You're missing the point. If they get down to that many cards, they have nothing to lose my exploiting this combo. If/when they fail the recharge, THEY ARE NO WORSE OFF THAN THEY WERE BEFORE. They just get a super turn with more cards to use than they would have had before; they need healing either way. Furthermore, there is no downside to including the three cards needed to do the combo until you fail to recharge.
Also, if you DO manage to get the optimized build running, which I think is way easier than you guys think, you pretty much auto win every scenario after that. You build it and... you beat the campaign right there. There's nothing the game can do to you. Particularly after some hand size power feats.
Ok let me just state that the probably biggest problem with this EXPLOIT is just getting 2 Restorations into the same deck.
There are only 2 in the game! Think how many spells there are in each randomized draw, even if you have removed most of the basic spells, the chances of BOTH Restorations being out there are slim. Over time, yes, you may encounter and eventually get BOTH in the party... but that's a lot of time and scenarios to get the averages up high enough.
Unless you are auto-failing scenarios or purposefully re-running scenarios to "FARM" spells... I don't think this scenario will even approach likelihood for the majority of gamers.
Please understand, I appreciate your investigation and work into "breaking" this card... but from your continual changes of your "optimized" list it doesn't really sound like you've worked it out that much. Yes, it becomes more powerful for certain characters when they are close to death. But that's the point, they are CLOSE TO DEATH. Who appreciates a Cure more... the guy with 3 cards in discard pile or the guy with 12? Cards are more/less powerful at different times in the game.
Also, Staff of minor healing heals back a random card, so if your discard pile is huge you're not going to be able to cherry pick your healed card. Not sure if that was part of your original "exploit" but anyways.
Honestly when I first looked at Restoration, I thought... now other than Harsk/Lem... who is gonna want this cast on them? Maybe Seoni?
My thoughts,
Motrax
If you wanted to put a stop to this, you would probably need to make recharged cards not go to the bottom of the deck until end of turn. I'm not sure if that breaks anything important. It could result in more failed recharges (losing cards on later checks might make it harder to recharge). It would cause all cards recharged on a turn to be stacked under the shuffled deck (making it harder to get to your good spells). You would be able to pick the order of recharge effects, stacking the bottom of the deck.
I believe there has been one villain/henchman that discarded a random card from your hand before checks. A nastier version of that could take out your ability to cure, leaving you doomed.
Also, Staff of minor healing heals back a random card, so if your discard pile is huge you're not going to be able to cherry pick your healed card. Not sure if that was part of your original "exploit" but anyways.
I am not sure you under stand how it works, you cast staff of minor healing as many times as you want and can draw your entire discard pile into your hand every turn. It doesn't matter if you can't get back the exact one you want, because you get them all back.
Now I definitely don't know how it works. Staff of minor healing as many times as you want? You can only use it once, then it goes to the bottom of your deck. You're saying since the draw deck is NIL, you will RESTORE it back? Then you need to recharge RESTORE.
Now you Staff something, now the draw deck is RESTORE, Staff, and random card. RESTORE - gets you RESTORE and Staff, recharge RESTORE. Ok then Staff something, now random card and RESTORE are on top. RESTORE those back to hand, recharging RESTORE. now staff is on top and then restore. Ok... typing it out helps to see the pattern.
But again, this is an extreme corner case... getting all those cards and then setup for that specific situation...
If I really want to break the system I'll just use my 2 Belts of Infinite Strength, 2 Belts of Infinite Dexterity, 2 Headbands of Infinite Wisdom, or 2 Rings of Infinite Protection.
(And NO... You can't really do that... because MIKE said so, for now!)
I think the OP has proven this is OP. I'm going to houserule that a character can only have at maximum a single Restoration.
Also, Staff of minor healing heals back a random card, so if your discard pile is huge you're not going to be able to cherry pick your healed card. Not sure if that was part of your original "exploit" but anyways.
I am not sure you under stand how it works, you cast staff of minor healing as many times as you want and can draw your entire discard pile into your hand every turn. It doesn't matter if you can't get back the exact one you want, because you get them all back.
Now I definitely don't know how it works. Staff of minor healing as many times as you want? You can only use it once, then it goes to the bottom of your deck. You're saying since the draw deck is NIL, you will RESTORE it back? Then you need to recharge RESTORE.
Now you Staff something, now the draw deck is RESTORE, Staff, and random card. RESTORE - gets you RESTORE and Staff, recharge RESTORE. Ok then Staff something, now random card and RESTORE are on top. RESTORE those back to hand, recharging RESTORE. now staff is on top and then restore. Ok... typing it out helps to see the pattern.
But again, this is an extreme corner case... getting all those cards and then setup for that specific situation...
If I really want to break the system I'll just use my 2 Belts of Infinite Strength, 2 Belts of Infinite Dexterity, 2 Headbands of Infinite Wisdom, or 2 Rings of Infinite Protection.
(And NO... You can't really do that... because MIKE said so, for now!)
If everything is in your hand, then when you discard down to reset your hand you won't draw anything and kill yourself. Next turn you can repeat the process. There's no need to be cured.
And if Mike said so, then you CAN'T legally exploit the belts like that. My issue is that you CAN exploit Restoration.
Also, exploiting belts fust grants you infinite of one skill for a check at the cost of two cards; you're just auto succeeding at one type of check. That's not near as bad as "I built my deck this way and now I probably can't lose to any scenario in the game."
I think the OP has proven this is OP. I'm going to houserule that a character can only have at maximum a single Restoration.
I was beginning to wonder if anyone would see the light XD
I'm temporarily house-ruling instead my suggestion that it stays on a player so that they can't be restored more than once per turn. It's too fun a card, even when not breaking it, to ask that players only take one in their decks. Although your solution is simpler.
I would like to see a comment from the Dev team whether infinite loops with this card is intended or not. I think a house rule of no more than 2 Rejuvenations a turn seems fine. Two so if you have 2 in your deck and you draw them at the same time, you aren't penalized, it just keep you from replaying the same one more than once and going infinite. The only 1 in your deck rule is kinda hard because if you have 1 and encounter the other, now you cannot acquire it to give to another player.
I'd like to know as well.
And you aren't penalized for drawing two unless you're playing solo. Restoration can be played on other players.
We're watching this thread closely. We'll let you know when we have something of value to say about it. Till then, more actual play results are welcome.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a saying: "Don't tell me about your fishing trip—show me your fillets."
Also, if you DO manage to get the optimized build running, which I think is way easier than you guys think, you pretty much auto win every scenario after that. You build it and... you beat the campaign right there. There's nothing the game can do to you.
If you actually manage to do that, then I guess I'll have to congratulate you... on managing to make the game less fun for yourself. You... win?
As I got through the Black Tower scenario aka the only good chance to get spells once you hit AP3-AP4S2, and I finally had a Restoration pop up. I didn't even bother dumping a blessing onto Lem's roll, and I failed the roll. Why? I'd much rather have an attack spell in the deck for Lem than a card with a really high recharge cost (even with his +2 recharge spell power) that may not net another attack spell. The party also has Kyra in it which would have been a good idea for her if you give her the Sarenrae back on top of her deck power, but again, that's a really tough recharge roll for her to make meaning all you're doing is either one-shoting the card (bad idea) or forcing her to miss a free explore action to put it back into her deck (really bad idea).
So honestly, you're talking about a card that works wonderfully for ONE character with a specific build with the only 2 copies of the card in the game in a game that seems to be winding down getting spells frequently (again AP4S2 was it from AP3 on and remember that that Codex you get NEVER puts those Divine cards in your hand meaning if it shows up there you still don't get it after the scenario). Oh, and that specific build is going to be pretty impossible to get unless you start over with a new Lini specifically to get that build. So, basically all this thread is is a Theoretical Optimal and/or Broken Deck build. Which is nice, but provides no real value to actual gameplay.
Remember, we're talking about non-Ezren/Lini spellcasters having a maximum of 6 spell slots with Seelah and Harsk auto-failing the recharge roll on Restoration. And of course, drawing 2 cards that you may not be able to use that turn means you might have to discard them because you're over your hand size. It's a nice card, but you have to compare it to all of the other spells available. It isn't a broken card or even overly-powerful either.
Edit: And by AP4S2, I of course mean AP4S3. Oops.
You didn't even try for it? Then how do you know that it's not worth it? This card is really, REALLY good even without my shenanigans. And Lem doesn't need to recharge it, he's got his mending every turn ability, and can cure himself to top that off. Kyra I don't know about, I don't like her (in my opinion she's the worst character in the game, barring maybe Seelah). Harsk and Seelah I can see going either way, I think this card is that good.
You should really try this card out, people. Even forgetting that I think it's busted, forgetting the crazy combos you can make, forgetting all that type of stuff, just try it. It's fun to play and really good, you might like it. I certainly wouldn't suggest passing up on it just because you think it's lame - it's the only card in the game that does anything like this.
I have a saying: "Don't tell me about your fishing trip—show me your fillets."
Also, if you DO manage to get the optimized build running, which I think is way easier than you guys think, you pretty much auto win every scenario after that. You build it and... you beat the campaign right there. There's nothing the game can do to you.If you actually manage to do that, then I guess I'll have to congratulate you... on managing to make the game less fun for yourself. You... win?
This seems an odd stance to take. Why not take this stance with the multiple belts of whatever?
My guess on Vic's stance is this: With a game that has the complexities of PACG, there's no way the designers can think of and eliminate every possible exploit the multitude of gamers might come up with. And even if they did, there's no way they can enforce the rules if a player decides to get creative, cheat or use house rules. So in the end, the level of enjoyment of the game comes down to the players themselves and how they handle rules, questions, and exploits.
Some people enjoy playing a game simply as is, as close to how the designers intended it to be. Other people enjoy finding ways to modify a game simply to see if it can be done. Different people, different forms of enjoyment. To each their own.
The Restoration exploit intrigues me. I would like to see it done... just to see IF it could be done. But I wouldn't play that way. Much like I don't turn on god-mode on video games I play because there's no real sense of accomplishment. My friend played Oblivion/Skyrim and killed every single NPC in every city... just to see if he could and what would happen. Then he loaded a previous save-game and proceeded as normal because the game was no fun with nobody to interact with.
My guess on Vic's stance is this: With a game that has the complexities of PACG, there's no way the designers can think of and eliminate every possible exploit the multitude of gamers might come up with.
We can sure as heck try, though.
But really, what we want to see is this exploit in action. We'd need to see that it works a lot of the time, that it doesn't kill you, and that when it does work, it isn't any fun at all. If all that's true, then we'll think about changing things. But for now, we haven't seen enough evidence that a change is warranted.
So why not just try it? The thoughts on the matter have been posted, one shouldn't need to see a video of it. Just build it and try a scenario.
And I mean that sincerely, not rudely. :)
We are including our own experience trying it in "we haven't seen enough evidence that a change is warranted."
I see. I was going off the "we want to see... this exploit in action."
---
So, on a somewhat related note, just how much does the quantity of cards like this affect your decisions to erratta? If the belts, for instance, only came in amounts of one each so that you couldn't reveal two of them for a loop, would you change them still?
How much of a house rule is it when players take one card from Rise of the Runelords and put it in Skulls and Shackles, or alter the number of a given card they play with?
Here's what I'm getting at. Let's say that Restoration is considered completely fine at two copies ber box. Sure, you can loop it, but it's really hard to do. Let's also, for the sake of this question, assume that it's utterly bonkers crazy powerful broken AS WRITTEN when taken with another draw card, whether that be a third restoration or another card in a different base set. Would that bother you? Would you be willing to errata it for those who buy multiples of adventure decks to mix it up, or those who port cards over from one box set to another? (We're not talking about changes to the basic rules here, just quantities of cards.)
So, on a somewhat related note, just how much does the quantity of cards like this affect your decisions to erratta? If the belts, for instance, only came in amounts of one each so that you couldn't reveal two of them for a loop, would you change them still?
The way I interpret the rules, I don't think the infinite loop with the belts is possible.
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.
That pretty much prevents infinite looping of powers during an encounter, in my mind. No errata necessary.
On the other hand, the Restoration cycling trick you've described here would most likely require an errata to Restoration if it is deemed sufficiently game-breaking. That could entail making it only playable at the start of the turn or the end of the turn, removing the recharge check, requiring it to be displayed in front of you until the end of the turn, adding a cost to bury a card from your discard pile, etc.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm interested in patching holes that unintentionally make the game less fun. The lengths that you have to go to in your plan to break the game are never ever ever going to happen by accident. You have to specifically choose pretty much your entire deck, play particular characters, and then specifically play in an unusual way for several rounds in a row before your exploit kicks in to makes you indestructible, and if doing all that causes you to have less fun, that's entirely on you—assuming it even actually works, of course.
This is not a competitive game with a million-dollar professional tournament. It's a cooperative game, and the joy in it comes in the playing as well as the winning.
I think Restoration is a fun card, not a broken one, even if you have both of them in your deck. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not seeing it at all so far.
I have no interest in making the game less fun for everyone else in order to prevent you from going to great lengths to make it less fun for yourself.
I'm interested in patching holes that unintentionally make the game less fun. The lengths that you have to go to in your plan to break the game are never ever ever going to happen by accident. You have to specifically choose pretty much your entire deck, play particular characters, and then specifically play in an unusual way for several rounds in a row before your exploit kicks in to makes you indestructible, and if doing all that causes you to have less fun, that's entirely on you—assuming it even actually works, of course.
This is not a competitive game with a million-dollar professional tournament. It's a cooperative game, and the joy in it comes in the playing as well as the winning.
I think Restoration is a fun card, not a broken one, even if you have both of them in your deck. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not seeing it at all so far.
I have no interest in making the game less fun for everyone else in order to prevent you from going to great lengths to make it less fun for yourself.
A well thought out, excellent counter-point.
I still think using two of these and staff in the same deck is cheese, but otherwise you have left me without a rebuttal.
I have no interest in making the game less fun for everyone else in order to prevent you from going to great lengths to make it less fun for yourself.I still think using two of these and staff in the same deck is cheese, ...
I feel that Orbis should achieve this deck through actual play, use it to solo through all remaining scenarios and then be declared to have ascended to godhood. When others beg for an AP7, he can ask for an AP-Infinity with D&D Immortals-style rules. There is a great deal of fun to be had in achieving something like this, just not in playing that way or playing with a godlike character.
So, what should a Blessing of Orbis do? If it draws extra cards, we know that it will be broken.
I have no interest in making the game less fun for everyone else in order to prevent you from going to great lengths to make it less fun for yourself.I still think using two of these and staff in the same deck is cheese, ...I feel that Orbis should achieve this deck through actual play, use it to solo through all remaining scenarios and then be declared to have ascended to godhood. When others beg for an AP7, he can ask for an AP-Infinity with D&D Immortals-style rules. There is a great deal of fun to be had in achieving something like this, just not in playing that way or playing with a godlike character.
So, what should a Blessing of Orbis do? If it draws extra cards, we know that it will be broken.
OMG I wish I could sig this.
You have convinced me. I will solo 8 locations with Lini and build the ultimate deck... and ascend to godhood.
Blessing of Orbis should:
Add one die to a check
Discard this card to explore your location
Discard this card to make a willing player draw a card.
Recharge:
You may recharge this card if the top card of the blessings deck is a Blessing of Orbis.
Giving up a blessing to draw a card is hardly broken. Most of the time it's blessings that you want to draw.
So, what should a Blessing of Orbis do? If it draws extra cards, we know that it will be broken."Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card as many times as you want to add 100 dice to your attempt to break Pathfinder ACG."
T.T
I'm tryiing to make it so you CAN'T break it.
Correction: "Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card as many times as you want to add 100 dice to your attempt to convince everyone that Pathfinder ACG is now broken". :pSo, what should a Blessing of Orbis do? If it draws extra cards, we know that it will be broken."Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card as many times as you want to add 100 dice to your attempt to break Pathfinder ACG."T.T
I'm tryiing to make it so you CAN'T break it.
._.
Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card to throw 100 dice in an attempt to wound someone being mean.
Don't worry, Orbis. I have a spell that will let me choose you to succeed at a check to acquire a sense of humor. :DCorrection: "Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card as many times as you want to add 100 dice to your attempt to convince everyone that Pathfinder ACG is now broken". :pSo, what should a Blessing of Orbis do? If it draws extra cards, we know that it will be broken."Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card as many times as you want to add 100 dice to your attempt to break Pathfinder ACG."T.T
I'm tryiing to make it so you CAN'T break it.
._.
Blessing of Orbis: Reveal this card to throw 100 dice in an attempt to wound someone being mean.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4wrnwLii91qe7736o1_250.gif
---
Oh, and mlvanbie, it might amuse you to know that since I can't sig it on here, I sigged your post on a different forum XD
Well, I was convinced by this. I also don't think that just because it's a co-op game, that loopholes like this shouldn't be closed. Imagine bringing the game to a gaming store or a con and sitting down with random players, one of which ends up being a power gamer who starts doing stuff like this. I'd rather have it not be an option than have to tell someone to stop playing that way or have the game experience ruined.
So, on a somewhat related note, just how much does the quantity of cards like this affect your decisions to erratta? If the belts, for instance, only came in amounts of one each so that you couldn't reveal two of them for a loop, would you change them still?
How much of a house rule is it when players take one card from Rise of the Runelords and put it in Skulls and Shackles, or alter the number of a given card they play with?
Here's what I'm getting at. Let's say that Restoration is considered completely fine at two copies ber box. Sure, you can loop it, but it's really hard to do. Let's also, for the sake of this question, assume that it's utterly bonkers crazy powerful broken AS WRITTEN when taken with another draw card, whether that be a third restoration or another card in a different base set. Would that bother you? Would you be willing to errata it for those who buy multiples of adventure decks to mix it up, or those who port cards over from one box set to another? (We're not talking about changes to the basic rules here, just quantities of cards.)
I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions. One thing that has been abundantly clear is that when I say something, I will hear it repeated back to me many times thereafter.
So instead I'll say this. We try to think long term on this project. Writing cards that make us not be able to write other cards, or include them in combination with other cards, is a self-defeating plan, because at any point someone working on the game could make a decision that would countermand that intention. So if we think something is broken, we'd rather fix it early than wait for it to rear up in a very bad way later on.
Mike
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was convinced by this. I also don't think that just because it's a co-op game, that loopholes like this shouldn't be closed. Imagine bringing the game to a gaming store or a con and sitting down with random players, one of which ends up being a power gamer who starts doing stuff like this. I'd rather have it not be an option than have to tell someone to stop playing that way or have the game experience ruined.
I 'm not even going to attempt to write rules to close every loophole that allows people to spoil the game for others—it's not doable. Ultimately, cooperative games are a social contract, and if somebody breaches that contract with you, stop playing with them.
I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions. One thing that has been abundantly clear is that when I say something, I will hear it repeated back to me many times thereafter.
Fair enough, much as I'd love a direct answer.
So instead I'll say this. We try to think long term on this project. Writing cards that make us not be able to write other cards, or include them in combination with other cards, is a self-defeating plan, because at any point someone working on the game could make a decision that would countermand that intention. So if we think something is broken, we'd rather fix it early than wait for it to rear up in a very bad way later on.
Mike
Isn't this the strongest argument yet for fixing this? I can show how ludicrous things get If a player has a third restoration, if you'd like. It's not pretty. There are other things that make it way worse, as well. For instance, a Toad that recharges instead of being buried, or a card that let's you draw the bottom card of your deck. I can go with the idea that it can be left as is if this was the last expansion, but if you guys are worried about this card limiting your design space, let me tell you, with absolute certainty, the way this card is is incredibly easy to take over the top in future expansions.
There is nothing more powerful in most card games than a draw card that leaves the player's hand larger than it started. And restoration not only does that, but it has a built-in mechanic that lets you potentially use it again in the same turn just by drawing more cards. I don't make the decisions, and I don't mean to be arrogant and tell you what to do with your game, but believe me, If you want to avoid combos worse than the ones in this thread but not limit your design space, this card needs to be toned down. Everything in my experience with card games tells me this.
I suggest you simply add a line hat says it stays in play til end of turn. Then it does what is desired with minimal restrictions on future releases. But there may be a better fix.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
There is nothing more powerful in most card games than a draw card that leaves the player's hand larger than it started. And restoration not only does that, but it has a built-in mechanic that lets you potentially use it again in the same turn just by drawing more cards.
...which is mitigated by the fact that every time you use it you're bringing yourself closer to death. (Because character decks are thin, it's a lot easier to deck yourself in this game with lots of small draws than it is in, say, Magic: The Gathering.) And in the PACG, dying sucks a lot more than losing.
Yes, it becomes a problem if you can *also* figure out how to isolate yourself from the risk of death, but I'm not seeing reasonable options for that... and if I did, it's actually those options I would be more suspicious of.
Giving up a blessing to draw a card is hardly broken. Most of the time it's blessings that you want to draw.
Wouldn't you just use the Staff of Minor Healing and Major Cure to get them back? Now you just need Cures, Blessings of Orbis and Strength to be broken. I think that Mike and Vic would agree :)
This was why I didn't suggest the obvious, but maybe Blessing of Orbis should be either broken or a unique promo card to properly celebrate its namesake....
Giving up a blessing to draw a card is hardly broken. Most of the time it's blessings that you want to draw.Wouldn't you just use the Staff of Minor Healing and Major Cure to get them back? Now you just need Cures, Blessings of Orbis and Strength to be broken. I think that Mike and Vic would agree :)
This was why I didn't suggest the obvious, but maybe Blessing of Orbis should be either broken or a unique promo card to properly celebrate its namesake....
In a game like this, a card that discards to draw one card is really hard to break. even if you could spam strength (you can't, it stays out) your idea wouldn't work without a card that draws more than one card and an empty discard pile. This blessing is actually pretty bad except that you can a) try and draw into that card you really need, like a weapon, and b) use it on other players.
Isn't this the strongest argument yet for fixing this?
And now you know why I try not to answer hypotheticals. You heard me say "I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions" and then immediately pounced on what I did say so you could lock me into a decision.
I haven't said I'm not going to recommend a change to Restoration. I have said that I'm waiting until I see more that tells me if I should. We've had discussions about it, including an hour-long one last night, and we will continue to do so until we make a decision. That's how we do things on my team. When we have something concrete to say about it, I promise you will know it. Until then, I continue to encourage you to share what happens in your games.
Isn't this the strongest argument yet for fixing this?And now you know why I try not to answer hypotheticals. You heard me say "I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions" and then immediately pounced on what I did say so you could lock me into a decision.
I haven't said I'm not going to recommend a change to Restoration. I have said that I'm waiting until I see more that tells me if I should. We've had discussions about it, including an hour-long one last night, and we will continue to do so until we make a decision. That's how we do things on my team. When we have something concrete to say about it, I promise you will know it. Until then, I continue to encourage you to share what happens in your games.
My apologies, there was no malicious / manipulative intent behind my workds. I thought you wanted to avoid taking a stance on the moving cards from base set to base set and multiple adventure decks stuff in my post. I'm just debating here, not trying to lock you into anything.
Isn't this the strongest argument yet for fixing this?And now you know why I try not to answer hypotheticals. You heard me say "I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions" and then immediately pounced on what I did say so you could lock me into a decision.
I haven't said I'm not going to recommend a change to Restoration. I have said that I'm waiting until I see more that tells me if I should. We've had discussions about it, including an hour-long one last night, and we will continue to do so until we make a decision. That's how we do things on my team. When we have something concrete to say about it, I promise you will know it. Until then, I continue to encourage you to share what happens in your games.
Wow. An hour long discussion about 1 card? I can't even begin to imagine the conversation. Thanks for caring so much about your game, just as we do. Its nice to know we get that kind of support from the designers and publisher of the game.
Wow. An hour long discussion about 1 card? I can't even begin to imagine the conversation. Thanks for caring so much about your game, just as we do. Its nice to know we get that kind of support from the designers and publisher of the game.Isn't this the strongest argument yet for fixing this?And now you know why I try not to answer hypotheticals. You heard me say "I'm not inclined to answer this question as written, because it might lock me into further decisions" and then immediately pounced on what I did say so you could lock me into a decision.
I haven't said I'm not going to recommend a change to Restoration. I have said that I'm waiting until I see more that tells me if I should. We've had discussions about it, including an hour-long one last night, and we will continue to do so until we make a decision. That's how we do things on my team. When we have something concrete to say about it, I promise you will know it. Until then, I continue to encourage you to share what happens in your games.
I can see it. I've had discussions like that myself, although - granted - not from the designer's perspective. Back when I played Yugioh years ago, discussions on which card was most effective at thinning your deck to acquire a winning combo could drag on quite a while.
And I second it being great that the game is so well cared for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is definitely not the first hour-long discussion about one card.
This week.
From reading over this, it looks like you would have to be in a pretty rare situation, and also very close to death. I personally don't see the fun in that. I am sure that if I put enough thought into min-maxing each character I could find something. One of the major things I like about this game is that it is cooperative instead of antagonistic. If it wasn't cooperative I could see more players trying to do what you did and it would be boring for everyone involved.
|
One thing that has been abundantly clear is that when I say something, I will hear it repeated back to me many times thereafter.
On the plus side, this does seem to indicate you have a legion of gamers hanging upon your every word...
...at least, I think that this is on the plus side. It does tend to bring out lots of rules-lawyers, as you've noted...
I believe I will choose to look through this prism and see the positive: you have succeeded in creating a game that inspires many to these obsessive heights (depths? lengths?) of strategic machinations. I raise my tankard to ye.
I also see it as a positive.
It seems to me as I think about the recursive loop in my brain that you would only get so far in recovering your discard pile. Allow me to say that I have [I]not[I/] tried this out, but my thinking on this would work something like the following:
you have no cards left in your discard pile, 4 cards in your hand with lini (restoration x2, an animal ally, and staff of minor healing). you use your staff to get back a random card from among the 16 (assuming the end of AP4) that are in your discard pile. you then cast restoration, draw your staff of minor healing and the card you recharged, then attempt to recharge restoration. (you're rolling 1d10+4, plus 1d4+4, meaning that you need to roll a 6 between the two dice to recharge). let's say that you do. then you use your staff to get back a random card from your discard pile, leaving you with 15 cards there. you then cast your 2nd restoration to draw two cards, getting you back restoration and your staff of minor healing. you then need to recharge (again, we'll assume you do, but bear with me). you then use your staff of minor healing to recharge a card, leaving you with 14 down. next you cast restoration, getting you back a restoration and the card you healed previously. but now you fail to recharge, leaving you with 1 restoration and the card you drew, and no staff of minor healing to get a card back from your deck.
Now, I'll grant that you are in a better position than you were before you started, but as I said at the beginning of my post, I don't see you recharging your whole deck.
It seems to me as I think about the recursive loop in my brain that you would only get so far in recovering your discard pile. Allow me to say that I have [I]not[I/] tried this out, but my thinking on this would work something like the following:
you have no cards left in your discard pile, 4 cards in your hand with lini (restoration x2, an animal ally, and staff of minor healing). you use your staff to get back a random card from among the 16 (assuming the end of AP4) that are in your discard pile. you then cast restoration, draw your staff of minor healing and the card you recharged, then attempt to recharge restoration. (you're rolling 1d10+4, plus 1d4+4, meaning that you need to roll a 6 between the two dice to recharge). let's say that you do. then you use your staff to get back a random card from your discard pile, leaving you with 15 cards there. you then cast your 2nd restoration to draw two cards, getting you back restoration and your staff of minor healing. you then need to recharge (again, we'll assume you do, but bear with me). you then use your staff of minor healing to recharge a card, leaving you with 14 down. next you cast restoration, getting you back a restoration and the card you healed previously. but now you fail to recharge, leaving you with 1 restoration and the card you drew, and no staff of minor healing to get a card back from your deck.
Now, I'll grant that you are in a better position than you were before you started, but as I said at the beginning of my post, I don't see you recharging your whole deck.
Recharging your whole deck requires you to auto recharge 14. With Lini this is entirely possible, thanks to her animal ability. It's easy to have d10+9 on recharge checks by the end of AP4S1. You then need two of either a cat, headband of incredible wisdom, or appropriately placed feats.
But even without auto recharging, in the scenario you just proposed, your character should pretty much be dead. Instead, you get a big turn or two, and can even keep it going if you get back a toad, cure, or that item that buries to recharge a card (name is escaping me atm) etcetera. Since you're not sucking up your deck for the cards I proposed , this is quite reasonable.