoping for a bit more flexibility, I guess - as long as all players agree. Is there any chance a "short" version of the game might be allowed in future OP?


I know it's silly to ask, given that the new set is just being released, but what is the release schedule for upcoming Adventure Paths?

Is the plan to release a new expansion/path every X months, where x is 15, 18, ...?

Just wondering.


Just noting for the powers that be that 5-P2 needs to be added to the scenario reporting database. Thanks!


Spirit Sword says the following:

When you encounter a non-henchman, non-villain monster that has the Undead trait, recharge this card to defeat the monster.

I've asked noted PAGS experts whether the Sword allows me to bypass Before You Act/After You Act effects, and I've received conflicting answers - hence the thread. :)

Step #1 of Encountering is:

Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card. If any powers on the card you’re encountering happen when you encounter the card, they take effect at this time. You may also use powers or cards that state they can be used when you encounter a card.

So Spirit Sword's power is activated during this step, and BYA/AYA effects never trigger? Is that the case?


Scenario 3-2E ("Maybe you Saw This Coming" from Plundered Tombs) has the following rule:

At the end of your turn, put the bottom 1d4 cards from your location deck on top of the next location deck on the location list.

So... what happens if you're in the final location? Per the impossible rule (below), I'm assuming that the entire statement is ignored. But I've been wrong before...

The "impossible" golden rule:

If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.

P.S. Did I mention that this scenario is less fun if a Lightning Storm follows you the entire way?


The text on the Fencer says the following:

When another character at your location would encounter a monster, recharge this card to encounter it instead.

What's interesting is that the card doesn't mention evasion. So can a monster that can't be evaded be stolen with the Fencer?


I thought I’d share a few comments about our ongoing Season of Tapestry’s Tides experiences. We’ve played through the first four scenarios (5-1A through 5-1D), and the bottom line is that we’re enjoying the Season. But since we’re all huge PACG fans, that may not be a surprise.

This post is spoiler-free, pretty much, unless you consider the fact that Season 5 has structural damage, aquatic monsters, ships, and more structural damage to be a spoiler.

Background: Our OP group meets weekly and has 9 to 11 regulars. We break into groups of 3-4 whenever possible to keep games quick and manageable. We also try to rotate players so that the same people aren’t always playing together. We usually play one scenario per session, but sometimes a table is able to squeeze in a second scenario. Something cool: We had two brand new players - new to PACG, not just OP - join the campaign, which is great.

For Season 5, I chose to play Gronk (druid) with the Ultimate Equipment deck.

*** scenario notes ***

Scenario 5-1A: Tide of Bones

Characters at my table: Zova (shifter) w/ Hunter deck, ?? (can’t remember), Gronk

Comments: We were all wise but stupid (1d8 or better wisdom, 1d4 intelligence), which made the scenario tougher than it should have been. But we won despite our mental conflict. The earlier scenarios are always challenging anyway - particularly for my character, since Gronk has no favored card type. But that just makes him unpredictable - in a good way. And his tiny hand size (4 cards) is an effective death shield during the early Season. Zova seems weird and draw-dependent, but we all agreed that she’ll be interesting to play.

Scenario 5-1B: The Grindylow Gambit

Characters at my table: Lirianne (gunslinger), Ezren (wizard), Gronk

Comments: We liked the unusual scenario rules. This was a slow-paced teaching game with me assisting both new players. (We were the last table to finish, by far.) On turn 3, Ezren failed a comat check vs. a Grindylow that nearly wiped out his deck. Luckily, I had a Cure in hand. Lirianne was extremely aggressive with blessings and allies and nearly got herself killed. At the end, we were scraping by with only 1-3 cards per deck. Without my small hand size, I may have been dead (or in full retreat) by mid-game. Also has a neat scenario reward.

(the next 3 scenarios were all at the same meet-up)

Scenario 5-1A (repeat, catch-up session): Tide of Bones

Characters at my table: Alase (summoner), Varril (inquisitor), Gronk

Comments: Varril makes every game easier. He can close any location, obtain any boon, etc. The owner even did his research and played Varril correctly – meaning that he can’t use his Divine skill substitution on weapons. Alase had good time sending us junk (via Tonbarse) for Varril to recharge and for Gronk to bury.

Scenario 5-1C: The Devil and the Storm

Characters at my table: (same)

Comments: Without getting into specifics, the scenario rules didn’t have much of an effect because we got lucky and closed three locations in the first three turns. At game’s end, however, we were shocked to learn that two characters died at one of the other tables. (These were the first ever deaths in the OP group, of which I am a relatively new member.) One death was a brand new player (Lirianne, above), but the other wasn’t (Seoni). And the third player at the table was also experienced (Zova). I do wonder if the group remembered that structural damage is optional, and that it can be worth taking structural damage to wreck your ship and/or end the game early (if a death seems imminent). Anyway, at our table, Gronk’s Survival skill (d10+2) came into play again and again.

Scenario 5-1D: In Thieves’ Wake

Characters at my table: (same)

Comments: I started with a Turn 1 close, but things settled into a more relaxed pace afterwards. Somehow I don’t remember many details. But yay! Cool rewards!

Scenario 5-1E is scheduled for next week, then we need to determine what to do until 5-2 is released. Minimally, we’ll keep meeting until everyone is caught up – particularly the players who had characters die in 5-1C and had to start over again.

*** Gronk notes ***

Some folks might disagree, but I think Gronk is great fun. I’m playing an aggro-melee build (not many useful spells in Ultimate Equipment), and his upgrade schedule is right on track. I now have weapons proficiency, a blessing that lets me search for weapons (Kofusachi), an ally that lets me dig for weapons (Majordomo), a Sacred Candle (guaranteed blessing upgrades!), and an additional weapon feat. Though the Scorpion Whip may not have been the best weapon selection, given that there are more undead monsters than expected.

Full disclosure: Gronk received the extra ally + blessing reward from capstone scenario 4-7, which gives him an edge in one sense (more life, more explores) but is a drawback in another sense (less likely to find a spell or weapon).

By the way, the Blessing of the Quartermaster may be my favorite blessing of all time. 80% of checks are non-combat checks, and auto-recharging to add a die to nearly anything is incredible.

I’m not sure that I’d play Gronk in anything other than a Skull & Shackles campaign – since that’s where most animals and plants are found – but in that setting he’s darn dependable. And he’ll only get stronger as the campaign progresses. Starting in Tier 4, I expect him to dominate the board with the ability to heal 1d4+2 or 1d4+4 cards (selected cards, not random) on command.


We just finished scenario 5-1B in Tapestry's Tides and we had a question about the scenario reward:

For the rest of the Adventure Path, when you would stash any number of plunder cards, any character may instead choose a Basic boon from the game box and shuffle it into his deck.

Our question: Do you select the Basic boon option before you roll for plunder or after?

Afterwards would obviously be better, since you could select the basic boon instead of a card you don't want. E.g., if you roll a weapon and no one needs weapons, you could select the basic boon (e.g., a Cure spell) instead. If you have to select before rolling, that changes things.


In the Guild Guide, there's a "Preparing the Game Box" section on p. 13. This post is about that section.

Background: One thing that the Guild Guide has to allow (which makes sense) is that multiple groups might be using the same store box for their OP campaigns. That's exactly what the "Preparing the Box" section is for, I think - to ensure that one group's campaign doesn't wreak havoc on another group's campaign.

For example, in an OP campaign, if my group slowly removes basic boons the "regular" (non-OP way) starting with Adventure 3, the other group will have to mix them back in whenever they play - which doesn't make sense unless my group recorded exactly which boons had been removed. This would be a huge pain to track.

"Preparing the Box" takes care of this. It gives groups two options on how to remove basic/elite cards from the box - methods that prevent the group campaigns from messing with each other

However, if only one group is using the store box, can they remove basic/elites the regular (non-OP) way? If so, is it OK to remove basic blessings over time? (like in this thread)

The phrase, "You may use the standard rules in the current rulebook for preparing the box, but the following options are designed to streamline your setup process" leads me to believe that you can, but I wanted to be sure.

P.S. The funny thing is that my OP group removes basic/elite cards the regular (non-OP) way, but they don't allow basic Blessings to be removed (when locations are permanently closed, e.g.) because of the phrase "Regardless of the method you use, do not remove blessings that have the Basic trait" on p. 13. So, in my mind, they're actually combining the OP and non-OP methods together in a way that they weren't meant to be combined.


I just started playing Nok-Nok in a new Season of the Shackles campaign. His damage prevention ability says:

You may recharge up to two cards you would discard as damage.

Two questions:

As written, this ability includes all types of damage. So Nok-Nok can be a structural damage sponge in SotS?

There are various cards that state, "this damage cannot be reduced". Nok-Nok is simply recharging the cards taken as damage, however - not reducing the amount of damage. So his ability works on non-reducible damage, correct?

Thanks for the help.


OK, so there's the rule that says: You may explore your location once each turn without playing a card that allows you to explore; this must be your first exploration for your turn.

Clockwork Butterfly from the Oracle deck has this text:

On your turn, recharge this card to examine the top card of your location deck. If it is an ally or a blessing, you may explore your location.

Ok, so I start my turn by playing CB and I don't reveal an ally or blessing. Have I now missed my "free" explore because I *could* have gotten an exploration? Or do I still get my free explore?

It's the conditional nature of the card that gets me, I guess. I just want to be sure I understand what the designers intended.

(My assumption: If I do reveal an ally/blessing, then I definitely have given up my free exploration. True?)


Radovan has the following base ability:

Once per turn, when a character at your location is dealt damage by a bane, display a monster from the box next to a displayed devil form.

He also has a devil form ability that looks like this:

Once per turn, when you encounter a bane that invokes the Fire trait or when you are dealt Fire damage, you may display a monster from the box next to this card.

So if I am dealt 2 fire damage by a monster (one that doesn't have the Fire trait), both abilities trigger - right? (damage for base ability, plus fire damage for devil ability) And I end up displaying two monsters by my devil form?


This is a thread to practice posting, rolling, etc., for PACG play-by-forum games.


(originally posted in the pregen thread, but moved here to avoid clutter)

The existing pregens are cool and extremely helpful, but they are also limited to the extent that they are only available for certain characters and for certain tiers.

Has there been any thought to simplifying the pregen process? I'm trying to imagine a procedure that would be less work-intensive for Paizo employees, would allow any character to be a pregen, and would still keep things fair (in terms of card upgrades, feats, etc.) for people who started an OP campaign from the beginning.

For example, you could prescribe a card and feat distribution for each tier, like so: (for *any* character, which would be neat)

Tier 2: 15 cards total: two level 2, four level 1, nine level B; no card, skill, or power feats

Tier 3: 16 cards total: two level 3, three level 2, seven level 1, four level B; any one card feat, any one skill feat, and any one power feat

Tier 4: 17 cards total: two level 4, three level 3, six level 2, four level 1, two level B; any two card feats, any two skill feats, role card, and any three power feats (two from original card, one from role card)

(etc. through tier 6)

Note: These distributions are completely made up, not actual suggestions. Also, the total number of cards/feats per tier is less than the total number a character would receive by progressing through the campaign from the start - thus keeping things fair for everyone.

One thing I like about such a system is that players would have the fun of creating their own pregens themselves based on the required card distributions.

Is there a reason why something like this wouldn't work? (There are probably a dozen reasons, but it doesn't hurt to ask.)


If I'm not mistaken, the scourge die instructions are missing from #4-3: Favors and Foes. Should it be 1d6+1?

(Or are we so bad that we're the only group that needs scourges?)


I'm going to start running informal demos at a local game store to attract new players for organized play (OP) - and not just new OP players, but people entirely new to the game.

The demos will be advertised on a Pathfinder meetup group, which means that most attendees will know how to play the Pathfinder RPG (which I've never played, BTW), but will have never played the card game.

After each demo, I'd like to hand out a one-page summary that provides links, suggestions, etc., for someone wanting to start OP. (I think there are community use PACG images that I can appropriate for this purpose?)

Anyway, one section of the handout will contain a list of class/character decks that provide good "starter" characters. I've not looked through every class deck, but I've seen many of them. So this is my draft list of "beginner" decks:

Rogue
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard
Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Monk
Cleric
Gunslinger
Ranger

Do you think anything should be added/removed? Or does my question not make sense, and anyone familiar with the RPG should be able to competently and confidently play any class deck?

Regardless, these are just suggestions - and anyone can use whatever character they like in OP.

I know there's also the issue that some decks are considered to be underpowered, but that's where the Ultimate add-on decks can come to the rescue.

Finally, if a one-page recruitment/information handout already exists, it would be great if someone could post the link. :)


Hello. Two quick questions...

I've always been fuzzy on the resolution of the "when does a check end?" discussion that occurred years ago - specifically when it comes to whether two of the same boon type (e.g., spells) can be played on the same check.

In the case of Improvised Monster, one of the powers reads:

When you defeat a non-villain monster and would banish it, reveal this card to add the monster to your hand instead.

My question: If I defeat a monster with a weapon, can I then use Improvised Monster (also a weapon) to add that monster to my hand? Or does that count as using two weapons on the same "check"?

(BTW, if this works, this is a nice barbarian combo: kill a monster with a weapon, use IM to put the monster into my hand, then bury that monster during a later combat check for a d10 combat bonus. Then *that* defeated monster goes into my hand with IM, etc. Rinse and repeat.)

My second question is about Mavaro from Occult Adventures 2, which works differently from the MM Mavaro. He has the powers:

Play with the top card of your deck faceup. You gain all skills that could be used to acquire that card equal to your Knowledge skill.

You may discard a card to search your deck for a card and set it aside; shuffle your deck, then put that card on top.

The question, which is about timing: When am I allowed to use the second power? If I encounter a dexterity-based barrier, for instance, can I quickly discard a card and search for a "to acquire - dexterity" card to place on top of my deck to help me defeat the barrier? Or would I have needed to do that before I explored?

Thanks in advance for the help...


So, all my at-home PACG campaigns (w/ friends and family) have wrapped up. I've never tried organized play before, so I thought it would be fun to branch out, meet new people, and give it a try.

I've poked around, and the only local OP group is about to start Adventure 4 in Season of Factions' Favor. I checked with the organizer, and it seems that the party is short on brute strength. So I decided that I would choose a fighter-type with damage prevention or healing capabilities, given Mummy's Mask love of random damage.

My conclusion: Ostog the barbarian would be a good fit, with his ability (at higher levels) to automatically prevent a significant amount of damage.

Digging more deeply, I've learned that I have two basic options:

Option 1: Build Ostog as a new character, but without any feats. So, not a great idea - no damage prevention! He wouldn't last long, and would drag down the overall effectiveness of the party.

Option 2: If I'm keen on playing a barbarian, play Amiri from the same class deck, since a Tier 3 pregen exists for her.

So, it's a bit frustrating. My options are to either play a character that I don't really want to play, or play a crippled version of the character that I do want to play.

For me, this raises a basic question: Since PACG is a purely cooperative game, why not let players build higher-tier characters however they like - feats and all? Wouldn't this make the game more enjoyable for players joining a campaign-in-progress?

I'm sure there's a good reason for disallowing feats for higher-tier characters. My guess is that it prevents abuse of one-use characters. But really, does it matter?

Anyway, more than anything, I'm curious about the official reasoning behind the no-feats rule for higher-tier character creation.

P.S. Given that Ostog is out and I also own the Hell's Vengeance 1 class deck, I'm currently leaning towards Linxia the Hellknight for OP, as she has healing capabilities. (Though the Tier 3 pregen build is definitely not one I would have chosen, but OK.) Which raises a separate issue as to whether the OP group wants an evil character in their party. I've already decided that the best way to handle Linxia's "card stealing" ability (grabbing cards from other players' discard piles) is to (a) ask permission first and (b) use proxies of the stolen cards in my deck, rather than the original cards. Sound fair enough?


Hi everyone.

About a year ago, it was mentioned that a ruling on Mavaro's display/recharge power might be forthcoming - but as far as I know that never occurred. I'm actually playing Mavaro in a campaign now, so the sooner the ruling arrives the better. :)

What other character powers still need an official ruling?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Approximately one year ago, someone on Boardgamegeek asked a simple question: Are you able to keep up with PACG?

My original response can be found here. At that point, I'd played through all four base sets with my family (2013-2016?) and had started a few non-family PACG campaigns.

Here's my updated response, which I thought might be interesting to share:

My five-player Mummy's Mask campaign is on permanent hiatus. We played through Adventure 2, but it took us 9 months to do so. What hurt us: Being able to get 5 guys together in the same room was a challenge, and only being able to play one game per session made it tough to make significant progress in the campaign. Also, Mummy's Mask was not a good introductory set. We played so infrequently that the new players (everyone but me) kept forgetting the rules, and Mummy's Mask has a *lot* going on. I swear, after 15 games, players still didn't understand "invoke", and most players still didn't fully understand the special powers for their characters. To be honest, based purely on rules frustration, I didn't mind that the campaign ended. Though I'll miss playing Mavaro, who is the oddest and most unique character I've played so far.

(Note: This group had so much rules and cooperation trouble that I put together this post to offer advice to new players.)

My two-player Skull & Shackles campaign - another non-family campaign - is still ongoing. We're going on 6 months, and we play infrequently. We're in the middle of Adventure Pack #3. We will finish eventually, but I'm guessing not for another 6 months.

I purchased the PC version of PACG on Steam last Thanksgiving and played two full Rise of the Runelords campaigns in a single month. These are my only solo plays of Pathfinder. It was good fun, and I upped the challenge the second time by playing with a 6-character party. Warning: Some scenarios are extremely buggy (i.e., they don't work as intended, making them more difficult), and the final campaign scenario is broken in that certain cards (e.g., Scrye, Feathered Quill) cause the scenario to crash. Also, I would avoid the Permadeath option in the electronic version at all costs. It's too easy to accidentally hit the space bar, roll the dice before you're ready, and kill your character. This happened to me at least twice (not on permadeath, thankfully).

I almost forgot that my family and I completed an at-home version of the Seasons of the Runelords organized play campaign in Summer 2017. That was fun, and we even went through a good chunk of Wrath of the Righteous as Adventure 7 (per this article).

And a related product:

The Apocrypha ACG was released, which is a close cousin to PACG, and my regular family group played through the base set (18 scenarios) in approximately 2 months - and we look forward to the upcoming expansion boxes. The only issue is that we broke the game, as one particular character is far too powerful with higher player counts. That character is now banned from the rest of the campaign.

Anyway, the bottom line is that (for me) it's been easy to keep up with multiplayer family campaigns. Non-family campaigns? Not so much. And unsurprisingly solo campaigns are the easiest to maintain and complete.

If nothing else, my summary emphasizes what an enormous time commitment a full campaign can be. So I understand why Paizo might want to have shorter campaigns to meet the needs of people who can't play multiple PACG sessions each week to plow through a campaign.

Also, Paizo still hasn't made an official ruling on Mavaro's powers. What's up with that? :)


Just a note to the powers that be: The downloadable character sheet for Alase (Summoner Class Deck) doesn't match Alase's character card. The Card List doesn't match, and the Favored Card Type also doesn't match.

Anyway, having just finished an at-home Season of the Runelords campaign, we're about to jump into Wrath of the Righteous (4-1) as "Adventure 7", per this blog entry:

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhxk

Ostog, Ranzak, Alase, and Sajan are ready to roll. Should be fun...

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>