Pathfinder Card Game!

[Smoove_B]

Looks like they might actually fix the cards -- either through a print-on-demand option at Drive Thru RPG.com or as a .pdf download. Assuming you can match the card stock and have access to a quality printer, I'd find that acceptable. Hell, even printing them out on stickers and slapping them over the original. Their willingness to listen to the community and address a vocal subset is commendable.

[Archinerd]

For anyone looking for a bit more of a challenge here's how I play.
Instead of custom building my character deck(s) at the start of a new adventure I randomly pull the number of basic cards needed and that becomes my deck. For instance, Valeros starts with 5 weapons and Ezren starts with 1, I just draw 6 random basic weapons from the box then divide them between the two. It's kind of like a sealed deck + card draft. The result is decks cobbled together of sub-optimal cards (like an Ezren with mostly 1-shot divine spells). This makes the early loot pulls more useful and gives me more satisfaction while I slowly work on refining my character decks.

[hentzau]

Just played Black Fang's Dungeon with our 3 player party, and once again, it was a down to the wire victory for our heroes. Time was our biggest enemy this time, because:

a: Seoni failed to close the Thasallonian dungeon when she defeated the skeleton henchman there, so we had to plow our way through that complete deck
b: The Skeleton Henchman for the Shrine of Lamashtu was the last card in that location deck, so we had to do THAT complete deck.
c: We had a collapsed ceiling barrier that took us 3 turns to get through.

All of these things combined left us with Black Fang in the desecrated vault, with six cards left, and one card left in the blessings deck. Fortunately, Seoni had 3 blessings in her hand as well as the spyglass. I used the spyglass right away and managed to get Black Fang placed as the top card and made so much dragon chow out of him with an arcane bolt, plus a blessing of the gods from Kyra and blessing of Pharisma giving me 4d12+1d6+2. But it came down to that last turn, and if Black Fang would have been the 5th or 6th card, we would have lost (and quite possibly Seoni would have died, because I was down to my last 2 cards in my draw deck, and I would have burnt through at least 3-4 cards exploring.

Didn't pick up too much loot to speak of. Seoni continues to be somewhat spell challenged, never being in the right place at the right time to pick up new spells. Burn Offerings, you're next!

[Smoove_B]

Managed to play Brigandoom! twice last night. Our first attempt was with with Kyra (the Cleric) and Sajan (the Monk). While the Monk is ridiculously powerful (particularly at the waterfront) our blessing deck ran out long before we were able to defeat the villain. I'm nearly certain we would have died a number of times as well if not for the cleric's healing ability (which is awesome). It almost seems unfair to use multiple blessings at a time during combat for the monk, but I guess that's balanced out with an inability to do magic damage (which was a problem).

For our second attempt at the same adventure we tried Valeros (Fighter) and Harsk (Dwarf Ranger) --- completely different experience. Above and beyond the new random location decks, we really didn't have too much of a problem moving through everything. Though as awesome as we were, I think we still managed to defeat the villain with six blessing left in the deck. I guess it didn't feel all that close, but if we didn't have 3/4 locations closed and he wasn't shuffled high in the final location deck, it could have gone either way.

I am very worried about the cards but not enough to sleeve them all. But yeah, they're going to get wrecked.

[hepcat]

I still have not unwrapped the adventure pack that comes with the base game.

[coopasonic]

After failing to come close on black fang with the rogue solo, I brought a full crew up through the starter missions. Took down black fang with rogue, sorcerer, cleric, barbarian and fighter. I had to defeat him 3 times but finally got him locked down with 3 cards left in the blessings deck. It's a very different game with 5 ( and 7 locations!) than solo. The funny thing is one of those three kills was the rogue solo.

I did luck out a bit, closing one location on the first card draw, but I failed to close another and had to go all the way down. That's where the dragon was finally killed.

[Boudreaux]

SO CLOSE.

Thistletop Delve, the final scenario of the Burnt Offerings, proved to be our downfall. It also helped solidify (to me) that the difficulty of this game is very well-tuned. I've been playing Marisiel the rogue, and my kids have been playing Harsk the ranger and Valeros the fighter. So far things have been pretty manageable with a few close scrapes, but Thistletop Delve proved to be a challenge.

We closed two locations right off the bat, and thought we had a good handle on things. Then my son (playing Harsk) got into a couple of bad fights, and was down to his last hand of cards with an empty draw deck. With three locations still to go, I joined him at his location and gave up my only healing potion to keep him going. Shortly thereafter my other son (as Valeros) ran into the villian, which involved two combat checks. He passed the first, failed the second. Villian escaped and time ran a little shorter. We ended up cornering the Villian in another location after defeating her henchman there, and now we knew where to find her. Within a couple more turns, we positioned ourselved to have Valeros return to face the Villian while the other two of us closed the other locations. It was a daring plan, but we felt like we could do it. Valeros explored, found the Villian. The other two locations - closed! Valeros passed the first combat check, and to prepare for the second we threw an extra blessing in the mix. It raised the difficulty of the combat check slightly, but needing a 16 to win, my son was rolling 2d10 + 1d12 + 4, and we felt pretty comfortable. With the strength/melee bonus, he only needed to get a total of 12 on the 2d10 and 1d12.

He rolled 5.

The Villian escaped, and having thrown out more than I could manage with that final blessing, Marisiel was left with too few cards in her deck on the next turn and died. Only four turns remained, so the surviving party members retreated to lick their wounds and mourn the loss of their rogue.

So now we pick new characters and start over. They'll keep a character record of their fighter and ranger, but we're all keen to see how the different characters play. I'm still a little lost on how you'd manage characters that make it to X scenario, and want to join with other characters working on Y scenario, how that would be logical "in the game world", etc. Seems like trying to take a party of characters through the entire Adventure Path without losing anyone is going to be pretty challenging.

[Chaz]

According to the rules, you can bring in a new character whenever, but if they haven't finished all the adventures in a path, they don't get the path reward. So your options would be to re-run the adventure path with both old characters and new (with old characters not getting scenario rewards for previously-completed scenarios), or bringing new character(s) up through the path until they get to the one the old characters are at.

[SpaceLord]

SO CLOSE.

Thistletop Delve, the final scenario of the Burnt Offerings, proved to be our downfall. It also helped solidify (to me) that the difficulty of this game is very well-tuned. I've been playing Marisiel the rogue, and my kids have been playing Harsk the ranger and Valeros the fighter. So far things have been pretty manageable with a few close scrapes, but Thistletop Delve proved to be a challenge.

We closed two locations right off the bat, and thought we had a good handle on things. Then my son (playing Harsk) got into a couple of bad fights, and was down to his last hand of cards with an empty draw deck. With three locations still to go, I joined him at his location and gave up my only healing potion to keep him going. Shortly thereafter my other son (as Valeros) ran into the villian, which involved two combat checks. He passed the first, failed the second. Villian escaped and time ran a little shorter. We ended up cornering the Villian in another location after defeating her henchman there, and now we knew where to find her. Within a couple more turns, we positioned ourselved to have Valeros return to face the Villian while the other two of us closed the other locations. It was a daring plan, but we felt like we could do it. Valeros explored, found the Villian. The other two locations - closed! Valeros passed the first combat check, and to prepare for the second we threw an extra blessing in the mix. It raised the difficulty of the combat check slightly, but needing a 16 to win, my son was rolling 2d10 + 1d12 + 4, and we felt pretty comfortable. With the strength/melee bonus, he only needed to get a total of 12 on the 2d10 and 1d12.

He rolled 5.

The Villian escaped, and having thrown out more than I could manage with that final blessing, Marisiel was left with too few cards in her deck on the next turn and died. Only four turns remained, so the surviving party members retreated to lick their wounds and mourn the loss of their rogue.

So now we pick new characters and start over. They'll keep a character record of their fighter and ranger, but we're all keen to see how the different characters play. I'm still a little lost on how you'd manage characters that make it to X scenario, and want to join with other characters working on Y scenario, how that would be logical "in the game world", etc. Seems like trying to take a party of characters through the entire Adventure Path without losing anyone is going to be pretty challenging.

RIP Marisel.

[SpaceLord]

So, my gaming group and I finally got enough characters through the mini-campaign to start Rise of the Runelords. With 5 players, we had 7 locations for Attack on Sandpoint. Of those 7 locations, 4 of them had the henchman/villain in the bottom card, or the next to the bottom card, so we were very pressed for time. We used the Holy Candle to buy us two extra turns, and spent each of our last turns desperately trying to find Ripnugget. On the next to last turn, my fighter ran into the goblin, and we were set up. Unfortunately, the City Gate location was guarded by the monk, who spent a blessing to roll 2d10+1d4+1, needing an 8 to defeat a simple Bandit to block off the location, and he rolled a 1,2, and a 1, for a total of 5, and we lost.

Curse you Ripnugget!

[Boudreaux]

I'll admit - while I enjoy playing these games with my kids and enjoy seeing them work through the challenges and come out successful, I have a certain hidden glee at seeing them walk into an encounter all cocky and self-sure and then roll horribly like that and fall in utter defeat. I guess I'm partially trying to see it as a learning opportunity for them, but it's probably also that I'm kind of a vindictive bastard. This must be why I was always the DM when I played RPGs with my friends as a kid.

[Smoove_B]

Big post from Mike after reading through 1500+ discussions about the game.

Board game designers are supposed to produce elegant works of perfection that need no clarifications, no errata, no commentary at all. We’re unique that way: trading card game players expect reams of floor rules, RPG players expect game masters will gloss over problems, and computer game players expect frequent downloadable patches. I like that high expectation of board game designers, as it keeps people like me on their guard for anything that might go wrong. Even when we do something as far off the beaten path as this game, those standards should be what we aim for.

My goal with this is to make sure that everyone is having fun playing my game the way it’s supposed to be played. I made some mistakes that got in the way of that, and you can call me out for it. As long as you’re observing Wheaton’s Law, I can handle whatever criticisms you have, and I can adapt to make sure we do things better.

I have to say, I find the developer involvement post-release quite refreshing.

[coopasonic]

It helps that the game is pretty sweet. Rolled through the first Burnt Offerings scenario last night with no challenge whatsoever. I only flubbed one roll and I was using a a discard to try again weapon on that roll.

The first two rewards you get that aren't cards are skill points. I'm having a hard time convincing myself to take anything but the +1 and +2 on the character primary skills. One thing that I meant to check but forgot/ran out of time: If I have Strength: d12+2 and Melee: strength + 2, is my Melee Roll: d12+4 or d12+2? There was an FAQ kind of like that but not quite.

[Boudreaux]

We've been playing that it would be d12+4. The Melee skill utilizes your strength die, but with a +2 bonus because you're skilled in Melee combat. The skill bonuses - based on the way they're laid out on the card - modify your strength die with the +1, +2, etc. So if your Melee skill is (strength die) + 2, that becomes (d12 +2) + 2.

Now that I think about it though, it's called a "skill bonus". I wonder if the modifier should only be applied to actual skills that use that die, and not just the die in general? So if a check said "roll your strength die" and you had taken two skill bonuses to modify your strength to +2, do you add that or not when you're rolling just the die, and not using a "skill"?

[Smoove_B]

I couldn't say why (other than my previous experience as a DM), but I would think the bonus is not nested. +2 to a Strength stat gives you a bonus when checking against that particular attribute. If you also have a melee specialization that grants a +2 bonus you don't get another +2 from the Strength because melee is a specific skill under strength -- you follow the line listing for said skill.

[coopasonic]

My argument against is based solely on the fact there is no way for me to bump Melee on Amiri or Valeros, we only get to boost Strength. I'm back to reading the endless FAQs.

[Smoove_B]

My argument against is based solely on the fact there is no way for me to bump Melee on Amiri or Valeros, we only get to boost Strength.

Which would help against barriers or an enemy attack where they are held (theoretically). Remember if you're in a combat situation and you don't have melee or ranged skills, you just roll your strength die + any weapon cards you have with the melee trait. IF the combat check required the melee skill and you don't have it, you roll a 1D4, not your Strength die.

I think.

[coopasonic]

Just a small clarification, it's strength or melee for combat checks if you aren't using a weapon:

Most monsters can be defeated with a combat check. Weapons
and many other cards that can be used during combat generally
tell you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you
don’t play such a card, use your Strength or Melee skill.

I found one thread on BGG that agrees with me on the math for the melee skill but I don't take that as gospel. need to look at paizo... *gulp* No applicable example in the rulebook sadly.

[Boudreaux]

I couldn't say why (other than my previous experience as a DM), but I would think the bonus is not nested. +2 to a Strength stat gives you a bonus when checking against that particular attribute. If you also have a melee specialization that grants a +2 bonus you don't get another +2 from the Strength because melee is a specific skill under strength -- you follow the line listing for said skill.

The only reason I'd disagree with this is, from a "thematic" viewpoint, it doesn't make sense. If Merisiel's Acrobatic skill is based on dexterity (1d12) but with a +2 modifier, and I've leveled her Dexterity up to 1d12+4, it doesn't make sense that her Acrobatic skill is still only 1d12+2.

This would make a big difference in gameplay and the logic behind leveling characters. Most characters seem to have skills that directly key off of their primary stats. If leveling those stats (strength, dexterity, intelligence) doesn't improve the associate skills, then their skills aren't leveling with the increased difficulty as the Adventure Path progresses.

Most of the discussions I've seen on the Paizo forums about this seem to agree that skill feats that improve stat checks (like STR, DEX, etc.) also affect the skills based on those stats. So if you have a STR of d10 and Melee of STR+3, adding a +1 skill feat to STR makes your STR checks d10+1 and Melee checks d10+4.

Would be nice to get confirmation from the designers though.

[IceBear]

Yeah, that's how I feel too. It's also the method that requires the least amount of thinking (ie, forgetting to apply or not apply)

[hentzau]

It seems pretty cut and dried to me. Since Valero's Melee skill is listed as Melee: Strength +3, and if his Strength has been upgraded to D10 +1, his melee check would be D10 + 4. Or did I miss something in the conversation?

[SpaceLord]

And the upgrade checkboxes are next to the "skill" Strength, Dex, etc.

If anyone's interested, I've made this sheet:



I printed it on 11x17 cardstock. You'll need to trim 2" off both of the long sides, and it'll fit in the box. I think it works pretty well.

Download it here.

[Smoove_B]

The only reason I'd disagree with this is, from a "thematic" viewpoint, it doesn't make sense. If Merisiel's Acrobatic skill is based on dexterity (1d12) but with a +2 modifier, and I've leveled her Dexterity up to 1d12+4, it doesn't make sense that her Acrobatic skill is still only 1d12+2.

Again, it could be my bias, but I don't think they apply. For example, using the melee + 2 skill for Valeros -- if he earns a reward that allows him to boost strength to +1, I don't think that means his melee automatically goes up. Is he stronger? Yes. But greater strength doesn't mean he's now somehow inherently better at melee. Same with dexterity. Can your reaction time or "danger sense" increase, giving you a +1 or +2 to a die roll that requires a straight dexterity check to avoid a trap or ambus? Sure. But I don't think that applies to a bonus for shooting a bow or throwing a dagger - a learned skill.

Maybe I'm reading into it too deeply and I'll certainly follow the FAQ but that's how I see it.

[coopasonic]

But it would also mean that no character could ever get better at melee. How does that make sense?

[IceBear]

To me it's just algebra. What's the melee skill? STR +2. Ok, what's STR equal to? 1d12 + 2, so it becomes 1d12+2+2

If it's otherwise it becomes a PITA to track and omg, I forgot I should have added the extra bonus on that check but not that one.

It could just be my bias from playing d20 the past decade, but if a character's Strength goes up, it does mean you hit in melee better.

[Smoove_B]

But it would also mean that no character could ever get better at melee. How does that make sense?

Well, they should have put check boxes next to the melee or ranged skills then. Don't blame me, I'm just guessing.

If it's otherwise it becomes a PITA to track and omg, I forgot I should have added the extra bonus on that check but not that one.

But that's why I think it's easier to read it like a line item -- you figure out what die you need, look at the skill and associated bonus and roll away. If you get the native die roll bonus on everything you do, then that needs to be made crystal clear some where.

[hepcat]

To me it's just algebra. What's the melee skill? STR +2. Ok, what's STR equal to? 1d12 + 2, so it becomes 1d12+2+2

This is how I just assumed it worked too. Now I'm a bit perplexed.

[hentzau]

Once again, it seems very plain if you just read the card. Valeros Strength is D10. He "gains a level" and ups that to D10 + 1. His Strength is now D10 + 1. Valeros Melee skill is listed as

Melee: Strength + 3

I can't see how you would interpret that any other way than being D10 + 4. Occam's Razor and all that.

[IceBear]

Yes. I agree. Not sure why there's an issue. In Pathfinder the RPG if your Strength stat increased, your chance of hitting and doing more damage in melee combat went up. I know it's not the RPG, but it makes sense to me (as much as anything can when talking about RPGs )

[Smoove_B]

I am coming from it as an old school PnP gamer, not someone that's ever actually played Pathfinder. It does make sense when you break it down that way, but I could also see it going the other way just as easy (though not nearly as streamlined or thematic, IMHO).

[IceBear]

But it's the same way back in the old school D&D

If you had 13 STR you had (+1 on hit and damage - actually might have been lower as I sort of remember needing much higher strength to get bonuses than in the later editions). If somehow you got 18(00) STR you had (+3 to hit / +6 damage - I think that was how it broke down). All the d20 games did was allow you to increase your stats naturally rather than via magic as you leveled up. The higher your STR the better your to hit and damage with melee weapons. The higher your DEX the better your hit with ranged.

[Smoove_B]

Well, yes, the OG AD&D it was that way. But I want to say 2.0 AD&D you then had actual specific kill checks that were based on the core stat and those skill checks each had a specific bonus. As it wasn't the norm to alter your stats, the only way to get better as you leveled up was to improve the actual skills and their associated bonuses. Again, it's been 22+ years since I've played any version of D&D so I could be confabulating this with some other system...it's all a bit fuzzy now.

I'll follow whatever the policy is for this game, regardless.

[IceBear]

My memory is fuzzy there now too, but the modern d20 games basically break down skills by the base attribute and your skill check is based on your attribute bonus and training. So, if your STR is 13 (+1 bonus) and you wanted to Climb (STR skill) but you had no training your roll would get a +1. If your STR was 14 (+2) your skill would also get +2

[coopasonic]

The crux of the matter here is I want to play more! I dropped Valeros for my first scenario in Burnt Offerings. He was redundant with Amiri. Heavy Armor isn't necessary if you are never hit! Siren was really the only risk I noticed there. I've mostly managed to luck out on barriers. On a related note, I think using a strength check to open a chest ought to reduce the goodies you find in the chest.

[IceBear]

The next adventure set is supposed to be out soon. I remember playing the skinshaw murders in the pnp adventure path and it was creepy for Halloween

[coopasonic]

CSI just put up adventure decks 3 and 4 for pre-order... December and February.

Paizo just doesn't understand!!! Some folks on the Paizo and BGG forums are creating their own adventures. That might help.

[IceBear]

Adventure deck #2 is supposed to be October the last I heard. Yeah, I suspect there will be some quality user adventures too

Edit: ok, Amazon has it for early November for preorder

[coopasonic]

paizo.com says mid-october for skinsaw

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8yow?Path ... nture-Deck" target="_blank

I'd hope they would be most up to date (especially this close to mid-october), but that could be wrong.

[Smoove_B]

CSI just put up adventure decks 3 and 4 for pre-order... December and February.

Paizo just doesn't understand!!! Some folks on the Paizo and BGG forums are creating their own adventures. That might help.

It's a fine line. I'm sure when you look at releasing a $60+ base game and $15 character pack, you don't want to risk burning out the customer base by flooding the market with $20 adventure decks too quickly -- even though they're the real fun. My buddy purchased the game and he's similarly frothing at the mouth over the idea that the adventure packs are 6+ weeks apart. For the record, we've played through Brigandoom! twice.

[coopasonic]

I saw a post on BGG indicating all of the adventure packs were already printed, packaged and warehoused. The bastards. I guess we shouldn't expect any production delays.