This is a good point, and has been mentioned on other threads. In contrast, the Ranger class deck only contains 8 spells, although there are two Rangers who can have the Divine skill. Still, there is a paucity of good ranged weapons in the Ranger class deck (especially compared to the Rogue class deck), presumably because the melee Ranger Wrathack can have so many weapons.
The number of cards in a deck (110) is physically determined by the logistics of printing, so it would be expensive to include more cards in a deck. Having 3 characters instead of 4 seems a reasonable alternative.
I think that four characters is fine, they just need to be more similar. Then make characters like Flenta and Wrathack be promo characters which tell you how to merge two class decks.
Better yet, make a deck of special characters with add-on cards. The cards could also be used to allow characters of more obscure class from S&S to be played. 'Class deck add-on: not a complete class deck. Combines with any or all class decks and S&S.'
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't want all the characters in a class deck to be similar, or you're going to end up with everyone having basically the same builds. That's no fun. Having unique characters in the class decks is the right move, like Flenta and Wrathack. Them being there isn't the problem. Them being there with too many other characters that have their own desired cards is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the variety of available characters is (IMO) the best thing about the class decks, I'd rather other avenues be used to address this. For instance, it would be simple enough to add a scenario reward like "You may swap a [weapon/spell/etc] for an equivalent card from another class deck." Probably as one option among several, so that people playing from a single box would still have a usable reward. You could even make the same-box reward generally better, as the issue some characters run into isn't that they don't have good upgrades, but that there aren't *enough* of the cards they want.
So, here's hoping we eventually see something like:
Reward: Choose one of:
(A) Add a card of your choice from your class deck, up to the current adventure#.
(B) Add a card of your choice from another class deck, up to the current adventure# - 2.
If that's too broad, then add a bunch of restrictions (ranger can choose a rogue card; rogue can choose a bard card, bard can choose a monk card, etc.) that will help the particular characters who need this most.
The spread of characters is definitely an issue
The wizard deck only has 1 weapon at level 2 or 3, both of which require weapons proficiency to be used properly, even though only 1 wizard can become weapons-proficient, on a role card.
We picked up the rogue deck, because we felt there were too many melee weapons in RotR, and not enough Ranged weapons - unfortunately, now they've brought in the Dexterity-based melee for finesse weapons, lots of weapons are given over to this, so again, the options are fairly thin on the ground.
Zarlova was previewed with the level 5 divine attack spell and the powerful recharge ability - but when you get the box, you realise there's nothing between Holy Light and that level 5 spell with the attack spell on to let you recharge - having Fireblade (or worse, Inflict) as a combat option by adventure 3 or 4 is really quite dubious, especially when you can't keep a weapon around to fight monsters old-school
I would be tempted to say that the Class-decks should do without the iconic- we already have at least 1 version of each of them, often 2, but class-deck Kyra looks a lot more interesting (much more capable in melee combat) than the RotR one.
Given that we've been told the 110 cards is non-flexible (printing) and that these decks are designed at least partially as a cheap entry point for OP, I'm not sure that there is a simple solution to the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The characters will still have different powers, card feats and stats. Not needing to put in 10 cards to support a single character means that there will be more ways to create each character. If you have two finesse fighters and two strength fighters then you can split the weapons between the two types and there will be different better and worse weapons but they will all be useful.
The idea with the add-on deck is that there would be supplemental sets of cards so you could then have Flentas and Spellblades (either Wizard+weapons or Fighter+arcane spells). Warpreist and Paladin would be the divine equivalent. Divine plus animal Allies would be Druid; combine them with Wizard to get Witch for Feiya. Or maybe Druid was a class deck so you replace the spells with arcane ones to get Witch.
Its all a balance of how streamlined they want our decks to get over the course of OP. I do agree that some of the characters (Zarlova in particular) could use some fleshing out, but I don't think we need to be at a point where every single upgrade is the perfect one for the character you are using. If that were the case, then we would end up with characters that would surpass anything that could be created through the "normal" adventure path.
For example, I always wanted one of Seoni's items to be the Necklace of Fireballs in RotR, but everytime I had it come up, it was Valeros that encountered it and he always flubbed the check, no matter how many blessings might have been played.
Anyway... I do think there are opportunities, but I wonder how much of it was intentional.