|
We are currently in the process of updating the PACSG for next year.
If there is a change that you know has been overlooked or omitted from the current guide, please post it here. (This is not the place to request new rules changes. Only rules changes that have already been discussed on the boards previously.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted this in reply to the v6.1 update which I still think would be a nice addition:
In the next version of the guide would it be possible to include the link to the living document for conversion.
I just had a vague recollection for how old locations didn't banish and allow characters to move in non-core/curse sets but had to dig around to find the conversion living document to confirm that. It would be nice to have something in the official PACS Guide that referenced the web address to handle all the various conversion nuances.
https://paizo.com/pacg/conversion
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great to see the community still alive and growing! Will cross post to the Rules forum to get it to the attention of some of the long term player who are on top of the rules (and in the society application as well)
When do you want the rules feedback by?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off the top of my head
- Making the Guide sync up with the Dragon's Demand Sanctioning Document regarding repeated rewards for the scenario 3C Wandering Way. This was clarified on Discord by the Online VC, not on the forums, but link is here. The sanctioning doc for the scenario says "Characters may earn the reward for this scenario any number of times." but does not mention earning XP or Hero Points for these scenarios multiple times. The Guide mentions that XP or Hero Points are only earned for the first time a scenario is completed. (Not sure where the change should be made, but it should be made explicit that XP and Hero Points are earned alongside the scenario rewards each time)
- It would be good to include the actual card lists for the Adventurer's Packs inside of the new guide, in addition to the rules for using them.
Do you have a draft version of the guide available to peruse somewhere? It's hard to say there's stuff missing from it if we can't actually review the current wording.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Guide being modified is the 6.1 printing of the guide. So, anything missing from that.
Probably already on your radar then, but everything in this thread that Vic has mentioned.
That's everything I can think of offhand. There's other issues in the Guide related to certain rewards being impossible to earn if you play in scenarios above your Tier, but that has not been officially clarified as far as I'm aware and therefore falls out of scope of your OP.
(I think my comment in my previous post related to the Wandering Way scenario in Dragon's Demand is best addressed on the DD Sanctioning Document and not Guide 6.2, so I'll open a new thread for that)
It would be good to include the actual card lists for the Adventurer's Packs inside of the new guide, in addition to the rules for using them.
One possible reason for not listing the AP cards in the Guide is that, when additional sets are released, those new cards might be added to the Adventure Packs.*
In which case it might be better to list the packs in a separate document and post the url in the Guide?
Or you could include the AP card lists the Guide, and simply update the Guide after the new sets are released, I suppose. Probably the better option.
*New sets are eventually being released, right? Pretty please? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be good to include the actual card lists for the Adventurer's Packs inside of the new guide, in addition to the rules for using them.One possible reason for not listing the AP cards in the Guide is that, when additional sets are released, those new cards might be added to the Adventure Packs.*
In which case it might be better to list the packs in a separate document and post the url in the Guide?
Or you could include the AP card lists the Guide, and simply update the Guide after the new sets are released, I suppose. Probably the better option.
*New sets are eventually being released, right? Pretty please? :)
The blog page about the packs includes a lot of other text and images that detract from being able to see and compare all of the cards lists at a glance. Having the packs listed somewhere without the extraneous stuff would be beneficial. Plus since the new guide will presumably have the rules for using the packs, and there is no guarantee those rules match the playtest rules in the blog/comments, that’s another reason for reproducing the pack lists locally in the guide. It’d probably go into an appendix.
The blog page about the packs includes a lot of other text and images that detract from being able to see and compare all of the cards lists at a glance.
Agree 100%. I don't know anyone who uses the blog page as the Adventure Pack reference. I'm guessing most (all?) people use the relevant Wiki pages/menus.
If a link were to be provided in the Guide, I was imagining a new Paizo page with clearly listed packs.
But as you say, it's probably best to list the packs directly in the Guide with the relevant rules. As it stands, new players wouldn't even know that "Adventure Packs" were a thing in OP unless they stumbled onto the blog or were told by an experienced player.
I'm assuming there will also be text in the Guide about being able to substitute Core cards for older cards, assuming they have identical names?
A related issue, discussed in different threads, is whether a box owner can proxy Core cards to use in their own deck. As it stands, people who generously bring their own boxes for use in OP are penalized because they can't use Core cards in their decks, as they have to leave them in the box for the group. (E.g., I want to use the Core Leather Armor for my rogue character, but I can't because it has to stay in the box. So I'm stuck with the pre-Core version.) Or they have to purchase a second Core set just to able to do this.
Though I suppose it might be goofy if the box-owner had a deck wholly consisting of proxies, which would be possible if using an all-adventure-pack character. Seems OK to me - as the owner does own the cards - but others may disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they have to purchase a second Core set just to able to do this.
This is the only avenue for doing this. Proxies aren't allowed in PACS. If you're running in a game store, the game store can get a free copy of Core/Curse to run the actual games from if they ask Paizo (haven't confirmed this is still the case but I'd be shocked if that program was discontinued), so the organizer shouldn't need to purchase two copies of it.
Anyway, that's a bit off-topic for this thread, let's carry further discussion elsewhere if desired :)
My OP group was lucky/popular enough to have 3 tables running at once. So two people had to bring their own copies to supplement the house box. But sure, happy to continue discussion offline. :)
The original response was that proxies in this case might be unofficially OK, if done a certain way. But that response also said that it probably wasn't worth putting in the Guide, so there you have it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Guide being modified is the 6.1 printing of the guide. So, anything missing from that.Probably already on your radar then, but everything in this thread that Vic has mentioned.
Got that one.
That's everything I can think of offhand. There's other issues in the Guide related to certain rewards being impossible to earn if you play in scenarios above your Tier, but that has not been officially clarified as far as I'm aware and therefore falls out of scope of your OP.
If you give me a link to the issue, I will see if it can be squeezed in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The blog page about the packs includes a lot of other text and images that detract from being able to see and compare all of the cards lists at a glance. Having the packs listed somewhere without the extraneous stuff would be beneficial. Plus since the new guide will presumably have the rules for using the packs, and there is no guarantee those rules match the playtest rules in the blog/comments, that’s another reason for reproducing the pack lists locally in the guide. It’d probably go into an appendix.It would be good to include the actual card lists for the Adventurer's Packs inside of the new guide, in addition to the rules for using them.One possible reason for not listing the AP cards in the Guide is that, when additional sets are released, those new cards might be added to the Adventure Packs.*
In which case it might be better to list the packs in a separate document and post the url in the Guide?
Or you could include the AP card lists the Guide, and simply update the Guide after the new sets are released, I suppose. Probably the better option.
*New sets are eventually being released, right? Pretty please? :)
I will see what I can do about getting that as an appendix.
*That is outside my scope and no one talks to me about it, one way or another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A related issue, discussed in different threads, is whether a box owner can proxy Core cards to use in their own deck. As it stands, people who generously bring their own boxes for use in OP are penalized because they can't use Core cards in their decks, as they have to leave them in the box for the group. (E.g., I want to use the Core Leather Armor for my rogue character, but I can't because it has to stay in the box. So I'm stuck with the pre-Core version.) Or they have to purchase a second Core set just to able to do this.
I can ask. No promises.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The original response was that proxies in this case might be unofficially OK, if done a certain way. But that response also said that it probably wasn't worth putting in the Guide, so there you have it.
This is the sort of thing that we sometimes leave out of the guide in order to allow local VCs and VLs to use their own judgement. Certainly, no one should be penalized for contributing a personally owned box to help the table play. I think Vic may have made this as clear as we want to, and that any attempt to make it clearer risks trying to thread the needle in such a way that people are unable to adjust to different situations on the ground.
Sometimes, there just shouldn't be a rule.
That's everything I can think of offhand. There's other issues in the Guide related to certain rewards being impossible to earn if you play in scenarios above your Tier, but that has not been officially clarified as far as I'm aware and therefore falls out of scope of your OP.If you give me a link to the issue, I will see if it can be squeezed in.
Here ya go. It was originally brought up in Discord in the private BR channel for the 7-3A reward; I made this thread to bring up the actually-impossible ones from earlier seasons. Recent seasons no longer use these reward types (because they sucked. a lot. literally everyone I've ever played with hated them), so it only impacts recent rewards by accident (as was the 7-3A case).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here ya go. It was originally brought up in Discord in the private BR channel for the 7-3A reward; I made this thread to bring up the actually-impossible ones from earlier seasons. Recent seasons no longer use these reward types (because they sucked. a lot. literally everyone I've ever played with hated them), so it only impacts recent rewards by accident (as was the 7-3A case).That's everything I can think of offhand. There's other issues in the Guide related to certain rewards being impossible to earn if you play in scenarios above your Tier, but that has not been officially clarified as far as I'm aware and therefore falls out of scope of your OP.If you give me a link to the issue, I will see if it can be squeezed in.
Thanks added to the list.
Hope it's not too late to sneak in one more thing! Vic mentioned something that should've been added to Guide 6.1 in this thread but never ended up actually being added. Getting it into the next guide version would be good.
My copy of the guide 6.1 says:
(left column, 3rd para up from the bottom)
"A player may display any of the eligible products to
receive the following accessory perk for the session: once per
scenario, on your check, you may reroll 1 die."Are you referring to something else?
Huh, no, I was referring to exactly that. I just can't read :)
|
|
Huh, no, I was referring to exactly that. I just can't read :)My copy of the guide 6.1 says:
(left column, 3rd para up from the bottom)
"A player may display any of the eligible products to
receive the following accessory perk for the session: once per
scenario, on your check, you may reroll 1 die."Are you referring to something else?
I only noticed it because I added "on your check" to the end of the sentence, then went back through to proof read and check the grammar, and in the process noticed that "on your check" was in there twice...
I REALLY wish I had caught this earlier in the process. That said, I couldn't rest easy if I didn't say something.
To build the vault for a scenario in one of those adventures, start by adding all of the cards from the listed products to the vault, then remove all Basic and Elite banes whose level is at least three lower than the # of the adventure, and you may remove any non-blessing boons that fit that criteria.
This should be changed to "non-veteran". We just played an earlier Tier 3 adventure, and the B banes we were facing were ridiculously overmatched. The idea that we'll still be facing those through tier 6?
(It was also disappointing to be drawing B boons, but that's secondary to the feeling that we weren't being challenged.
I REALLY wish I had caught this earlier in the process. That said, I couldn't rest easy if I didn't say something.
To build the vault for a scenario in one of those adventures, start by adding all of the cards from the listed products to the vault, then remove all Basic and Elite banes whose level is at least three lower than the # of the adventure, and you may remove any non-blessing boons that fit that criteria.This should be changed to "non-veteran". We just played an earlier Tier 3 adventure, and the B banes we were facing were ridiculously overmatched. The idea that we'll still be facing those through tier 6?
(It was also disappointing to be drawing B boons, but that's secondary to the feeling that we weren't being challenged.
That is largely a non-change from how purging worked pre-Core (actually purges Elites sooner rather than later), and only applies to pre-Core sets. In any case, it’s off topic here, this thread is mostly only for settled questions and this suggestion needs more time in development. I understand what you’re going for, but the suggestion you made is non-workable for pre-Core sets. Purging using Core rules will cause you to be short on cards in various boxes to build locations with.