So, we've blown through most of the game already and it seems to be pretty easy. We have had zero deaths and have failed a scenario only once (our PCs had no idea what they were doing). I understand the game is meant to be easy, but it may be just a bit TOO easy (especially if we hit a henchman or two really early in a location deck).
I have some suggestions on making the game a bit harder:
1) After setting up the location decks and before adding in the Villain/Henchmen, shuffle the location decks than randomly place the Villain/Henchmen on the bottom of each location deck. This would make for longer and harder play sessions (shuffling a location is semi-desirable now, and Harsk's scouting talents would be stronger).
2) Limit the number of blessings that can be used per check attempt? Many times, battles become silly when everyone in the party volunteers a blessing on a roll. I mean a d4 melee roll becomes a 6d4 (5 blessings) + 3d4 (ranger, fighter, bard assist) melee roll very quickly in a 5-player game.
3) Limit the range of cards being played. Maybe I shouldn't be able to cast cure or use a blessing on someone who is not at my location?
Maybe I shouldn't be able to cast cure or use a blessing on someone who is not at my location?
Isn't Cure already limited to your current location? I don't have it in front of me, but that's how I've always played it.
What you suggest would also make Harsk's "At the end of your turn, you may examine the top card (or bottom card) of your location deck." ridiculously over-powered. I can't think of any, but are there other powers/cards that let you target the bottom of a location deck?
It also over-powers any effect that lets you shuffle a location deck (Augury, Sanctuary and/or any evade, etc). Now, in addition to the power, you know you'll also be bringing the villain/henchman closer to you (worst-case, it stays at the bottom). It could also encourage losing in combat for the same reason.
However, I do have to wonder if something may be off with your style of play or set up if you're breezing through the game. The games I've played with 4+ characters have almost always came down to the wire, or we lost due to time; even my 3 player games often come down to the wire.
The obvious questions: You're using 7 locations for 5 players, right? And each player controls only 1 character?
5 Players: Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Fighter, and Monk.
7 Locations
We decide which two locations to close quick, then we spread out to each location that each of us are capable of temporarily closing. It's worked every time. Generally, we find henchmen and close off a few more locations before we hit the villain, but we haven't failed once we learned how to play.
Are there restrictions on how many times the bard/fighter/ranger can use their +1d4 ability? I've been asked if we are doing something wrong because we can bumble our way through each scenario with no problems. I just tell them, "Paizo wants us to have fun. Losing isn't fun." Oh, but sometimes losing IS fun!
/sadface
|
As mentioned above, Cure is already restricted to "at the same location". So are Lem and Valeros's powers to aid others. Hopefully, you're only using those powers to help people at your location.
But I do agree that the game is fairly easy. One suggestion I've heard to make it harder, which I haven't gotten around to trying yet, is to add an additional location. With 5 players, that would mean 8 locations instead of 7. It doesn't really increase the chance of death, but you do have to explore faster to win before running out the blessings deck.
Another possible suggestions to make it tougher is just go with a smaller blessings deck. But I think I prefer the extra location idea.
5 Players: Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Fighter, and Monk.
7 LocationsWe decide which two locations to close quick, then we spread out to each location that each of us are capable of temporarily closing. It's worked every time. Generally, we find henchmen and close off a few more locations before we hit the villain, but we haven't failed once we learned how to play.
Are there restrictions on how many times the bard/fighter/ranger can use their +1d4 ability? I've been asked if we are doing something wrong because we can bumble our way through each scenario with no problems. I just tell them, "Paizo wants us to have fun. Losing isn't fun." Oh, but sometimes losing IS fun!
/sadface
It looks like everything is on the up-and-up. Maybe you've just stumbled upon the A-team of characters. :)
Valeros' fighter 1d4 is automatic as long as you're at the same location (no limit, no cost). Lem can use his bard 1d4 as long as he has a card in his hand to recharge and he's at the same location, so at most 6 times per round (not turn; remember that you only redraw up to your hand size at the end of your turn); similarly for Harsk's ranger ability, except the "another location" requirement and his hand size is only 5.
I'd say if you want to up the difficulty, maybe try adding the 6th player location and see how it goes. That shouldn't alter the mechanics of the game, but having that extra location to cover/explore should provide the added difficulty. I'd played a few games with 3 characters using the 4-player setup and it's worked fine. (I see Fromper beat me to this point.)
As mentioned above, Cure is already restricted to "at the same location". So are Lem and Valeros's powers to aid others. Hopefully, you're only using those powers to help people at your location.
But I do agree that the game is fairly easy. One suggestion I've heard to make it harder, which I haven't gotten around to trying yet, is to add an additional location. With 5 players, that would mean 8 locations instead of 7. It doesn't really increase the chance of death, but you do have to explore faster to win before running out the blessings deck.
Another possible suggestions to make it tougher is just go with a smaller blessings deck. But I think I prefer the extra location idea.
Has Cure been errata'd or am did I not RTFC correctly? And, yes, we are playing the PC powers correctly (location wise). I do like the idea of adding an extra location to our play sessions, however.
Well, if you've been doing Cure wrong, you may be doing something else wrong that is making it seem too easy. However, doing cure from any location to any other location is, in my opinion, enough to make the game seem too easy. Having to be in the same location disrupts whatever location strategy you were pursuing as someone moves to the other player's location.
Does Cure say "at this location" on the card? I don't have a copy in front of me atm.
The curer and the curee must be at the same location, but I don't remember the wording. It is very explicit though.
I'm asking because I don't remember reading that on the card. Plus I asked on the forums if people had to be at the same location for spells/blessings, and was told "no." Unless it explicitly says so on the card, they may be played at any time and any place.
I kinda hope I've been doing it wrong, actually. It would change the game a bit. We had people cast Levitation on someone at another location to bring them to their location, kinda like a town portal spell.
Does Cure say "at this location" on the card? I don't have a copy in front of me atm.
Yes. "Reveal this card and choose a character at your location. Shuffle 1d4+1 random cards from his discard pile into his deck, then discard this card."
So far, we've been playing it right. I've maybe used cure incorrectly twice or so. Nothing game breaking. Do most spells have location restrictions?
The way my group has been playing is only one of each card type can modify a check. So you can't have 3 players all throw in a blessing, for example. It helps prevent some encounters from being way too easy.
The way my group has been playing is only one of each card type can modify a check. So you can't have 3 players all throw in a blessing, for example. It helps prevent some encounters from being way too easy.
Perhaps I read something wrong, but I thought this was already the rule. Or does it only apply to spells / weapons, and blessings are explicitly excluded? Dont have the book in front of me at the moment
The way my group has been playing is only one of each card type can modify a check. So you can't have 3 players all throw in a blessing, for example. It helps prevent some encounters from being way too easy.Perhaps I read something wrong, but I thought this was already the rule. Or does it only apply to spells / weapons, and blessings are explicitly excluded? Dont have the book in front of me at the moment
No, the rule is 1 card per type per player per check; blessings are not excluded.
We've tried the 'place henchman on the bottom' variant a couple times now. It does slow things down in our ultra-maxed duo, but we're still not really coming close to closing out the blessings deck, even though we're dealing 6 locations for 2 characters. I prefer the minor bit of randomness of the villain being in the bottom 5. For example, playing the legit way, our first turn in the final Skinsaw scenario we uncovered was the villain as the first card in the tower, so we never had to deal with that location's/the scenario's negative effects. Of course, WITH the variant the second you encounter the villain all your bottom-half shuffling goes awry anyway, but until that point it makes things require a little more effort.
@JohnDavis2 - nice to see my "each character banishes 1 card per unclosed location if the time runs out" variation is catching on :)
A quick note to say that we now play with the villains and henchmen in the bottom halves of the decks. I've written up how we play here in case it's of interest to anybody else:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qdn5?Variant-how-we-make-the-game-a-bit-more (difficult)
3) Cure and minor staff of healing is to powerful, you heal and use blessing, heal and use blessing.
I'm confused by this example. Are you suggesting using a blessing to increase the effectiveness of healing (i.e. 2d4+1)? If so that is not a correct interpretation of how to add dice with a blessing. You may only add dice to a check. Healing is not a check, it's simply an effect from a power on the card(s).
3) Cure and minor staff of healing is to powerful, you heal and use blessing, heal and use blessing.I'm confused by this example. Are you suggesting using a blessing to increase the effectiveness of healing (i.e. 2d4+1)? If so that is not a correct interpretation of how to add dice with a blessing. You may only add dice to a check. Healing is not a check, it's simply an effect from a power on the card(s).
My guess was that he meant "use blessings and then heal (them back into your deck)" rather than use blessings to boost the heal roll. @TommyEkman - could you clarify what you meant?
P.S. in my solitaire game (six characters) I have 3 Cures and one Staff of Healing and they're often still close to death. I'm not sure I could run it with less than that!
@bidmaron - putting villains at the bottom wasn't my idea, but I did (and do) think it makes the game harder on balance.
(My idea was the banishing of random boons if you run out of time)
Vic's argument was that an early encounter with a villain is more difficult than a later one. I still disagree with this and, in my experience of mainly playing with six characters, finding a villain early just means that we know roughly where he runs to (or can evade him so know exactly where he is). It may be that future villains cause ongoing negative effects after they are first encountered, in which case I'll re-evaluate things then.
On the other thread, @FlatTheImpaler's idea to keep villains/henchmen in separate decks next to the locations is an interesting one and may be worth testing out. I also think the biggest problem with an early Villain encounter is that you then know where they are... I'm keen to play around with some kind of timer to prevent this but, like you, I'm currently quite limited on how often I can play PACG.
P.S. thanks for your compliment about my expertness :)
I'll second Vic's point about the difficulty of an early villain encounter. Yes, it makes it easier in the sense that you may know where the villain fled to and you have 1 less location to explore, but that's assuming 1) you're adequately prepared for it, and 2) that you actually defeat it.
For example, if you encounter the villain in your first turn... you haven't had a chance to optimize your hand yet. Very rarely is the initial hand going to be optimal, let alone will you be ready to face the main villain. For example, if you're playing as Seelah, you know you have an armor, but you're not guaranteed to have a weapon or a spell.
Also, consider the resources you may need to spend temp-to close locations and then to ensure you defeat the villain; blessings spent here are explorations lost later.
And if you lose to the villain, that's potential blessings lost from the Blessings deck (first turn, at least 2), giving you less time to finish the scenario.
So basically, if you win you're expending yourself early. If you lose, you're still expending yourself and also making the scenario more difficult that it already was. In either case you may gain some knowledge about where the villain is, but it comes at a cost.
Maybe it's because it's a long time since I failed to defeat a villain... hmm... next time I play solitaire I'll ask my glamorous assistant to find the location deck with the villain and shuffle it into the TOP half of that deck instead of the bottom.
I'll report back on how it goes!
Sometimes the game can be hard, IMO. A lot of the game is based on luck, and having other team members to provide backup.
Since this game has RPG elements, your attacks and counters are all based on luck / roles and whatever you might have in your hand.
I was playing a game with my group where you had to fight the dragon in the base set and we were down to the very last Blessing card from the Blessing Deck. I was up to defeat the Dragon. My team used their blessings to beat the previous henchmen, so I had only one blessing going in. I had like 6 dice and needed to role a 9 or higher to win. Pretty good odds for me....or so I though. I seriously rolled like all 1's and ended up with an 8. Horrible!
Good news is that I did make a minor mistake going into the fight being a bit excited trying to win and forgot I actually had a +1 to my base skill. This was JUST enough to beat the dragon. My friends were ready to choke me lol.
TL;DR: Need good roles, need good hands, and hopefully high level monsters are not lurking in the locations.
Chief Technical Officer
|
2) Second, the monsters were way to easy. So we added +3 to defeat all monsters, and +1 for every adventure pack. So on adventure pack 2 every monster had +5.
I have to say, this indicates to me that you're interpreting *something* wrong, making the game too easy. Can you describe how a typical encounter with a monster goes in your game, in detail?
What it seems like is this (from our group of 4-5 people playing through Burnt Offerings):
If you get your henchmen in the top few cards of the deck and your villain is in your first few encounters (not exactly the first), you don't get a time crunch and you can defeat the villain easily.
If you're unlucky though and you don't get that, then you'll be racing against time. We defeated the villain the very last turn in the last two scenarios we got, and most of the henchmen were at the bottom (or in one case we were really unlucky in closing the location - we debated using a blessing on an Acrobatics check for Merisiel and she failed the check.)
The race against time is pretty exciting - we have to balance out not dying to not finishing the scenario (since we don't want to repeat it). So we got into a few close scrapes.
@zerothHour - I completely agree with you :)
OK, so I set up the game and then asked my glamorous assistant to find the pile with the villain and shuffle him into the top half of his deck instead of the bottom half where all the villains and henchmen started.
I then began the game (six character solitaire, as usual, with Seoni, Lem, Valeros, Harsk, Sajan and Seelah). The scenario was the Cult Revealed.
On her first turn (the party's sixth) Seelah uncovered the villain and kicked him into next Sunday with a Glaive (Seelah has "d10 + d8 + d6 + 5", plus a discard-to-reroll before even getting any help from her friends. The friends chipped in a little: Harsk recharged a card to add "1d4 + 1" to both checks and I think Sajan added a blessing to the second check). When the villain ran this both closed his location and shuffled all the other locations, which, on balance, probably made the game much easier since now the Henchmen weren't in the bottom of all the decks. It also put more blessings into play which, when found, give the party either more power or more explores.
We finished the scenario with 19 cards still in the timer deck, many new blessings and some useful gear discovered in the process.
Not a great first result for "Villains near the top are more dangerous"!
Maybe we are just subpar players, but I have played a total of four games with three groups since purchasing my copy of the game.
Of them we have had 2 wins on Brigandoom, both of which were within a few blessing cards of running out of time with 4 players. 1 win at the first AP scenario with 4 players which was again fairly close to the end, and a LOSS at the second AP scenario with 6 players.
Maybe as the AP progresses it gets 'easier' but so far I feel the balance is just fine.
- Wraith
@bidmaron - perhaps you're right, and I know that you can't extrapolate from one data point.
However, I think I have only seen one loss in a villain encounter that I can think of (and that was becuase it was the THIRD time in a row fighting that "start again if you roll a 1 or 2" villain). Of the villains so far, their checks are not *that* hard and the penalty of losing is great - so you tend to throw a lot at them (then gain a closed location, a narrowed-down position and a sprinkling of blessings).
In short, I'm sticking to my original theory (for now) that it's better for a party (of 5-6 characters) to encounter villains early than late. It would, of course, be a very different story with a single character that has no support from others' hands.
Perhaps the villains' difficulty should scale with the party size? E.g. add 1 or 2 to the villain's checks for each character in the party beyond the first? (e.g. add somewhere between 5-10 to the checks in a six character game)
Maybe we should limit the number of blessings that can be played per check ? I do like the blessings only add a D4 rule. Could give some of the classes a "+1, +2" power line for blessings as well.
edit: the druid having an extra D4+2 to EVERY SINGLE check is pretty OP.