For the issue of being able to build starting decks, they have confirmed that you can use non-basic when you run out of basic - I'm sure Hawkmoon will appear with the link.
Boon dilution is a good point though- we started a 6-character normal play-through of S&S, and only had 2 basic items left in the box. By contrast, when we do a 4-character organised play game, all those basic cards are there, cluttering the system.
It's worse with blessings - even when the basic cards are removed, Blessing of the Gods hangs around and unlike normal play, most other blessings are at higher levels than "B", so become nigh-on impossible to upgrade.
It's worth raising all these things, so the designers are aware of the issues players are having - that said, we've been told over and over that this is a test season - I'm sure the next OP season, and probably the next wave of class decks will be noticeably different...
For the issue of being able to build starting decks, they have confirmed that you can use non-basic when you run out of basic - I'm sure Hawkmoon will appear with the link.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
"Rewards, a single random card of a random type, probably worse than what you have already. "
If I'm reading that correctly, are you referring to the scenario rewards that say "each character gains a random card <of type X>"? If so, then yes some scenarios you don't get anything for some characters, but you've already gained a card (hopefully) that IS an upgrade for you by rebuilding your deck.
Now, I do agree with some of your concerns, especially the relatively small number of boon options for any given character. I would love to see a sort of "booster" deck for each class that would give more options, more directly tailored to the characters in that deck. But I don't at all think they're "punishing" those of us who own the Base Sets... I still have tons of fun playing the normal Skull & Shackles scenarios with my friends, in addition to playing in organized play.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Please keep in mind that in regular play, the rewards that each character gets are quite frequently not useful to that character, while in organized play, the rewards are always coming from a pool specifically selected to accompany your class. Because usable rewards are more likely to be specifically suited to your character, you should expect to get them slightly less often.
Real world example:
Last night, my gaming group played two regular Skull & Shackles scenarios. In addition to the cards that we acquired during play, my party was rewarded with something like 16–20 plunder cards, all of which are effectively random draws of specific card types from the box. The total change in my character's deck from the beginning of the evening to the end was that I ended up improving one item and one blessing. Luckily, one of the two happens to be pretty well suited to my character; the other is not especially.
If I'd played two OP scenarios, getting one card that was particularly suited to my character would be slightly worse than I got last night; getting two suited cards would be a bit better than I got last night.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's two primary issues with that though, Vic.
1. The specified pool of cards tailored to your class is much more limited in scope than playing out of the box, meaning there's less room for shaping your character to your own playstyle.
2. Quite a few of the cards available in each Class Deck are generally useless to many characters in those boxes, furthering narrowing the amount of available options for upgrading.
It's definitely a good idea and step in the right direction for organized play, I just hope it undergoes some major refinements for next season.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid I have to agree with ol' 3 eyes... The class decks weren't really balanced out when they came out. Our ranger player has realized this, and the cleric I'm playing opted to not take the 2nd lvl spell she could have gained because none of them fit her. The swashbuckler at least works somewhat with the rogue deck, but I was very disappointed that she has 0 cards in the deck that she can use that heal. I'd love a staff of minor healing, or a surgeon. Instead I was stuck with a conch shell or a Raconteur.
If you guys have any more class decks in the works, please limit them to either 3 characters, or make basic class decks and have specific expansions people can purchase. Like a spell deck, item deck, ect. so they can customize their resources better.
The swashbuckler at least works somewhat with the rogue deck, but I was very disappointed that she has 0 cards in the deck that she can use that heal.
There is a Cure in the rogue deck, although of course Jirelle can't use it because she can't carry spells. It works for other rogues, though.
I also agree with ThreeEyedSloth's assessment. Being restricted to the Class Decks severely cripples many characters, or makes them simply unplayable: Meliski, Siwar, Zarlova, Tontelizi, Vika, Wrathack, etc.
In general, I find that the characters are heavily specialized, but can't fully leverage their specialization because each Class Deck has to support 4 wildly different specialists across 6 adventures. You end up having to do as best you can from what you have available, instead of feeling that you got a meaningful upgrade. At the end of each scenario, I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "I wish I could keep that cool spell/weapon/item/ally we picked up" at the end of an Organized Play scenario.
If Paizo intends to keep the current structure for Organized Play (a single Class Deck per character, each deck offering 4 characters of the same class), then you need to make sure every character is a "generalist" with an average chance of success in most situations -- combat, overcoming barriers and acquiring boons. Specialization roles and powers should then be carefully designed based on the contents of the corresponding Class Decks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo intends to keep the current structure for Organized Play (a single Class Deck per character, each deck offering 4 characters of the same class), then you need to make sure every character is a "generalist" with an average chance of success in most situations -- combat, overcoming barriers and acquiring boons. Specialization roles and powers should then be carefully designed based on the contents of the corresponding Class Decks.
If they do keep 4 per box (something I hope they change to 3 for specialization reasons), making all the characters generalists takes half the uniqueness of character builds and strategy out of the game. Part of PACG is you need the right party with the right skills, that goes out the window if you give everyone a decent chance at everything.
As for roles and powers being designed around the deck, no offense, but this is probably the worst thing they could do for the product. You build the deck around the characters, not the other way around. If you build the characters around the deck, all your characters will be far too similar.
|
|
I also agree with ThreeEyedSloth's assessment. Being restricted to the Class Decks severely cripples many characters, or makes them simply unplayable: Meliski, Siwar, Zarlova, Tontelizi, Vika, Wrathack, etc.Although I imagine that a few of the characters are less than optimal when restricted to their deck cards, I think you're being overbroad in describing who is crippled or unplayable: my friend's Meliski and my Vika have both done very well, and we've had a lot of fun with each. Neither has seemed unreasonably constrained.
And I'm currently playing both Zarlova and Tontelizi and while they have weaknesses, they have more than enough cards to carry their own weight.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Part of PACG is you need the right party with the right skills . . .
That can be a problem with Organized Play if you don't have the same players turning up every week. Sometimes we have a Cleric (or a fighter, or a caster), sometimes we don't. We occasionally get two!
|
|
That can be a problem with Organized Play if you don't have the same players turning up every week. Sometimes we have a Cleric (or a fighter, or a caster), sometimes we don't. We occasionally get two!
And there's why I have 7 different PACG characters.
Harsk, Jirelle, Ezren, Seoni, Tarlin, Flenta, LemIt allows me to adjust depending on the party dynamics.
Yeah, I kinda have to agree with many people here.
I love the idea behind Organised Play, but after getting through to the end of the first 6 scenarios last night, there have been quite a few issues that came up and which detracted from the experience.
Wrathack in particular felt really hamstrung by the lack of good 2h weapons early in the ranger class deck. Kyra was the same, in that it is AP 6 before she could get a third magic sword, and most of the swords that are available aren't really the ones I would like.
For a few characters, their choice of card feat was determined by what card options would be available, rather than what type of card they actually wanted, which seems a bit backwards.
All four characters still have a few cards they don't really want, but have no suitable upgrade choices for (which would be fine, except that several passed on upgrades since there was nothing useful).
Blessings have been annoying to try and upgrade, since many of the better ones in the CD are at least AP1, and AP1 and up blessings are very rare (5 out 80ish). Particularly thinking combat ones here.
Agree that the random rewards haven't been great. Only one character has taken one, in the whole of AP 1, and that was pretty marginal.
It's hard to feel good about playing Wrathack when your starting weapon for the scenario is the light crossbow or dagger you are forced to have in your deck. If this is for balance reasons, then I would much rather it be achieved through making the scenarios harder, than limiting the characters in this way.
I honestly don't have easy solutions to the above since I understand the constraints of the 110 card pack. In terms of the future though, much as I would love a barbarian or paladin CD, I would honestly prefer a second upgrade pack for each of the current 7 than new decks with the same limitations as the current ones.
Also, in case it isn't apparent, I still really love the game and have been having a great time with the S&S AP and the OP scenarios. Just wanted to add my feedback so it can become even better.
Blessings have been annoying to try and upgrade, since many of the better ones in the CD are at least AP1, and AP1 and up blessings are very rare (5 out 80ish).
This is really a problem. In 24 scenarios with 3-4 characters I've seen a 1 or greater blessing upgrade three times. I think when we remove B Basics and Elites we should also remove half the Blessings of the Gods.
It's hard to feel good about playing Wrathack when your starting weapon for the scenario is the light crossbow or dagger you are forced to have in your deck.
Arabundi and Harsk have the same problem with regard to strength weapons in their starting deck. At least Wrathack has better upgrade options than the dexterity-based rangers do.
Perhaps Blessings should be on a one for one basis. If you find a Blessing of Gorum, then you can upgrade to that if your Class Deck has one?
If they do keep 4 per box (something I hope they change to 3 for specialization reasons), making all the characters generalists takes half the uniqueness of character builds and strategy out of the game.
Although I haven't played OP, the idea of limiting the class decks to 3 characters makes sense, and I would hope they would be new characters and not the iconics we have already seen. Keep the recurring iconics to the APs and let the class decks shine with the rest of the pathfinder roster.
Although I haven't played OP, the idea of limiting the class decks to 3 characters makes sense, and I would hope they would be new characters and not the iconics we have already seen. Keep the recurring iconics to the APs and let the class decks shine with the rest of the pathfinder roster.
If they do keep 4 per box (something I hope they change to 3 for specialization reasons), making all the characters generalists takes half the uniqueness of character builds and strategy out of the game.
The problem with that, is that it means the brand-new ACG player, who doesn't own a full Adventure Path wouldn't be able to play the iconic character -if people are coming from other Pathfinder products, I'd imagine that could lessen the appeal
|
|
The problem with that, is that it means the brand-new ACG player, who doesn't own a full Adventure Path wouldn't be able to play the iconic character -if people are coming from other Pathfinder products, I'd imagine that could lessen the appealAlthough I haven't played OP, the idea of limiting the class decks to 3 characters makes sense, and I would hope they would be new characters and not the iconics we have already seen. Keep the recurring iconics to the APs and let the class decks shine with the rest of the pathfinder roster.
If they do keep 4 per box (something I hope they change to 3 for specialization reasons), making all the characters generalists takes half the uniqueness of character builds and strategy out of the game.
I have to agree with MightyJim. The point of the class decks is that they are portable from game to game. So if you don't have the iconic included as one of the characters, then playing them is probably not feasible. And some of us really do enjoy the iconics.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ideal setup for 3 character decks would be
Iconic (Pregens should always be Iconic in my opinion, and this guarantees you have one)
General character that fits the class norm
Unique character that breaks the norm (ie Flenta, Wrathack)
I think a class deck that supports all 3 would be very doable.
Their card sheets are at 110 cards, so 160 is probably not feasible. 220 cards essentially doubles the cost and I don't think it's a good sell at $40 a class deck or even $30.
|
And there's why I have 7 different PACG characters.
Harsk, Jirelle, Ezren, Seoni, Tarlin, Flenta, LemIt allows me to adjust depending on the party dynamics.
I do this with PFS RPG! Especially since I run the tables here and have more experience.
I'm just starting out in PACG though. So did you buy all of the class decks to cover the 7 characters? (But Jirelle is from S&S base...) So you can make characters from the base set? But then do you use the cards from the base set to build her deck for play in PACG? O_o
|
|
And there's why I have 7 different PACG characters.
Harsk, Jirelle, Ezren, Seoni, Tarlin, Flenta, LemIt allows me to adjust depending on the party dynamics.
I do this with PFS RPG! Especially since I run the tables here and have more experience.
I'm just starting out in PACG though. So did you buy all of the class decks to cover the 7 characters? (But Jirelle is from S&S base...) So you can make characters from the base set? But then do you use the cards from the base set to build her deck for play in PACG? O_o
Since I knew from the start that I was running the PFS ACG for my local area before the class decks were released, I pre-ordered a full set for myself. I knew that I couldn't be sure which class/character to play for the different groups. I played Harsk at GenCon so he's my mainstay character. But as I've been playing and restarting with parties, I've gotten into certain characters. Harsk and Jirelle are the most advanced followed by Tarlin and Seoni. Flenta just isn't strong enough as a fighter and Ezren and Lem really don't get played a lot.
I, myself, also do the same thing with PFS RPG. I have a stable of characters that I play depending on the group. But my main is my gunfighter.
As far as your question about Jirelle, when I purchased all seven class decks (for my personal use), you'll notice there isn't a rogue character listed. Jirelle is a swashbuckler that uses the Rogue class deck. That's similar to the unlocking of *** that uses the Wizard deck later on ...
That's similar to the unlocking of *** that uses the Wizard deck later on ...
Is that an adventure 6 thing? I've not come across it anywhere, and I think we've played all of 1-5