This is something that I posted in the VO forums. However, my post there never had a single reply. I’m assuming that either my suggestion was both not bad and also not really something anyone cared for, or simply no one noticed or felt like braving my wall of text.
Anyway, some of us on the forums have expressed a desire for more customization and flexibility within the Class Deck system. There are a number of class characters with too broad or too specific focuses and concepts to be fully supported by the cards within the deck: Melindra of the Wizard deck who can use more ranged weapons and items, Zarlova of the Cleric deck who can use Arcane spells, as could Flenta of the Fighter deck. There has been talk about wanting boon expansion decks to support such characters, but there are a number of issues with this desire. Although it would be nice to have boon expansions to help these characters, that would involve creating a new type of product which may have limited marketability. With Class Decks already providing a wide variety of boons to players, decks with nothing but boons might not have the same multifunction appeal that the Class Decks already have and there would be some overlap between the two product lines. With there already being the possibility of over 30 Class Decks to eventually be released, will we really need an additional way of getting more boons added to our game boxes? Honestly, probably not.
Because of this thought, I think adding a system of combining two Class Decks for your organized play character would be a much better solution to supporting these characters. So I would like to make a formal proposal to have a system of Class Deck Multiclassing added to Pathfinder Card Game Organized Play:
--------------------
Organized Play: Multiclassing or Bonus Upgrade Reward
Once your character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path, you may Multiclass your character. If you do this, choose a second Class Deck to add to your character’s Class Deck box. For the rest of the Adventure Path, your character’s Class Deck box now includes all cards from both the character’s original Class Deck and the one which is added at this time. You cannot Multiclass with two copies of the same Class Deck.
If a character does not wish to Multiclass into a second Class Deck, the character may instead gain a powerful Bonus Upgrade. Select any single card from your Class Deck box with a set indicator of 3 or lower to gain as a reward once the character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path.
Whichever reward is chosen, be sure to record it on the character’s chronicle sheet in the entry of the final scenario needed to complete both Adventures 1 and 2. If Multiclassing was chosen, record the second Class Deck of the character in the Notes section. If the Bonus Upgrade was selected, record it in the Deck Upgrades section as normal.
--------------------
These rules can be added to the Guide on page 8 in between the “Upgrading Your Deck” and “Chronicle Sheets” sections.
As I said, I think this is a good idea because it helps characters with different kinds of mechanics to be more playable and it can bring a larger variety of characters into Organized Play. It could also help encourage sales of Class Decks among OP players as they can try out different combinations of classes. It can even increase longevity of the existing class decks as more class decks are released. For example, when a Druid Class Deck may eventually be released, someone who loves Druids may look at the Ranger characters and think playing Arabundi multiclassed into Druid could be pretty awesome and go out to buy the Ranger Class Deck in addition to the new Druid deck.
I feel that after Adventure 2 is the perfect place to allow the addition of a second deck to characters as they will still have to use just their normal character deck to get through the first 1/3 of the Adventure Path, but it is before Roles come into play and gives plenty of time to make an effective mixed character. Since some people may not be interested in mixing Class Decks or would rather just spend the $20 on one Class Deck without feeling obligated to buy more in order to have a good character, I wrote in the Bonus Upgrade for people who stick to just one Class Deck. This, I think, will also cut down on characters that multiclass for the sake of a small benefit. For example, Vika will have to weigh the benefits of Multiclassing with the Cleric Class Deck for some more bludgeoning cards versus being able to snatch up a Belt of Giant Strength as soon as she starts Adventure 3. The ability to take this Bonus Upgrade comes at a time in the Adventure Path that will likely be one of the hardest times to get a deck upgrade of a number equal to the current Adventure as you still have all of the base set cards and two other Adventure Decks with no Basic/Elite cards being purged from the box yet.
There are a number of concerns that have been brought up previously in discussions about doing things like this. I’m going to try to answer some of those concerns in a preemptive fashion here:
-This will make it harder for players to keep track of what cards are theirs! This is one of the most common rebuttals to having any cards other than those from a character’s single Class Deck in a characters deck. If Melindra Multiclasses into Rogue and is playing in a scenario with a Rogue character, what if one of her Rogue cards gets mixed into a location or is given to the Rogue player? How are we going to know whose cards are whose? My counter to this is that this issue already exists. There is nothing in the Guide against having a 6-player game with nothing but Cleric Class Deck characters. Also, how often do you really mix up cards from your character deck? Is it that hard to remember that you were the one who shuffled a card into a location deck? Or that you gave a card to another character? Personally, I think that players should be able to keep track of their own cards. As an event coordinator, I would insure that anyone with cards from the same Class Deck would have their decks recorded on a Deck List before starting the scenario.
-This will make characters too powerful! I don’t think this is the case. I whole heartedly believe that this will only increase the ability of character to work within a wider variety of builds and be more effective in their focuses. I do not think any multiclassed character can be any more powerful than the most optimal build available to a single Class Deck. For example, I don’t think any Multiclass build of Flenta, Tontelizi, or Vika will be any more powerful than Valeros using just the Fighter Class Deck can be. Multiclassing can also be a double edged sword. Although this increases the versatility of your deck, it can also delude your pool of cards. When you gain a reward of a random card of a specific type, you could now have more than double the cards with a set indicator of B than you did before. You could also end up with unwanted cards to deal with such as having Agna multiclassing into whatever deck has the most Offhand cards, but now her pool of allies will have a much higher percentage of non-animal cards to deal with. Also, while multiclassing into Sorcerer or Wizard will give Flenta many more spells to choose from, she will no longer be able to max out her Spell Card Feats to let her gain up to set indicator 2 spells in the Fighter Class Deck. If she casts any of her spells after multiclassing, she would have to replace them with B type spells with the Basic trait.
-This will force players to spend more than $20 on OP to stay competitive! Some have said that one of the things they like about the OP system is that all you need is a $20 deck and you’re good to go. They say that doing this sort of thing gives people who buy more products the ability to build a “better” character and that this would be unfair to those who only buy one deck. As I said already, I don’t think multiclassing will make characters any more powerful than the best single-deck build of their class. Not to mention, this is a cooperative game, so why be worried about people having “better” characters anyway? Beyond that point, rewarding players who buy more products with more options is the exact same thing that the PFS RPG already does. You can participate in PFS just fine with nothing but the Core Rulebook, but if you want to use any other classes, feats, spells, etc., you have to own the books that those other options come from. Shouldn’t we want to give card game OP players a reason to want to buy more products?
And that’s all I can really think of. I’m sorry for the ridiculous wall of text. If you got through all of that, thank you for your time. Are there any reasons that anyone can think of that something like this shouldn’t be implemented? I think we should give it a shot. This is a test season after all.
Organized Play: Multiclassing or Bonus Upgrade Reward
Once your character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path, you may Multiclass your character. If you do this, choose a second Class Deck to add to your character’s Class Deck...
+1. And if power-level is the main thing holding this back, something like 'add all cards from your multiclass class deck of Adventure Deck # - 1 [or 2, or whatever] to your class deck' (adding another # each time you start a new adventure) could limit the power boost of having more top-level upgrades, while allowing characters whose needs outstrip their cardpool to take lower-tier upgrades to flesh out their deck the way they'd be able to in non-OP play.
Yes, this means that now a class deck bard can (for instance) easily run a full allotment of Cure spells from the Cleric deck, but those same characters in RotR or S&S can do that already, and I don't hear anyone crying out that that's a problem, so presumably *broader* card access alone isn't going to be the end of the world.
The fewer times we have to look at the available upgrades and say 'eh, there aren't any [weapon/spell/ally] [1/2/3]s that are better than the lower-deck stuff I have, since I really need [animals/polearms/off-hands/ranged weapons]', the better.
My one thought is maybe make all the cards from the multiclass count as one higher than they actually are.
|
Let me start by saying this is not my support of multiclassing (as I don't), but one thing I do want to bring up.
Adding all of the deck is too much. Like in the RPG, it would make most sense to only increase the accessible adventure number for one of these classes. Having access to adventure 3 cards from two decks at adventure 3 is extremely powerful. More like the RPG would be better. Each adventure, if you multiclass, you pick one deck you use a higher number from.
So, for example.
Adventure 1: Pick Flenta (access to Fighter 1)
Adventure 2: Continue as Flenta straight fighter (Access to Fighter 2)
Adventure 3: Multiclass Rogue. You can now access adventure 1 Rogue cards, but don't get access to adventure 3 Fighter.
Adventure 4: Continue Fighter, access to Fighter 3 and Rogue 1
Making everything accessible from every deck defeats half the purpose of having unique decks if there is no penalty.
|
Yeah, and I have to agree with Andrew here. Being able to access two different class decks at the same level is way too powerful overall. I think if you're considering multi-classing to be just access to other class decks, then Andrew's example would be the one to follow where in Adventure 4, Flenta has access up to Fighter 3 and up to Rogue 1 cards.
And I'd prefer not to change anything (right now) with the current class deck. We are talking with Tanis about how to better upgrade the class decks.
Adding all of the deck is too much. Like in the RPG, it would make most sense to only increase the accessible adventure number for one of these classes. Having access to adventure 3 cards from two decks at adventure 3 is extremely powerful. More like the RPG would be better. Each adventure, if you multiclass, you pick one deck you use a higher number from.
I totally disagree with this. I really don't see how it is extremely powerful to have access to two different class decks. Personally, I just see it as bringing certain characters more in line with how powerful they'd be if they were just played through the normal S&S Adventure Path. You can say that being able to pull cards from a smaller, more specialized pool is better all you want. In some cases it is, such as just about all of the Rogue characters, but others would be much better off in a standard game. Melindra, for example, has a great Dexterity, horrible Strength, and has a starting deck with two weapons. In organized play, she's stuck with starting off with a Sling and a Quarterstaff as her best options. In the standard S&S path, she can pick between Shortbows and Daggers. Then as you go on, gaining new cards in the base game isn't that hard. She should be able to get better weapons and items pretty well as she proceeds, with a plethora of ranged options available in each Adventure Deck. But with the Wizard Class Deck, Adventure 3 and 4 are pretty much dead levels for her as far as Weapons are concerned as they only have a single option, both of which are melee.
Now, equating card game multiclassing to RPG multiclassing makes almost no sense at all. The vast majority of cards used in a characters deck are not class level dependent. Most of them represent gear which is character level dependent. The only card type that would make any sense at all with your type of deck multiclassing would be spells for spell casters as innate spells are class level dependent in the RPG.
Again, I'm going to emphasis that I personally believe that there would be no real increase in general power level if this system were implemented as I wrote it, other than from the bone I threw to single-deck characters. I'd really like to know what multiclass build you think would be "extremely powerful" in relation to other characters, because I really don't think any multiclass character would be any more powerful than the best build single-deck character for the class.
Right, I kind of understand where people are getting the idea from, I just don't believe it is actually true. Yes, if Melindra is able to have cards from both the Wizard and Rogue decks in her character deck, it will definitely expand "the best she can be" and probably make her more powerful than she could have been with just the Wizard deck. My argument is that she NEEDS that to make her concept work well. Even though this will make her more powerful, I don't think this would make her more powerful than a properly built single-deck Ezren or Radillo.
There are many characters than need more support to fully realize their potential and to be more in line power wise with more single-focused characters that already have all of the support they need in the cards of the single class decks. I believe that this multiclassing system would fix almost all of these concepts while also having other benefits as described in my initial post. The only one that I can think of that still night not have enough support with multiclassing may be a Gambling focused Meliski. Edit: Actually, adding the Rogue or Sorcerer deck would give him a second set of Ivory Dice and a Rabbit's Foot, doubling the number of Gambling cards he'd have available. Although it'd be nice for him to have a wider variety of cards, that isn't too bad, plus either would add some nice spells and other cards he may like to use.
I wanted to revive and add my support to this thread, because I just played Melindra through the first adventure of this season, and boy does she suck. But a few cards from the rogue deck would solve all her problems! She could get some decent ranged weapons and not have to rely completely on attack spells to kill stuff. She could get the Cloak of Elvenkind and have a decent chance of making her stealth check to evade. Etc.
|
Venture-Agent, Illinois—Plainfield
|
This multi-classing idea could be a simple way to assist with those more troubled characters, and breathe some new life into the original 7 class decks. In the groups I played with, we also had several occurrences of not taking rewards. However I never felt or heard that this was due the deck being too good already, but instead the best it could be given the limitations of the class deck (mainly that they really wanted/needed new cards but had nothing of value available in the class deck remaining to add.) Since each character would still limited to their deck list I don't see how merely having a little more option available is game breaking.
I think I may try this out to see how it plays.
|
|
This multi-classing idea could be a simple way to assist with those more troubled characters, and breathe some new life into the original 7 class decks. In the groups I played with, we also had several occurrences of not taking rewards. However I never felt or heard that this was due the deck being too good already, but instead the best it could be given the limitations of the class deck (mainly that they really wanted/needed new cards but had nothing of value available in the class deck remaining to add.) Since each character would still limited to their deck list I don't see how merely having a little more option available is game breaking.
I think I may try this out to see how it plays.
The only issue is that we can't try this out and report the characters. But as a homebrew solution to try, it's worth a shot.
Zarlova's my main, and my only issue with her is that she doesn't have enough attack spells. She's the only cleric who can't use weapons (or become proficient with them), she's only got 4 or 5 attack spells in her deck (3 of which only add 2d4). There's really no point to giving her the Arcane power feat (that I can see, anyway) other than to possibly acquire spells during the scenario. I get extremely jealous of the wizards and sorcerers with their attack spells. I would LOVE to have some arcane attack spells (or Magic Armor... hnnnnngh) to protect myself with.
Maybe instead of mushing together the entirety of both decks, just choosing one or two types of cards from the second deck? Say, Spells and Allies? Or Weapons and Items?
If multiclassing was implemented (this isn't my endorsement for or against multiclassing - I haven't gone through all the implications yet), I'd like to see it as something you have to give up to get (the AD -1 gear thing) or a GM/player boon of some sort.
(For those of you who don't know, a GM boon is something you get if you help run an event at a convention. A player boon is something you get if you play in a game at a convention.)
If multiclassing was implemented (this isn't my endorsement for or against multiclassing - I haven't gone through all the implications yet), I'd like to see it as something you have to give up to get (the AD -1 gear thing) or a GM/player boon of some sort.
(For those of you who don't know, a GM boon is something you get if you help run an event at a convention. A player boon is something you get if you play in a game at a convention.)
I wouldn't like to see this as a convention boon. Not all of us can make it to conventions.
|
|
If multiclassing was implemented (this isn't my endorsement for or against multiclassing - I haven't gone through all the implications yet), I'd like to see it as something you have to give up to get (the AD -1 gear thing) or a GM/player boon of some sort.
(For those of you who don't know, a GM boon is something you get if you help run an event at a convention. A player boon is something you get if you play in a game at a convention.)
Yea that's what I was going for kinda (different, but similar) in my initial post here -- like you though, not in support, just in a "I think this is how it should be if done".
I have to agree with elcoder that a boon isn't the right way to go though. Especially since the biggest piece behind people wanting it is not just because they want to, but because it fixes problems in an initial product.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our eyes are on this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of there being a cost to multi-classing (I.e. Having to actively give up something) seems a bit lame, as most of the need to multi-class comes from the original class decks being spread too thin and not properly covering some of the characters.
Melindra struggles enough to build a decent deck out of the wizard box without making her sacrifice a feat, or access to an already disappointing set of cards.
I think something like forfeiting a deck upgrade for a single scenario to unlock cards of one type from another class deck would be a reasonable cost - you could even limit cards from the multi-classed option to 1 below the current adventure (or similar) if you were really worried, but I doubt it'd be necessary.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see it being an adventure reward? "Select a weapon or spell of your choice from your class box OR a weapon or spell of at least one level lower than the current adventure deck from another class box." Maybe add the caveat that you can never have cards from more than 2 classes in your deck.
Our eyes are on this thread.
Some situations where I believe people would like to multiclass/have greater card access:
A) Their character needs a very specific type of card (str/dex/simple/not-simple/bludgeoning/polearm weapons, gambling/animal/aristocrat/etc trait, attack/arcane/divine spells, cards using/boosting a specific skill) that is either absent or only lightly supported in their native deck.B) Their character starts with/can take card feats to go deep into a card type, but their native class deck has only a shallow pool of upgrades of that type. (See: trying to find 5 items you'd want in the Bard deck before AD 5-6)
C) They just enjoy or could make good use of certain cards that aren't in their class deck (Incendiary Cloud for a weapon-using Wizard, various utility spells for the classes that don't happen to get them, staff of minor healing for people who like being self-sufficient, etc).
Some possibilities:
Dabbling multiclass: You may add 1 card (1 card per type?) from another class deck to your available pool. Solves (C), helps slightly with (A) & (B), depending on the severity of the problem. Can be implemented as a scenario reward/player boon/etc. easily.
Substitution multiclass (starting from initial deck-building): Choose another class and a card type (or types?). Instead of your base class deck's cards of that type, you have access to the other class deck's cards of that type. Can solve (A) when the deck is just a misfit (wrong weapon types).
(Follows the Pathfinder tradition of modding classes by trading off some features for others.)
Gestalt multiclass: Gain full access to another class's deck/ 1-2 chosen card types from another class's deck. Solves all problems above; increases deck power level for those who make use of it.
Possible trade-offs (if you want to keep people playing single-class with a single deck on a mostly-even footing with those using multiple decks and whatever multiclassing you implement):
* Multiclass card(s) instead of Loot. Other characters get cool loot upgrades. Multiclass characters get cool multiclass upgrades instead.
* Multiclass cards instead of card-upgrade scenario rewards.
* Lowered maximum AD# (can only take lower-deck multiclass cards, or need an AD# upgrade for an AD#-1 multiclass card; or for card types you choose to multiclass in, you can only choose cards from 1 deck lower than usual, but from either deck.)
Upside of loot-replacement-based multiclassing: less fighting over things like Besmara's Tricorne at the table, as the single-class characters will end up with the lion's share of the loot.
Wow, my old thread kind of blew up today. It's nice to know that people are interested and that it's being looked at.
Jim, if you are a level 5 Fighter that decides you want to learn Sorcerer magic, you don't instantly become a level 5 Sorceror. You are a newbie Sorcerer, and have the power of such.
You're right, Andrew. However, multiclassing cards in the card game is not the same as multiclassing levels in the RPG. In the card game, the cards you have in your deck represent little more than equipment. Spell cards are nothing but scrolls or potions to someone who doesn't have the appropriate skill to retain it in their deck. In the RPG, a 5th level fighter can buy the exact same scrolls or potions as the 5th level Sorcerer can cast as spells.
I've said it before that "multiclassing" probably isn't the best term to use for the system I proposed because it isn't exactly appropriate. It has too much baggage when thought of in terms of the RPG with examples like the one Andrew gave. Calling it the "Dual Deck Option" or something might be better. Because really, to have actual multiclassing that is like the RPG, card game characters would have to have access to new Skills and Powers. This is only about have more appropriate equipment for characters. In the RPG, that is only limited by how much gold you have. In the card game, that amounts to having more cards in your deck and cards of higher adventure deck number.
Thoughts on choice on taking the die bump or unlocking a card slot replacement?
Zarolva completes 1-1. She now has the option to take and store the die bump, or trade the die bump for a card upgrade of 1 lower than the AD#. She can now swap one of her spells for a spell b from another deck.
Alternatively, card feat is exchangeable for a card slot replacement. horizontal growth vs vertical. On fourth success zarlov trades an HP and slot quantity increase for slot diversity.
Both methods require effort to achieve multi, tho i think exchanging vertical growth for horizontal is most efficent and trackable. Also linked easier into tier system (tier-1 card choices) allowing for multiclassing once per tier to prevent unexpected imbalance. Attempting to abuse would quickly push char into out of depth content and push out of groups.
Single deck chars grow up, multi decks grow out, without vastly affecting current systems and retaining power curve.
Basically, Hammer vs multitool.
Thoughts?
|
|
Making trades for alternate cards could, but I definitely wouldn't use the card feat. Increasing your deck size is vital late game, and that's not a sacrifice I would leave to "Well just know it's going to be harder if you do it"
Wow, my old thread kind of blew up today. It's nice to know that people are interested and that it's being looked at.
Jim, if you are a level 5 Fighter that decides you want to learn Sorcerer magic, you don't instantly become a level 5 Sorceror. You are a newbie Sorcerer, and have the power of such.You're right, Andrew. However, multiclassing cards in the card game is not the same as multiclassing levels in the RPG. In the card game, the cards you have in your deck represent little more than equipment. Spell cards are nothing but scrolls or potions to someone who doesn't have the appropriate skill to retain it in their deck. In the RPG, a 5th level fighter can buy the exact same scrolls or potions as the 5th level Sorcerer can cast as spells.
I've said it before that "multiclassing" probably isn't the best term to use for the system I proposed because it isn't exactly appropriate. It has too much baggage when thought of in terms of the RPG with examples like the one Andrew gave. Calling it the "Dual Deck Option" or something might be better. Because really, to have actual multiclassing that is like the RPG, card game characters would have to have access to new Skills and Powers. This is only about have more appropriate equipment for characters. In the RPG, that is only limited by how much gold you have. In the card game, that amounts to having more cards in your deck and cards of higher adventure deck number.
I'm not looking at it in terms of the RPG. I'm looking at it in terms of general theme. Multiclassing, thematically, makes sense when adjusted right. Adding a second deck just because they have better cards, not so much.
Perhaps a skill or power instead? Character is off learning something new instead of mastering their current capabilities?
Allows for multiclassing much earlier for chars who need it with shallow pools, while not allowing rampant swapping and creating big imbalance.
I'm not looking at it in terms of the RPG. I'm looking at it in terms of general theme. Multiclassing, thematically, makes sense when adjusted right. Adding a second deck just because they have better cards, not so much.
Where have you ever heard of "multiclassing" outside of an RPG? And as I said, that's why it probably isn't the best title to give this proposed system. Also, they aren't "better cards", they're just a better variety of cards. Maybe better for some characters, but they need it. The Wizard deck sort of needs it in general. I'm sorry, but I don't know what happened when they were designing that thing. Rapier and Cutlass? Really? Unless Melindra was originally going to be a Finesse fighter that at least had the option to get Weapon Proficiency on her base card, I have no idea why those cards would be anywhere near a wizard deck.
The Bard Class Deck has a similar problem where it's unclear who the Runechill Hatchet +2 was meant for, since Meliski can't use it (lacking Weapon Proficiency) and Bekah would rather use other weapons (because she only has a d6 Strength)
I'm still evaluating it right now. Invoke on a class that can bury it seems to be a problem for the devs as they didn't put Invoke in any of the Divine spellcasting class decks (only the Rogue). You _could_ already do this (burying Invoke I mean) by giving it to a Divine spellcaster during the game, but that's way harder to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 5 fighter who suddenly decides to become a sorcerer wouldn't be a level 5 sorcerer, they'd be someone with no arcane skill, rolling d4 without bonuses - giving them access to a level 5 attack spell, which they would banish upon use, wouldn't change that.
During season of the shackles, Kyra finished adventure 6 with Longswords still in her deck, Tontelizi never managed to get a full set of pole arms, and Melindra's weapon choices were just plain dismal.
I'm not talking about giving characters the ability to take all the best features of 2 classes and none of the disadvantages, I'm talking about giving the sword-wielding cleric a non-basic sword, the rogue-like wizard a crossbow or two, and the pole arm guy a few more pole arms.
Alternatively (and less elegantly), you could just go over the whole list of class-deck characters and give them case-by-case multiclass permissions. Basically, you'd only be fixing the characters with obvious holes in their core selection, rather than giving increased flexibility to all characters/builds that run into build problems.
For instance:
Zarlova (Theurge): May select spells from the Wizard class deck.
Kyra: May select weapons from the Fighter class deck
Melindra: May select weapons from the Rogue class deck
...etc.
Personally, I'd prefer an option with more flexibility (I've been avoiding class deck play in favor of more regular playthroughs, as robust customization options are where a lot of the game's fun is for me), but anything that makes all the characters *work* is better than nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the simple fact is that some characters would be far better off just playing in a standard game. They'd be able to make a much more appropriate starting deck and at least have a chance to get nice, powerful upgrades as they go on that are appropriate to their concepts. Having a "specialized" set of cards to choose from is supposed to be a major advantage with the Class Deck/Card Guild system. That's why we only get one regular upgrade per character per scenario. When a large number of people I play with are passing on upgrades regularly, not due to lack of upgrade cards gained but lack of good upgrades available in their class decks, I think there's a problem.
I'm very eager to see if class deck design is going to improve with the new three-character decks. If they're perfectly awesome, maybe there will be a reduced need for this system. Maybe it would be best to just offer some kind of Class Deck Add-On Packs or something for the original 7. That can be a pretty viable and flexible option with the connections Paizo has made with DriveThru. But even if the new decks leave nothing to be desired and there are ways to "fix" the old decks, I still think that something like this would be a nice way to bring in a new level of customization that can freshen up the OP program (and potentially sell more Class Decks) without being too MtG-level crazy.
Or, if you don't want to make having multiple class decks a requirement for making particular characters' card selections work, you could allow for card swaps from the main box, the same way as with loot cards.
That is, something like "at the start of the scenario, you may exchange [x] cards for cards of the same type and up to the same deck number from the box." Or, for basic or AD#-2 boons of the same type, to not get anything stronger than the baseline for rebuilding in a non-OP campaign, if power-level is a concern.
Downside: Potentially more time-consuming than just swapping loot into someone's deck.
Upside: means that a Zarlova/Kyra/etc player doesn't have to spend $20 just to have arcane spells/swords. Level playing field maintained.
|
|
I know people would prefer not to have to buy an entire class deck to supplement the flaws of a specific character or character roles in the first 7 class decks. We all know there are issues. All these solutions are basically pulling from other class decks in order to "fill in the holes".
But we now have DriveThruCards available. Paizo is able to create pretty much any type of card, even the ones we're not able to. The concept of supplemental add-on decks now becomes a lot more feasible. We're not locked in to a 110 card deck. Also, Paizo can come up with a generic "Class Deck" logo instead of a specific "Cleric Class Deck" or "Fighter Class Deck" in the upper left. This would make it less confusing to a point. More of a generic class deck notation.
At this point, we can come up with a set of packs. We can do each type of boon or combine them (Weapon/Armor, Spell/Blessing, Item/Ally). If we provide some of the missing pieces based on cards that are already in the current set of class decks and put them together into these packs, then Paizo could work with us to put up Add-On packs on DriveThruCards.
We can have certain building rules about duplicate stuff so that people don't buy multiple packs to stack their decks. (A rules card can be included with each pack!) But we can then fill in the holes without having all this back-n-forth about how to reward multiclassing.
All we're trying to do is breath life into characters and roles that were lacking and basically turned them unplayable.
EDIT: One of the issues with replacing cards with those from the base set is that each set is different. Tracking cards that way will be a PITA. How do you make sure everyone in OP is on the same playing field when it comes to this. You can't. Then there is the problem of tracking which cards are gained during the game and which ones were swapped in.
I like the suggestion of offering updated Character cards via DriveThru. Could even be used to just refresh certain characters by offering a new 15-20 card pack per class, and you only need buy the class you want.
Alternatively instead of having to craft a whole "multiclass" system, use the same model of the character add on deck where the normal 4 player game gets expanded cardpools for supporting two more players.
Something like "Guild Academy Deck"- 110 cards with respective class stamps. ~14 new boons for each class.
|
|
I like the suggestion of offering updated Character cards via DriveThru. Could even be used to just refresh certain characters by offering a new 15-20 card pack per class, and you only need buy the class you want.
This is also an alternative to the combined boons. Offer packs per class (deck). But we will still need to come up with what is missing for those classes. Not what we want to add but what is missing.
Alternatively instead of having to craft a whole "multiclass" system, use the same model of the character add on deck where the normal 4 player game gets expanded cardpools for supporting two more players.
I would love to not have to deal with multiclass rules. Just rules on adding boons. We don't want people able to buy 3 add-on packs in order to add 3 copies of Heavy Venomous Crossbow to their deck. Rule card can be included with each pack
Something like "Guild Academy Deck"- 110 cards with respective class stamps. ~14 new boons for each class.
Actually, trying to get away from the 110 card "deck". The confines of trying to put together something that covers all classes. Trying to make it smaller and less expensive.
Yeah, the drive thru (or even Pre-printed small packs of add-on cards for each class deck) gets my vote. I'd love to have a way to add some of the WotR or S&S spells into the Wizard deck. And that is only going to become more true as more sets come out. If they could choose some cards from each set that are legal for certain class decks that would be awesome. Like say, they said these 5 WotR spells are legal for a Wizard class deck, but you can't have more than one of each in your class deck. That would be awesome.
The Wizard deck sort of needs it in general. I'm sorry, but I don't know what happened when they were designing that thing. Rapier and Cutlass? Really? Unless Melindra was originally going to be a Finesse fighter that at least had the option to get Weapon Proficiency on her base card, I have no idea why those cards would be anywhere near a wizard deck.
Yeah. Another decision I didn't get was, I was playing wish someone using the rogue deck, and they had an Amulet of Life as one of their basic cards. No one in the rogue deck can make the recharge check on that. I, as a wizard, would have liked to have an Amulet of Life, but I just had a crummy Bracers of Protection.
|
Perhaps a skill or power instead? Character is off learning something new instead of mastering their current capabilities?
Allows for multiclassing much earlier for chars who need it with shallow pools, while not allowing rampant swapping and creating big imbalance.
I think Lorddax is on the right path. Trading on a card for card basis would be tough to track, but a feat is the mechanical way of getting a persistent, extra benefit.
Skill feats seem plausible, but i feel they might be too cheap.
Power feats are known to grant skills, which would be a way for a character to pick up a much needed survival/knowldege skill at +1 or +2 for your group
Card feats are (well, hitpoints, but...) the mechanical application of being able to "Do stuff". Would exchanging an earned card feat for the following be worth it?:
Instead of checking a card feat box, you may instead circle one feat box. The first time you do this, pick a class deck different than your own. This character is now allowed to have one card in their deck be from the named class deck for each card feat you have circled.
|
|
If it were to be a feat cost (which I think is a far inferior solution to DriveThru packs and ignoring mixing decks), power makes the most sense. You still become more powerful so you keep skill and card feats, but you become a different powerful, so you aren't going to gain more class powers by effectively going to another class.
I agree with Andrew, power makes the most sense thematically. I do think the DriveThru option for fixing gimped characters is still the best option tho. Being able to pay $4-5 to add an additional 15-30 cards to a class deck to enable the correct pool size is something I would not mind paying for. Repeatedly even across all my class decks, as I am an organizer and maintain one copy of each class.
As a hobbyist designer on my own game, I also think its the best solution as it avoids having to introduce a new system (which would then need to have playtesting) to address a previous design choice. A multiclassing system COULD be introduced in the future, but in reality I would see that more as a class deck that is already pre formulated as X/Y splash Z.
I do think DriveThru packs can be a solution (although I feel that there's going to be a lot of people who don't know about them)
I am playing Zarlova enough to know that the 2 level is very lean in terms of new rewards. Partly because the Cleric deck is designed for Strength Melee-based users with Divine as a backup rather than a devoted Divine spellcaster. The 3 level is much better in that regard.
It's okay - not great. I'd love to be able to have more than a single Spell and two Blessings as upgrades to my deck, and Spells and Blessings are the hardest upgrades to get too.
Having another full class deck at your disposal is probably a little too much. Especially if every character gets them.
(PS. I forgot that Lesath actually gets the Divine skill in the Rogue deck, allowing him to bury Invoke.)
I wanted to think about some of the details on a specific example of this, and the result ended up quite long, so I've posted it elsewhere (as ever, I can't seem to get links to work on this forum!)
https://fistfulofmeeples.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/how-to-solve-a-problem-li ke-melindra
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts
|
|
I wanted to think about some of the details on a specific example of this, and the result ended up quite long, so I've posted it elsewhere (as ever, I can't seem to get links to work on this forum!)
https://fistfulofmeeples.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/how-to-solve-a-problem-li ke-melindra
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts
Looks like Paizo's messageboard is slapping an extra space in there. Let me linkify that for ya....
|
|
I wanted to think about some of the details on a specific example of this, and the result ended up quite long, so I've posted it elsewhere (as ever, I can't seem to get links to work on this forum!)
Scroll down below the text edit box and select the button/link "Show" next to "How to format your text". Look for the "url" bbCode. Or hit "Reply" to see how I did it here:
How to solve a problem like Melindra?
As far as her specifically, there's not much you can do without rewriting her. Don't play her in Guild play and swap the useless evade for free evade (just vs. Monsters == RPG Vanish?) and/or Weapon Finesse in home games.
Re: improving the initial Class Decks, I'd like to see professional boosters of some kind. 7 * 15 = 105, leaving 5 cards free for promos or whatnot. Maybe that's too specialized, but it's a thought.
I wanted to think about some of the details on a specific example of this, and the result ended up quite long, so I've posted it elsewhere (as ever, I can't seem to get links to work on this forum!)
https://fistfulofmeeples.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/how-to-solve-a-problem-li ke-melindra
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts
I agree Melindra and weapons is a case study in a character not being adequately provided for by her class deck.
|
|
im kinda of the persuasion that if multiclassing becomes a thing, it needs to be a scenario reward that lets you use a card from another class deck... say once you gain it you pick one other class deck and can swap one card from your characters deck with a card from another class deck, if you ever lose or upgrade the card you picked you have to replace it with your own cards again... and this could be a nice reward to show up 2-3 times an adventure path?
|
Venture-Agent, Illinois—Plainfield
|
I kind of like the idea of scenario rewards having the option of a random draw from your deck or from alternate class deck. However there are bookkeeping issues there.
I disagree that dual-decking is going to be a significant power level increase. It is giving you some more card options sure, but you are still limited to the number of type of card slots for your character. Playing through non-organized play you have access to any cards you find and can get multiple upgrades per scenario. In organized play you are limited to just one regular deck upgrade, so even if you made it available at the start having access to a second deck of cards helps bring back some of that flexibility without being a big power boost. Leaving it open to the whole deck rather than choosing specific cards, or unlocking single cards at a time, is much easier to track and allows players to tailor per deck/character/playstyle. Taking too many cards from the second deck just dilutes your main class and I don't think it would happen much, but to be safe there could be a limit on how many cards can come from the second deck (at least 2/3 of the deck must be from the primary class deck, or no more than 8 cards from the second deck can be in your deck at any time...)
I definitely am an advocate for add-on decks either individually or as a set, physical or printable, that help correct the problems with the original 7 class decks. However even if those come out, dual deck play might be viable to explore as a way to allow for more creative deck building and keeping frequent guild players engaged by giving them more options to try out.
Sorry for reviving an older thread, but here's an out of the box (and also completely untested) idea:
Instead of (or possibly in addition to) trying to expand the character decks to fit the characters, what about expanding the characters to better fit their decks?
Introduce a new dual-sided "Class" (or Multi-class, or whatever you want to call it) card type that represents some of the basic skills/powers of that class. This would be a completely optional upgrade option.
The intent is to impart the flavor of each class, but not all of the power or full access to another character deck. You could gain a limited number of cross-class powers, skills, and cards. You could gain the skills/proficiency requires to actually use cards in your deck. You could even help Flenta realize her dreams of becoming a spell caster!
This card type could be unlocked using a Card Feat, which then allows that character to display their new Class card next to their Character/Role card, adding its traits, skills, powers, and card feats to your character.
To try to keep it from being a huge power jump, the initial benefit of the card would have to be minimal: 1 additional skill with no/small bonuses, and a rather limited class power.
The rest is up to you to unlock with feats. This would allow for a lot of flexibility in building your character and in distinguishing the same character from player to player.
Skills
There would be 1 (maybe 2) specific class skill already unlocked (ex: Arcane: Int; +0 or +1 modifier).
A very limited number of Skill feats available, let's say 3:
1) a +1 to that class's primary base skill (Str/Dex/etc)
2) a +1 to another a secondary skill
3) a +1 or +2 to a specific (Arcane/etc) skill
These would add to the skills on your character card. For example, if you had 2 skill feats invested into Str on your character card, and you invested another skill feat in Str on your class card, you would have a total of Str+3.
Powers
Also very limited class-specific powers, and a limited number of Power feat upgrades (maybe limited to 2 or 4). For example, the Cleric's "Reveal Divine --> Heal" could start off limited to Blessings, and could be upgraded with a power feat to "Blessing or Spell".
Cards
Taking a Card feat on (but not to gain) a Class card would still increase the size of your character deck, but it would also grant you the ability to add these extra cards from this specific class deck. The number of card feats would be limited as well (let's say 4: 2 of 1 type and 1 of the other 2). For example, if Kyra (Cleric) had a Fighter Class card with a "Weapon 1" checked, she could add this weapon from either the Cleric or Fighter class decks, but could have no more than the 1 Fighter weapon in her deck.
Fluff
A quick blurb about the class in general.
This could be made available as a (free?) download, and players could print out whatever class(es) they wanted. If done this way, the only other thing you would need is whichever class deck(s) with which you wanted to multi-class.
Prestige class, anyone?