Shield of Rannick - Adventure Path


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Any chance of this getting put up to DriveThru?

As TES mentions, there shouldn't be any proxying or new cards required at all to play this. That was part of my design--you already have all the cards you need to play.

I suppose you could have scenario cards, like LudwigO made, but I suspect there wouldn't be room on a regular card for these--some of the rules text and flavor text is really long, since I had a half-page rather than card-size to work with.


Hi,

I going to start a new campaign and I want to ask you if is better to do Shield of Rannick directly or better to pass "Perils of the Coast" before it? Could unbalance the characters if we do the first three scenarios?

Regards,

Contributor

ayumequi wrote:

Hi,

I going to start a new campaign and I want to ask you if is better to do Shield of Rannick directly or better to pass "Perils of the Coast" before it? Could unbalance the characters if we do the first three scenarios?

Regards,

It won't unbalance your characters to do that first; you end up with a bit better gear and a single skill feat, I believe. (The Shield of Rannick AP is designed to be a little bit harder than RotRL, and some of that difficulty comes from jumping right in to Chapter 1 with Basic cards, but it doesn't have to be that way if you don't want to.)


We shuffled the sihedron medallion from the blessing deck into a location when we lost to a villian...

What now?


Pirate Rob wrote:

We shuffled the sihedron medallion from the blessing deck into a location when we lost to a villian...

What now?

I would probably swap out the next blessing from the blessing deck for the Sihedron medallion, shuffling it back in. Thinking that's the intent.

Contributor

Pirate Rob wrote:

We shuffled the sihedron medallion from the blessing deck into a location when we lost to a villian...

What now?

This came up on Board Game Geek a little while ago, and I'll state here what I said there: I can't believe this hadn't come up before! I've failed to beat a villain a few times when testing Shield of Rannick, but we never had the medallion go into a location. Shuffling a medallion into a location deck without a rule about how to acquire it is problematic--there isn't any check listed about what to do if you encounter one! So medallions can't go into location decks.

Do this instead: When a villain escapes, examine the cards from the blessing deck that you shuffle with the villain. If you find a Sihedron Medallion, take another blessing card instead and shuffle the Sihedron Medallion back into the blessings deck instead. (Yes, this might mix up the order of Sihedron Medallions if there are more than 1, but that could be good or bad!) So, basically, what Jones said.

I'm going to include this in my next round of edits to the .pdf.


Thanks Ron


k7e9 wrote:


How would you rate the difficulty of Shield of Rannick in comparison to RotR?

A little harder but great... up to 6A.

6A is, for a 6 players game, even worse than the terrible AD0 scenarios in WotR.
Get me right: Ron's job is awesome. The idea for this scenario is awesome just like the rest... it's just VERY difficult. Or to put it differently, you need to be very lucky.
You start playing with a hand of 2 cards. As soon as a character encounters an henchman, pretty much everyone else only has 1 card left and a hand size back to 2. So out of your 30 turns, you can count half of them lost minimum. Closing everything in 15 turns (2 or 3 per player) takes a hell of luck and may be frustrating (restarting many times the game just to play a couple of turns...).
May be the only scenario needing a fix.

Contributor

Frencois wrote:
k7e9 wrote:


How would you rate the difficulty of Shield of Rannick in comparison to RotR?

A little harder but great... up to 6A.

6A is, for a 6 players game, even worse than the terrible AD0 scenarios in WotR.
Get me right: Ron's job is awesome. The idea for this scenario is awesome just like the rest... it's just VERY difficult. Or to put it differently, you need to be very lucky.
You start playing with a hand of 2 cards. As soon as a character encounters an henchman, pretty much everyone else only has 1 card left and a hand size back to 2. So out of your 30 turns, you can count half of them lost minimum. Closing everything in 15 turns (2 or 3 per player) takes a hell of luck and may be frustrating (restarting many times the game just to play a couple of turns...).
May be the only scenario needing a fix.

I'll admit that I didn't playtest that scenario with 6 players, so a change may be warranted. I'm happy to entertain suggestions...what do you think would work best for it?


Hi Ron. Working on it. We'll try to give you an efficient proposition that doesn't change a lot your great starting idea of everybody in Prison.

Issues (in our humble opinion) are a combination of:

A) getting out of prison for the first time:
- with 2 cards to start with, some characters (e. g. Kyra, Merisiel, Lini, Seelah...) won't have in their starting hand anything to fight for (they don't have weapons or spells as a favorite card). And the Henchman needs combat 23 to be defeated. So, with only 2 cards, the majority of the characters must keep one blessing (in case someone else encounters tha Henchman) plus a weapon or spell (in case the character encounters the Hench itself). Meaning unless you are lucky enough to draw that combination of 2 cards immediately or at the end of your first turn, the game is pretty much already lost in our experience. Because with only 2 cards and the necessity to hold your blessings, you just cannot reexplore so if the Hench in the Prison is far from the top of the location deck, you may already lose 8 turns before your first chance to get out.
- with only 2 cards and the need to keep a blessing to help with the combat against the Hench, when someone else encounters it you face before the fight a Fortitude 14 check or lose one card. No way anyone can ensure that check without playing one card so either way, your first card is lost before the fight, your blessing second card is lost for the fight, so even if whoever is fighting wins, the next 5 players will start their turn with 0 cards. Starting with 0 cards usually means you will get rid of 0 (if you encounter a bane) or 1 (if a boon) card in locations Decks. Worse: you could encounter an henchman elsewhere right out of Prison, removing again 1 card from everyone's hand, and with no chance to win the fight.
So the "best strtagy" is to take no risk on your first turn after Prison (do nothing and rebuild full hand). Works well on a 1-3 players party. Can't do (no time to) with 6.

B) Back to prison. Here too, great idea but an issue on a large group. You have a medallion once every 10 turns or so. Which is less than 2 turns per player. As said already, may not even be enough to rebuild a full hand. So dexterity 10 check will be failed by maybe half the party (our experience)... much more than if you play 3 characters that will have time to store relevant cards to avoid the back in Prison without the $20.000.
That half of the party will have again to face maybe 4 monsters (with a hand of 2) before having a chance to escape. And since not everyone can easily aquire AD6 allies, the allies in Prison will delay even more). By the time you get out, the next Medallion send you back there. So the game has to be won by the 3 characters or so that can avoid Prison during the 3 or 4 turns they have each out of Prison. 10 turns, 70 cards to get rid of... won't do.

The first obvious fix we thought of was that the reduced hand size in Prison should be only when the Prison is open. And maybe when someone closes the Prison, everyone in it should be allowed to rebuild her hand in order to start the next turn with full capability.
But that may not be enough. We are looking at something like: if anyone defeats a hench, it closes the Prison (i. e. You can help an escape from the outside). The interest of both those ideas is that it helps big groups without really changing a lot for small ones.

But you may have other nice ideas.

Contributor

Frencois, this is some very good, specific analysis. Thank you. Let me take a look at this and work on a revision here.


Hey Ron, first and foremost, thanks for your APs, we've been enjoying Shield of Rannick greatly!

I was unsure about contacting you, but since you're reading this thread currently, might as well act now:

While we enjoyed the campaign a great bunch, we were a bit dissappointed in the absent 'Development' part that the Seasons are featuring on their scenarios (you know, the short summaries at the end of the scenario to explain what happened).

Have you ever considered adding them?
Most of the time, they are implicitly present in the introduction of the following scenario, but it often lead to a disconnect for us when we played the last scenario of a game night and stopped the exposition (and, ultimatily, when we finished the last adventure, since the lack of any epilogue really diminished the sense of accomplishment we had).

While this is a minor nitpick compared to the lack of exposition in the actual adventure paths (without the exposition guide from BGG at least), I think this is the only thing that is holding your campaigns back from standing on equal ground with the official seasons.

I fear I'm coming of too negative, so let me stress again that we really appreciate the huge amount of work you put into it. And I know I'm asking a lot from you if you were to actually update the campaigns. I'd just like to know what you think about this.

Contributor

You found me! Honestly, this has been a writing challenge for me all along. I want to present both the set-up and the ending in the narrative text, but not assume any particular outcome. Normally, the next scenario begins with the assumptions of the last one ("Once you'd beaten some information out of so-and-so, you learned that the McGuffin was taken to the spooky forest! As you approach the spooky forest...").

Although I like the closure provided by the text at the end of the organized play scenarios, I don't love them. First, we forget to read them more often than not. Second, they seem to repeat all the information that just goes into the start of the next scenario anyway.

But on balance, I've been leaning toward including a "conclusion text" in my scenarios going forward, even if it's only a sentence or two. I can certainly make room for that, even with my half-page format.

And while I've got you, and anyone else that's played Shield of Rannick or Bloodlust Corsairs (or even Mhar of Leng), what do you think about the half-page layout format? I've aimed for something that's not too page-intensive and readable on a tablet, but if everyone hates that format, I want tohear about it.

Comments about the illustrations, with their pithy captions, also welcome. They're pretty time-consuming to find and lay out, but I think they break up the text well. But I'd like to know if people think they're lame.

Grand Lodge

I've always liked the layout. Makes it easy to read and display on my iPad, or even on a laptop.


Yes, the whole layout is great

Silver Crusade

I'm a fan of the layout. I like the half page; I think it's just the right amount of text. Sometimes the whole page layout is a bit too much.

I like the pictures, but sometimes I get confused when the picture doesn't match the cards at all. Are we supposed to assume the picture on the adventure sheet replaces the picture on the card?

Contributor

Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Are we supposed to assume the picture on the adventure sheet replaces the picture on the card?

Yes, normally. There's only limited amount of art I'm permitted to use under the Community Use Policy, so I often have to make do with something similar rather than exact.


Thanks for the response, Ron!
It's great that you consider adding a closing sentence or two, I think it will be the icing on the cake. Adding a couple of lines as a short epilogue would be awesome, too.

Regarding the layout, I also think it works well. While I was confused at the difference between the pictures and the cards in the beginning, I just assumed the pictures were how you interpreted the NPCs to look like in your campaign (I actually think it makes sense to associate them with a different picture, since it's a different story you are telling after all).
I wonder if it was worth the effort to print a copy of the corresponding cards where the picture was exchanged for the ones you used, to make it thematically fit again. Would probably work well in a home game, but I guess it would not be legally allowed to distribute those cards to the public.

By the way, it is especially great that you put up a printer friendly version as well, although I realized that too late.

Are there any homebrew characters you made that you would consider putting on your page as well?


Found a mistake in 6C : in the version I have, location The Old Light is used twice.

Contributor

Frencois wrote:
Found a mistake in 6C : in the version I have, location The Old Light is used twice.

I think you have an old version, then; V2 is up on the website and lists that scenario setup as:

Villain Wendigo
Henchmen Viorian Dekanti, Highlady Athroxis, Khalib, Simulacra of Vraxeris
Players Locations
1 The Old Light
1 Mountain Peak
1 Shrine to Lamashtu
2 Death Zone
3 Dam
4 Farmhouse
5 Habe’s Sanatorium
6 Wooden Bridge


Frencois wrote:

Hi Ron. Working on it. We'll try to give you an efficient proposition that doesn't change a lot your great starting idea of everybody in Prison.

Issues (in our humble opinion) are a combination of:

A) getting out of prison for the first time:
- with 2 cards to start with, some characters (e. g. Kyra, Merisiel, Lini, Seelah...) won't have in their starting hand anything to fight for (they don't have weapons or spells as a favorite card). And the Henchman needs combat 23 to be defeated. So, with only 2 cards, the majority of the characters must keep one blessing (in case someone else encounters tha Henchman) plus a weapon or spell (in case the character encounters the Hench itself). Meaning unless you are lucky enough to draw that combination of 2 cards immediately or at the end of your first turn, the game is pretty much already lost in our experience. Because with only 2 cards and the necessity to hold your blessings, you just cannot reexplore so if the Hench in the Prison is far from the top of the location deck, you may already lose 8 turns before your first chance to get out.
- with only 2 cards and the need to keep a blessing to help with the combat against the Hench, when someone else encounters it you face before the fight a Fortitude 14 check or lose one card. No way anyone can ensure that check without playing one card so either way, your first card is lost before the fight, your blessing second card is lost for the fight, so even if whoever is fighting wins, the next 5 players will start their turn with 0 cards. Starting with 0 cards usually means you will get rid of 0 (if you encounter a bane) or 1 (if a boon) card in locations Decks. Worse: you could encounter an henchman elsewhere right out of Prison, removing again 1 card from everyone's hand, and with no chance to win the fight.
So the "best strtagy" is to take no risk on your first turn after Prison (do nothing and rebuild full hand). Works well on a 1-3 players party. Can't do (no time to) with 6.

B) Back to prison. Here too, great...

6A

I cant beat this scenario, What did y'all do to address it other than just play it over and over again hoping a ridiculous amount of luck?


It would help if you gave as a bit of context about your party.

I don't remember any problems playing with 3 players back then (it's been 2 years already!). Party was RotR Ezren, CD Tarlin and CD Wu Shen; Wu-Shen probably rushed through the Prison and annihilated the Warden, and continued to rush through the remaining decks afterwards, saving a lot of time in the process.


Im playing 4 players: Haruspex Ramexes, Gorum's Champion Oloch, Channeler Mavaro, Gold-Scaled Destroyer Varanog (from the "We are Dragons" Blog homebrew characters).

Primary the issue is only having 2 cards. There are 3 monsters and 2 barriers and the henchman in the deck. Two of my three tries end with high end traps. Necromantic Deathtrap wiped my entire groups hand on the first game. Due to the difficulty of the monster, I cant win without cards. So that was 4 turns burned only to run into it again.

My second attempt I ran into Avalanche, no one can defeat this without serious resources. Just scrapped the game and started over.

Third attempt Oloch ran into the Henchman, was able to defeat but he cant close the location. I did have a blessing used it hopping for some luck 2d4 = 6. Didn't get it. Tried to power though but limited to two cards and with everyone losing cards to the henchman this took too long.

Just due to pride I dont want to hand-wave it.


I think this scenario is quite doable for some parties and nearly impossible for others, and also scales badly with the number of players.

Since Ron was willing to make a revision but somehow forgot about it, you shouldn't feel bad to take matters into your own hand. My suggestion on how to make it doable without hand-waving it would be to use a handsize of 3 instead of 2 and see how that goes.

Developer

Doppelschwert wrote:

I think this scenario is quite doable for some parties and nearly impossible for others, and also scales badly with the number of players.

Since Ron was willing to make a revision but somehow forgot about it, you shouldn't feel bad to take matters into your own hand. My suggestion on how to make it doable without hand-waving it would be to use a handsize of 3 instead of 2 and see how that goes.

Ooh, yeah, I'd totally let that fall through the cracks. I remember thinking that Frencois' solution of closing the prison automatically whenever anyone defeats a henchman anywhere is a good one--it could also be applied as a scenario-wide rule so that you don't run into the "Oloch problem" where you can finally eke out a win against the henchman (which I planned to be hard!) but aren't well-positioned to close the location so your victory feels wasted.

What do y'all think of that?


Ron Lundeen wrote:
What do y'all think of that?

Sounds good and thematic enough, though I can't give it a proper test right now.

What I can say *without* test - consider the "Fun factor" for 6-p, where each player will pretty much have to spend 1 of their 5 turns (or about 20% percent of their useful character time!) on hand rebuild. On these grounds, if you're going to take only 1 of Frencois's suggestions - I'd really recommend the other one - something along the lines of "When the location Prison is closed, each character at that location may reset her hand."


Sixth time's a charm.

I beat it. If you get lucky enough to break out of the prison with time for everyone to take one turn, this allows them to reset their hand. At which point, I wasnt overly worried. I just had some time to make up. I do think it's also brutal to have 3 Sihedrons in the blessings deck to punt you back. Poor Varanog didn't get to leave/reset his hand before being shunted back.

My advice for others attempting this scenario: Since there is no villain, you dont need to rebuild all the decks if you sop play at or before closing the prison. So if you succeed in a reasonable time continue playing or just rebuild the prison and start over. This would assumes you don't touch any of the other locations. Since henchmen get bounced you need to decide this upon closing the prison for the first time.

As for changes, I feel like allowing everyone to reset their hand upon closing of the prison would have been helpful. This would have allowed me to try more attempts that went to long. Also, the additional AE damage by the Henchman was dirty due to being at 1 card and forcing everyone together. I would been more about removing the BYA at the prison and then upon closing everyone draws 2 cards. You know, kind of like finding your gear.

Developer

Thanks, Slacker2010. Knowing that you had this with 4 players is a good data point.

I'm really a fan of the "draw cards to reflect finding your stuff" rather than resetting your hand. Allowing players the option to draw any number of cards up to their hand size (which could mean, for a turn, having *more* than your hand size) seems to fit the "breakout" trope well. I'll take a closer look here at options along this reset your hand/optionally draw cards direction.

Thanks, all, for the input!


Just for a difficulty comparison: Starting in Adventure 3, I added an extra location to increase the difficulty. I felt this gave it the correct difficulty. With this increase I only failed one scenario and had to replay it until I got to this one.

After my first 2 tries, I dropped back to the correct number of locations. Not that it helped. This scenario was exponentially harder than the rest.

I still think you should allow a 3rd card initially or allow for auto close of the location. I feel like the henchman is going to get 90% of peoples 2nd card and everyone has one card for the henchman. He isnt easy so you will need a blessing or some help for a reasonable chance to beat him. This leaves no cards for the close.

I think drawing some cards upon closing would really address the issue.

Just for Feedback:

I wanted to tell you that I loved the blessings deck and Sihedron medallion mechanic. I started playing much closer attention to the rounds. In 2A when the poison hit me was devastating. Completely changed my mentality. It became "ok, this is Oloch's second turn. So 6 blessings down." I did like the nail biting worry about when it was going to hit. And while I think that poison damage was brutal, in retrospect, i'm happy it was the first scenario as a wake up call.


Hello. I am playing scenario 6A now. If I defeat a Warden of runes and close the location, I shuffle it in a random open location deck. I also banish all cards that were in the just closed location. If there are another Wardens of runes among this, do I take it out of the game or do I shuffle it in another open location?


VinEnzo wrote:
Hello. I am playing scenario 6A now. If I defeat a Warden of runes and close the location, I shuffle it in a random open location deck. I also banish all cards that were in the just closed location. If there are another Wardens of runes among this, do I take it out of the game or do I shuffle it in another open location?

As written, "When you would banish..." , it means you shuffle any henchmen you find while banishing the cards in the closed location.


so I could find a last open location with 4 wardens of runes inside, is that right?
Thanks


VinEnzo wrote:

so I could find a last open location with 4 wardens of runes inside, is that right?

Thanks

Yes. Basically, each next location has a growing chance of finding a henchman and being able to close sooner.(So it could be wise, depending on your ability to meet closing requirements, to focus-fire on the "random location" where you now know there is more than one henchman to find, etc..)

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Homebrew and House Rules / Shield of Rannick - Adventure Path All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules