| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of reviewing the class decks has been bouncing around in my head for awhile since it's pretty clear that some decks are better than others. I haven't seen any discussions of specific class deck contents, so here are my thoughts.
I'm not going to evaluate or rate the characters in the class deck themselves since I think each character has their own theme and flavor. I really enjoy the fact that there are noticeable differences in the overall strength between characters and believe those differences add to the richness of the game.
Instead, the primary crux of my evaluation is how the cards in the deck support the characters in the class deck. I'll be breaking the ratings down by card type and grade the selection of cards on an A-F scale. I'll also be giving an overall rating of the deck as a whole.
Since the bard class deck is the first listed on the deck card list PDF, I'm reviewing it first.
Weapons:
The Bard deck has a workable - if mediocre - selection of weapons, all things considered. They're decently split between finesse weapons for Bekah and ranged weapons for Lem and Siwar. The biggest weakness are the inclusion of three strength melee weapons considering none of the bards will want them. Especially frustrating is that the deck 3 & 4 weapons are strength melee weapons, which are mostly wasted. A deck 3 finesse weapon and deck 4 ranged weapon would've been much better. Grade: C-
Spells:
The Bard deck has a very nice selection and variety of spells. Two cures plus major cure and holy feast in deck 4 if you want to concentrate on healing. For offensive spells the big gem is lightning bolt in deck 2, plus you have incendiary cloud and blizzard for offensive support spells. There are multi-function spells such as swipe, life leech, and dominate, which are very useful for characters that have limited spell slots. There are also a couple of utility spells like glibness and scrying. The only thing missing is a tier 1 attack spell such as disintegrate or icy prison. Grade: B+
Armor:
Siwar can never have armor and Lem doesn't start with any, so armor isn't very important. That said, I have no complaints and am pleasantly surprised that the decks 4-6 armors are all very good. Grade: B+
Items:
This is the biggest weakness of the bard deck. There is only one item available for each of decks 4-6, and zero deck 2 or 3 items at all! Considering all of the bards in the deck start with two or three items and you're pretty much guaranteed to be stuck with crappy items for the majority of your character's career. It doesn't help that two of the nine available items are gambling items (including the horrible ivory dice), which only Meliski would want, and only if he selects the gambler role. The only thing saving this group from an F is the fact that you have the ruby of charisma, headband of alluring charisma, and sihedron ring. Grade: D-
Allies:
The bard deck has 23 allies, which is the most of all the class decks. Despite this, the selection of allies available is disappointing. The biggest issue is that you have duplicates of three different allies and those allies are themselves mediocre. Having two princelings in deck 6 is the biggest sore, since instead of a second princeling there could've been a much more useful ally such as a mountaineer or clockwork owl. Furthermore, many of the allies simply aren't very useful to the bards either: three of the four allies that can recharge to add to a combat check only work for melee (or finesse) checks, and thus are only useful to Bekah or Meliski. Seven of the 23 have non-explore powers that enhance diplomacy checks, which makes them very redundant. The only saving grace is the fact you get an old salt and fortune teller. Grade: D
Blessings:
The selection and spread of blessings is thoroughly lacking. No blessings of Pharasma despite the fact that half the bards are going to be depending on combat spells for most or all of their careers. Lamashtu and Achaekek as your decks 5 and 6 blessings is kind of underwhelming. Three blessings of Norgorber all slotted for deck 3 is also disappointing. Grade: D+
Summary:
The bard class deck is in my opinion - if not the worst - then the most disappointing. Too many of the card groups have card slots wasted on useless or redundant cards, and the lack of items is appalling. The only saving grace is the very good selection of spells, which is big since spellcasting is very important for bards.
Overall Grade: D+
I'm not going to evaluate or rate the characters in the class deck themselves since I think each character has their own theme and flavor.
It's your show, but I would reconsider that^. The characters are the "meat" of a Class Deck, and if they suck - not even dropping them in a home game, with a normal selection of boons- could give the class deck any merit. If I was player looking for tips, I would most definitely want to know if the characters are an underwhelming waste of cards...
(Yes, I was reading the Witch CD just last night, why do you ask?)
Still -- anyone can download the PDF of the characters and play any game with them, without the Class Deck.
It's harder to grasp what playing with the just the cards in the Class Deck is like by just looking at the deck list.
I concur with Longshot11 and elcoderdude. Focusing solely on the cards provides only a partial picture of a class [character] deck's relative value; more importantly, this method is singularly focused on organized play. As has long been noted, some characters in the decks are better supported (whether in terms of flexible builds or in ability to optimize), whereas others are much more limited and, in some cases, are poorly supported by the cards to which they have access for deck builds in OP.
The converse of this is that many players use these characters in regular (disorganized? ;) ) play and aren't limited to the cards in their class [character] decks. Under these conditions, things to consider might be how these characters serve as alternatives to the characters that are available in an adventure path, including the character add-on decks; how well a character works for the challenges and progression of each adventure path; how well a character works in synergy with other characters; etc.
I think that Xexyz has provided a great starting point that we can collectively build upon to evaluate each of the class [character] decks. We've long bemoaned the limitations of the earlier class decks and lauded the improvements that the design team has incorporated into later class decks. Anyone that has tried their hand at developing their own characters has experienced firsthand some of the challenges that the design team goes through in developing these class [character] decks - it's certainly much more difficult than it would at first appear. I can't really say that I disagree with any of the comments that Xexyz provided, and they've definitely sparked some thoughts (e.g., I'm guessing that the design team deliberately tries to avoid class [character] deck compositions that allow for an optimized character, instead working to give us relatively potent, yet flexible options).
It would be nice to see the community, methodically evaluate each of the class [character] decks; and perhaps the design team will provide us with some insights to help us broaden our understanding of their theories and intentions.
Despite my misgivings with the initial limitations of the Bard Class Deck review, kudos to Xexyz for the work and getting the ball rolling.
It's your show, but I would reconsider that^. The characters are the "meat" of a Class Deck, and if they suck - not even dropping them in a home game, with a normal selection of boons- could give the class deck any merit. If I was player looking for tips, I would most definitely want to know if the characters are an underwhelming waste of cards...
(Yes, I was reading the Witch CD just last night, why do you ask?)
There are several reasons I'm probably not going to rate the characters:
1. I haven't played them all. While I can get a good feeling of which characters are stronger than others just by looking at their powers and roles, I wouldn't feel comfortable rating them unless I actually played them.
2. I don't think any of the characters straight up suck. Obviously there are some characters that are stronger than others, but the game is easy enough that you can complete any adventure path with any character without too much frustration. Furthermore, because PACG is a fully cooperative game (as opposed to a competitive game) characters having different strengths adds to the replayability of the game instead of subtracting from it.
3. I think the difference in playing experience between playing a normal adventure path and playing organized play with the class decks make a big impact on the perceived strength of a character, which is why I wanted to do these reviews in the first place. Consider CD Harsk. On his own he's a pretty good character: He's got a strong combat skill, three other support skills, and three useful base powers. His roles also have several useful and interesting powers. However, when you play him with the ranger class deck it starts out as a frustrating experience because of the 5 basic weapons in that deck - which you must start with by the rules of organized play - only 2 are ranged weapons. It makes a big difference in actual play challenge compared to playing him in a regular adventure path where you can load him up with ranged weapons at the start and be on your way.
Thanks for what you've done breaking things down like this and I look forward to more reviews. Seeing these breakdowns for the early decks will make it easier to assess what we can do to improve the OP experience using those early class decks.
That said, I'd (personally) be most curious to see feedback for some of the later decks. Not only do the original decks precede my time working on the game, we've really changed our approach to making class decks a lot. It'd be good to be able to identify what you guys consider the more successful and less successful changes, so we can continue to improve the process in future decks.
There are several reasons I'm probably not going to rate the characters:
Fair points, Maybe I'll try and make some character write-up if I have enough time on my hands.
On your review: I mostly agree with all your points. Only Lamashtu and Ahcakek actually are well-percieved in my gaming circle. What AD5-6 blessing would you consider more "whelming"?
I'd usually prefer Nethys and Milani, but both of those boost areas in which the Bards are already likely to be well-versed, while Lamashtu and Achakek boost important combat rolls - which, at a glance, seem the bards' weak spot, so I can see why the designers would go that way.
On your review: I mostly agree with all your points. Only Lamashtu and Ahcakek actually are well-percieved in my gaming circle. What AD5-6 blessing would you consider more "whelming"?
I'd usually prefer Nethys and Milani, but both of those boost areas in which the Bards are already likely to be well-versed, while Lamashtu and Achakek boost important combat rolls - which, at a glance, seem the bards' weak spot, so I can see why the designers would go that way.
Basically for the reason you state. Achaekek and Lamashtu help with combat roles, which aren't the bards' strong suit, and you have to wait until deck 5 until you can get them. I think it would've been better if one of each of them were available by decks 1-3, while the 5-6 slots could've had a Nethys or Geyron.
Even though the early class decks have some issues as you note, they are certainly still functional. I soloed Meliski all the way through Season 0 and the bard deck worked just fine for that.
I agree, which is why none of them will be receiving an F grade. I consider a D below average, but still workable.
As a suggestion, you may want to post these reviews on the review section of the product page as well. They can't be commented on (so putting them in a thread is good if you want to open up discussion on them), but the reviews page makes the review far more visible to everyone else.
For example, here is the Bard CD. There is a link in the sentence "Write a review of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Bard Class Deck!" (Ctrl+F if you're having trouble finding it).
As a suggestion, you may want to post these reviews on the review section of the product page as well. They can't be commented on (so putting them in a thread is good if you want to open up discussion on them), but the reviews page makes the review far more visible to everyone else.
For example, here is the Bard CD. There is a link in the sentence "Write a review of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Bard Class Deck!" (Ctrl+F if you're having trouble finding it).
I'll think about it. I'm a little hesitant because I'm not sure the spirit of the reviews I'm doing is in line with the type of review that should go in that space.
I have some of these in my backlog on my drive (less of a review and more of a "if you're thinking about the Bard deck, what would attract you to it?"), but they're way too long and I need to cut down on their length. Yes, they're actually _too_ comprehensive - beginning players will get overwhelmed.
Your review pretty much matches my thoughts. My only quibble would be that Bards in the RPG don't get high-end combat spells, so the lack of one in AD6 here doesn't bother me. Otherwise this is pretty spot-on for playing Bards under the Guild rules.
On your review: I mostly agree with all your points. Only Lamashtu and Ahcakek actually are well-percieved in my gaming circle. What AD5-6 blessing would you consider more "whelming"?
I'd trade all the blessings from AD1-6 for a Pharasma and an Iomedae or Sivanah. I don't think anyone in our group chose Lamashtu or Achaekek in our Shackles campaign, but I'll have to ask at the next game night. I know Amaryllis was all Pharasma and Gods, but I gave the powers to give d12s and recharge Basic blessings so there are good reasons to stick to the basics. (Basics? :)
I tend to discount the importance of the high AD cards, especially Blessings, since they're hard to get in Guild play.
I tend to discount the importance of the high AD cards, especially Blessings, since they're hard to get in Guild play.
Yes and no. If you remove Basics and Elites pre-setup, it gets a little better. SotS is a little harder because the randoms you get are from all your class deck cards, but SotRi and SotRu are slightly better because the random card rewards are required to be AD#5 or 6.
I didn't really know where you were going with this. I'm not sure the purpose of rating the deck if it is not for OP. Rating the characters would go hand in hand with the cards. There is so much more I would like to add but i'm not sure the context of what you're getting too. Are we comparing them to original decks? or new decks? Because power creep is really strong in the decks. Of the original decks I think the bard deck is one of the best. Naturally the newer decks can outshine them.
I haven't played them all. While I can get a good feeling of which characters are stronger than others just by looking at their powers and roles, I wouldn't feel comfortable rating them unless I actually played them....I don't think any of the characters straight up suck.
I feel you are doing new people a disservice by the rating without playing a bard. Have you had significant experience with a bard in your group? that would help.
|
I think Xexyz meant having not played ALL the characters in each deck, as opposed to not having ever played a bard. But I will defer to them.
That said, I have played Lem throughout Runelords, and I agree overall with this deck review. I might give it a C or C+ overall, but I think that weak/weird weapons, no Blessing of Pharasma, and super-boring allies are a real downer here.
|
Played through part of Runelords with CD LEM. While I love curing literally every turn, I agree the blessing and definitely item side is weak. I love the character, and Cure cycling (discard a spell at start of turn pick up cure, use hand, cure, reset hand, discard spell add cure, rinse repeat) is my favorite, but it definitely could use work
I'm not arguing that the items/allies selection was bad. But every time we have had a bard in our games they have been amazing additions.
EDIT: I would be referring to Lem and Siwar. I have never seen Bekah in play and only once seen Meliski. (Meliski and Behak seem like they need work.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I would be referring to Lem and Siwar. I have never seen Bekah in play and only once seen Meliski. (Meliski and Behak seem like they need work.)
Reading Ryric's solo with Meliski seems to support that Meliski is very good. Ability to reroll dice is extremely useful.
|
|
My fiancee played Meliski through the entirety of Season of the Righteous. He was awesome support and not at all useless in a fight (Brawler role).
I've played Lem through five adventures of a different run through of SotRi, and he needed a blessing here and there in later adventures, but I really enjoyed playing him. I love acquiring all the spells and blessings...
I've seen RotR Lem, Siwar, and Meliski played (first in non-OP situations, the latter two in OP).
Meliski is not a good explorer (and it didn't help that our Meliski player was so unlucky - 7 1s on 7d6 is pretty unlucky), but his reroll power is powerful enough that he compensates for it. Reroll gives him an incredible amount of reliability.
Siwar is only okay. She's not a reliable attacker, but she's okay if she only uses attack spells. The Skirmish check replacement is only okay, but works amazingly with Armies. If your AP is Skirmish/Task-light (and those tend to be uncommon in the first place), she almost has a blank powers box.
RotR Lem has the card replacement thing for reliability, and CD Lem plays pretty similarly except spell focused.
I didn't really know where you were going with this. I'm not sure the purpose of rating the deck if it is not for OP. Rating the characters would go hand in hand with the cards. There is so much more I would like to add but i'm not sure the context of what you're getting too. Are we comparing them to original decks? or new decks? Because power creep is really strong in the decks. Of the original decks I think the bard deck is one of the best. Naturally the newer decks can outshine them.
I haven't played them all. While I can get a good feeling of which characters are stronger than others just by looking at their powers and roles, I wouldn't feel comfortable rating them unless I actually played them....I don't think any of the characters straight up suck.I feel you are doing new people a disservice by the rating without playing a bard. Have you had significant experience with a bard in your group? that would help.
The reason I didn't rate the characters is because as I said in my opening, all of the characters are fully playable; some are better than others but none truly 'suck'. But since the boons in the class deck define the contents of your character's deck for organized play, I feel that evaluating them is more relevant. I did evaluate the cards in conjunction with the characters in the class deck, which is why I gave such a harsh rating to the Ranger class deck. It's actually one of the reasons I started doing these ratings in the first place, because every time I think about playing a ranger I look at the class deck and go "ugh" because of the weapon situation.
Also, I've played Siwar through SotS, but not the other bards. I'm currently playing Lem through RotR on my computer.
The Skirmish check replacement is only okay, but works amazingly with Armies. If your AP is Skirmish/Task-light (and those tend to be uncommon in the first place), she almost has a blank powers box.
WotR had most of the armies; and I would not have wanted to play Siwar in that AP even with her Skirmish power.
Her weakness was her combat. Starting out she only has 2 attack spells (3 spells = 2 attack & 1 cure), so that would have been really rough. On her role card she gets to where she can evade banes and kick them to people at her location, and recharge blessings used on others. At this point she became really powerful. I have seen her in RotRL and SnS, she was amazing in both.
I think there are characters that have rarely used powers and its not the end of the world if they can get access to really amazing other powers.
But since the boons in the class deck define the contents of your character's deck for organized play, I feel that evaluating them is more relevant.
I can agree to disagree. I think the cards are only half the picture.
That being said, I don't disagree with the rating on the cards.
I played Meliski as Brawler in SnS without using the deck. He was ok at combat, but would've been good with the unarmed support cards from the Monk deck (to be fair, he was the only caster, so I had to focus on his casting first just to secure some healing). I thought he'd be stronger, but there are too many necessary role power feats, so you can't get them all by the time you would need them.
It's a pity that cross unlocks are not a thing for CD characters (yet), but even then he couldn't use the Monk deck because he has an armor slot :(
In hindsight, I could've mixed the monk deck into SnS though.