Twisted....
Appreciated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I've just bought PACG as my son (10 years old) watched me and my friends playing the Kingmaker AP last Saturday night (he enjoyed rolling the dice for the DM, and got far too many natural 20's ...)
I have the PF Beginner Box, but it is still in mint condition (and will most probably stay that way) and this seemed the best way to get him into Pathfinder :)
I'm currently reading the rules (I've been an RPG player / Board game player for over 30 years) so didn't see anything complicated about either the rules or the cards as written.
I admire anyone who listens to those who bought their game and give them feedback, so I doff my hat to you Mike :)
Keep up the great work, I'm sure this weekend will see my son hooked on Pathfinder and long may he enjoy playing games for the rest of his life :)
NGP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been playing for two weeks now. Have played solo, with small groups, and with large ones.
The game feels dynamic and tense with groups of all sizes. Have had lots of successful missions, and a few failed ones too, so the difficulty level is tuned just fine.
Thanks for making such a carefully crafted, intricately detailed game!
Thanks, folks.
@porkupine - you need to understand the "Determine which die/skill you're using" action in the encounter step, then it will make sense.
Try here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q4t9?What-is-a-die#34
and here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q9ig&page=2?Encountering-a-Card-Revised#63
and hopefully it will be clearer.
Read the Adventure Path card for Rise of the Runelords ;)
So I've been wandering the boards trying to figure out if I cheated when I used caltrops to help another player defeat a monster that was summoned for them to encounter on a third players turn.
The answers I have put together is yes, because I can't use a power (via card playing or not) which allows another player to defeat a monster (or evade, etc) according to the meta rules.
I believe I will have a difficult time convincing some of my fellow players of this given how the card (and others like it) is written without a "you/your" when compared to other cards which explicitly uses the word "you". I think the meta rules added to the FAQ do alleviate the problem but only if the meta rules are explicitly excepted from the "Golden Rule" where cards over right rules.
Additionally I do not feel that the meta rules are explicit enough to help new players see the distinction between powers that can't aid another character but don't use the word "you" in their description effect. Perhaps with the inclusion of the following sentence in the No One Else Can Take Your Turn for You section. I welcome criticism regarding if it is worded correctly or is even needed:
"Other players may not play cards or use powers to aid you in evading, defeating, acquiring, failing, or deciding what to do with an encounter or closing locations, unless the card explicitly says it can."
Or alternatively
"You may not play cards or use powers to aid another character in evading, defeating, acquiring, failing, or deciding what to do with an encounter or closing locations, unless the card explicitly says it can."
My biggest worry is that someone might construe this to mean you can't aid a check (to defeat an encounter for example). But I feel this wording is clearer and will help someone new to the game looking at caltrops realize they can only play it to aid themselves.
I also suggest adding a explicit example of not being able to use the card/power in this context. This alone might preclude the need to include one of the...
I agree with this rewording. I've been playing these cards wrong as well. The implied context that another player could not benefit from these cards was not clear at all.
Does Augury conform to the ruling on Detect magic & Detect Evil where it cannot be played on another player's turn?
No.
Does Ezren's power to explore again when acquiring cards with the magic trait chain off of Detect Magic?
No. The word "explore" is not found on that card.
Does the starting round at the Temple location count as moving there to discard a card?
No. If you don't move there in the move step of a turn, you don't trigger the effect.
Potion of Ghostly Form - do you have to evade a barrier to use it to explore again?
Yes.
Also was the goblin dog supposed to the have the Goblin trait?
No. It's not a goblin. It's a dog.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also was the goblin dog supposed to the have the Goblin trait?No. It's not a goblin. It's a dog.
Actually, it's neither goblin nor dog. From the Bestiary:
"Despite its name, the goblin dog is in fact a species of rodent grown monstrously large. Their long-legged shape and proclivity to hunt and run in packs earned them their popular name, a name that many goblins take issue with, as it galls the average goblin to consider these, their favored mounts, having anything at all to do with actual dogs. Of course, being goblins, they haven't bothered to come up with alternate names for goblin dogs. Perhaps they don't realize they can."
Also was the goblin dog supposed to the have the Goblin trait?No. It's not a goblin. It's a dog.Actually, it's neither goblin nor dog. From the Bestiary:
"Despite its name, the goblin dog is in fact a species of rodent grown monstrously large. Their long-legged shape and proclivity to hunt and run in packs earned them their popular name, a name that many goblins take issue with, as it galls the average goblin to consider these, their favored mounts, having anything at all to do with actual dogs. Of course, being goblins, they haven't bothered to come up with alternate names for goblin dogs. Perhaps they don't realize they can."
Pathfinder 'gets' Goblins like no one else ever has.
You're welcome!
Potion of Ghostly Form - do you have to evade a barrier to use it to explore again?Yes.
Please add a rewrite of the text on this card to the errata. When we got this card, everyone agreed from the text that the two abilities were sequenced but independent.
@ Foxiferous: Arcane Armour can be played; it is in the FAQ, here.
Yes, without the FAQ addition it seems like those two can't be played at all....
I may be in the minority here, but one of the things that amazed me was just how EASY the rules are once I stopped over-thinking them. Maybe I'm actually playing the game incorrectly or maybe I'm just traumatized by years of the Lord of the Rings LCG and Magic: The Gathering with their million+ phases and timing effects.
I completely agree, the game is brilliantly simplistic and most of the confusion comes from ambiguous wording here and there. It's amazing that they managed to fit so much depth into the game, I love it!
I also find it amazing how helpful everyone here is, whenever I have a question I don't know the answer to I can ask here and get a response within an hour or two, and as a result I try and help others when they need help
|
I mentioned this in another thread, but I also look at it that if you are having fun then you are doing it right. Of course I try to adhere to the rules, and that may or may not always happen. Unless we are talking sanctioned play then if I'm DMing I feel free to adapt DCs, adjust rules, or do things on the fly if I don't know the full rules. That's always been a draw of Pen and Paper, even with the rulebooks, etc there is a lot of flexibility in how you follow through on those.
To date PACG is the closest I've found to a DM-less RPG experience. My kids and I played the base adventure and half-way through Burnt Offerings before they realized there was location text that helped tell the story. Just recently my youngest realized that the scenarios, adventures, and adventure path have flavor text as well. They are having fun, in what I would consider an RPG light system. AND that makes me happy. Thanks Mike, Lone Shark Games, and Paizo.
Thanks!
In the first printing of the PACG, there are so far XXX unique cards ... that have functional, non-cosmetic problems....
1) This is a tremendous game Mike !
2) Since you are on your way to make additional 110-cards expansions for characters and so on may I suggest 2 options :
A) Wait 2 months for people to test the last adventure of RotR and feed-back broken things, then add a 110 cards errata extension that would correct/improve all broken cards of RotR. I buy it immediately along with the new expansion ones ! If you add in the promo cards until now that players may have missed (and maybe a few new generic banes/boons to get to 110 if needed) I'm betting you will sell enough of that expansion to make it wothwhile.
Or B) If you still have time, make sure you include in the 7 character expansions corrected versions of the broken previous cards so we can swap that in the box.
Just my €0.02 idea for a cheap way to have all of us forget about the fact that first version of that kind of game always needs a fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve now read (and sometimes commented on) more than 1100 boardgamegeek.com threads and 400 paizo.com threads about the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. There are some themes running through those threads that I’d like to address, and then some major clarifications I’d like to issue. These are my opinions, and no one else’s. But first a caveat.
The very posting of these comments will incense some people. Board game designers are supposed to produce elegant works of perfection that need no clarifications, no errata, no commentary at all. We’re unique that way: trading card game players expect reams of floor rules, RPG players expect game masters will gloss over problems, and computer game players expect frequent downloadable patches. I like that high expectation of board game designers, as it keeps people like me on their guard for anything that might go wrong. Even when we do something as far off the beaten path as this game, those standards should be what we aim for.
My goal with this is to make sure that everyone is having fun playing my game the way it’s supposed to be played. I made some mistakes that got in the way of that, and you can call me out for it. As long as you’re observing Wheaton’s Law, I can handle whatever criticisms you have, and I can adapt to make sure we do things better.
In the first printing of the PACG, there are so far 15 unique cards (out of about 700) that have functional, non-cosmetic problems. That’s too much for my team’s taste, but perfection is always elusive. The more significant issues come in the rulebook, where we’ve learned that I made some assumptions I should not have made. The appearance of the same questions over and over makes me realize that some critical sentences were left out of the rulebook. These are high-level, 10,000-foot-view things about getting your mind right when you’re playing the game. These concepts exist in the rulebook, but nowhere near as clear as they should be. This game is incredibly...
I have read the messages on the board posts from the past few months. Is it just me or seem a little extreme that we have to point these things out? I felt like a lot of the rules you listed were self explanatory. I'm sure there are exceptions to everything. It's life and it happens. I'm not even sure if you read this anymore. I feel bad that you have to clarify things to such a extreme degree. Anyway, thank you for putting the time into this game. It's a great way to get my friends to play a semi-pen and paper game that doesn't take too much explaining after playing Pathfinder Role-Playing game.
Hello Mike,
First, allow me to thank you and the team for bringing this great game to us. The fact that I've played this game with many people and they all loved it, all of them: gamers, non-gamers and even people that often don't like games, seniors and teenagers, pathfinder roleplayers and those unfamiliar with the setting. To me, that's saying something!
I don't feel the game or its manual are unclear per se, though of course with all the different options, there's bound to be some points that require interpretation. I actually believe most people will be comfortable enough with making these interpretations for themselves, but I do think the clarifications help.
However, when I ponder where all the questions come from, I feel it's got to do with a matter of definition. Some game elements are not made explicit within the manual. There're there, all right, but they just don't get a name. In my own experience, that increases the chance of details getting overlooked or misinterpreted.
When I noticed this, I tried to assemble a list of more explicit principles, which added up to a seventy-something items. While this was merely for my own amusement, I do believe some trends can be seen. Mainly when identifying game elements.
I love the distinction between boons and banes, because while they are much alike, giving them distinct names identifies the differences: a bane requires a check to defeat, a boon to acquire. Bane powers are automatically applied when encountered, but boon powers are only applied during the encounter if explicitly mentioned. Et cetera.
But there are other distinctions I think are important and there's no name for those: some powers are "activated" by the player. Others just happen to the player and thus are "Passive", even though conditional constraints may apply. Some cards cannot be played and thus are "Inactive". This distinction is there, but implicitly so. Also, it helps me to treat all things that the cards do, in the same manner. A power's a power, whether it's my own healing spell, or that nasty dragon's breath weapon, or that leaking hole in the dam that requires at least one finger to plug :P
To me, a "power" is an atomic part of a card's description. You press a proverbial button and stuff happens. Sometimes, one button press triggers several "effects". For instance, mass cure triggers two healing effects. That distinction between power and effect makes it easier for me to determine what happens when some powers are used in awkward situations: when can it be used but is its effect diminished and when can't it be used. The power may have some "conditional constraints", but the effects have "targets".
Need a healing? Then the effect has a discard pile as a target. Mass healing? Two effects, both with a discard pile as a target. One effect invalid, the second's still there: I'll just heal you even if I'm fully healed. All effects invalid, well then the power can't be played.
Sometimes, the effect is some kind of "cost". But there are two kinds of costs, one that is subject to the recharge check, one that is not. So I define a cost as when a power discards/buries/banishes that power's card itself. And when it recharges/discards/buries/banishes another card, I call it a "sacrifice". Distinguishing cost and sacrifice from effect, makes it clear that if the "primary effect" is not possible, the power cannot be used, even if the "cost" can be paid.
By naming "cost" and "sacrifice", then the recharge rolls are some kind of "cost reduction" and it's easy to state it does not apply to "sacrifices".
Well, this post is getting a tad on the long side, but I think the general idea is clear. I'll emphasize, though, that I'm perfectly content with the current state of affairs. Of course, I'm making my own interpretations in some regards, but that's to be expected when working with descriptions in natural language. I expect that in the minds of you and your team, there's some nameless definitions floating around that could help people get an even firmer grasp on how to interpret the rules and cards, in case you'd wish to appease even the most mathematically inclined gamer out there ;)
To finalize, an example of a question I tried to answer myself: "If a bane is immune to a specific trait, does an effect that adds that trait to the check, result in an automatic failure, or are only the effects that add the trait ignored."
Example: Valeros is outmatched against a big nasty monster and there's a significant chance of him getting damage. He hits it on the head with a long sword and recharges the sword for extra damage. If he also has a poison dagger, he could recharge it, but that would add the poison trait. If the result is that the dagger does nothing but the rest of the damage gets through, the recharge may be better than the discard resulting from damage. However, if using the dagger would nullify the entire attack, wasting the little chance he'd have at besting the beasty. In that case, risking a discard might be preferable.
This might even be more interesting if Sajan were to shoot with a Poisoned Crossbow. As a Zen Archer, he might get the damage from the initial effect, then the recharge from the secondary effect which would add the poison trait.
And what if Ezren put down an Incendiary cloud earlier this turn and now he's fighting against a fire immune creature. Would pummeling it with a quarterstaff be useless due to the fire trait?
My own statement would be, For Valeros: the primary effect is useless against a poison immune monster, so no-can-do. For Sajan: The effect is either a lot of damage and a poison trait (cost recharge), which is invalid against the immune target so no-can-do at all, or the simple shot without the poison trait, which is valid (cost reveal). For Ezren, I'd state that the effect of the cloud is invalid against the target and thus that entire effect is ignored, no added damage for the cloud. The quarterstaff still hurts though.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one. As part of this action, you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use.
The Longsword and the Venomous Dagger +2 both define the skill you're using, so if you've played the former, you can't play the latter.
But for the sake of illustration, let's pretend that the above rule doesn't exist for a moment.
If the card you’re encountering states that it is immune to a particular trait, players may not play cards with the specified trait, use powers that would add that trait to the check, or roll dice with that trait during the encounter.
So Valeros is simply not allowed to use any power that would add the Poison trait to the check.
In Ezren's case, the spell has already been played, and the immunity can't make you un-play the spell, so it does technically add 2d4 with the Fire trait to his check—but since you're not allowed to roll dice with that trait during the encounter, it doesn't matter.
(Also, please post rules questions in the Rules Questions forum.)
Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one. As part of this action, you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use.The Longsword and the Venomous Dagger +2 both define the skill you're using, so if you've played the former, you can't play the latter.
In this example, I was thinking about the second power of the dagger:
When playing another weapon, you may discard this card to add 1d4+2 with the Poison trait to the combat check.
Though of course the conclusion would be the same.
I added this finishing question to try to illustrate how answering such a question depends on the perspective on the game, especially on which definitions of game elements you have. The next bit of your answer happens to be a great illustration of this.
... but since you're not allowed to roll dice with that trait during the encounter, it doesn't matter.
In my head, I did define "check" and gave a check some traits. Also "power with traits". But you now provide me with the alternative to actually define "dice with traits", which is indeed a very handy way to go about it.
(Also, please post rules questions in the Rules Questions forum.)
While it was simply intended as an illustration, it might indeed be useful to post a summary of the question + answer there, so others can find it. I'll do that.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mike & all - game is unique, beautifully designed and executed. Your responses and dedication have been exemplary and most importantly my players have had loads of fun playing it. As expected some parts needed concepts to sink into head but once the basic premise has been understood there was little that stood in the way of effective gameplay and enjoyment.
Please consider to continue to develop more past mummy mask! (I just read/glanced at hell's vengeance from the last email update - pacg play as villians? Hell yeah... )
<hat tip>