|
Gravy Train Robber posted:How does this compare with other co-op adventure card games like the LOTR LCG? I have played LOTR only a couple of times, so take this with a grain of salt. - There is no (ok, some) deckbuilding in Pathfinder. You start with only 15 cards and the game gives you few options for customization: Each character class can pick up a set number (5 or less) of “basic” cards of each type. Also, some of the cards are objectively better than others (i.e. Heavy Armor is better than Light Armor if you are proficient with it), so most of your deck comes pre-built. At the end of each game, most of the cards you've picked up during the adventure will be clearly better or worse than what you have, so there is usually an easy choice about what to discard for the next adventure. Most of the flexibility comes from choosing the spells and items your character has, because there is more variety there, so your non magic user warrior is going to be very similar to every other warrior. - Pathfinder is easier, or at least there are less ways to screw yourself. Heroes are more durable and you can probably shrug off a couple of bad rolls. Healing is commonplace. According to the rules a total party wipeout means you lose all progress, so this is not a bad thing. - In bigger groups, your loses in Pathfinder will come from the clock running out, rather than the death of characters. - LOTR is more tightly "scripted", with most of enemies appearing in each scenario being thematically appropriate for it. In Pathfinder, you may find the Mayor of a Sandpoint (an Ally card) hanging around the fortress of the monster of the week, just because that location was dealt one random ally during setup. Or maybe a dragon is attacking a rundown farm. Or the villain is getting drunk in the local tavern, enjoying an IPA. We have house ruled that a non-active player is the GM, reveals the encounter and gives an appropriate hook for it. It helps with the suspension of disbelief. - The power and difficulty curve in Pathfinder is just right. You generally end up finding enough loot to remain competitive, even if it's randomly generated. There is also a feeling of character progression that LOTR doesn't have. It’s probably the main appeal of the game. - Pathfinder adapts better to more players, because there are ways to help the active character with spells, blessings, shooting arrows from another location or what have you. There is less dead time. - There is way more shuffling in Pathfinder, and the set-up is more cumbersome. It doesn't become annoying (more than 5 minutes) unless you're playing solo with 4+ characters. - There is a planned end for Pathfinder. After 6 adventures (around 30-ish scenarios), you’ll have finished the Rise of the Runelords campaign. The first adventure is included in the basic box, rest are add-ons. Paizo is preparing a different basic box, with a new campaign, but we don't know whether you'll be able to use the old one and buy only the adventure cards. - I'm not sure how easy is to create your own scenarios in LOTR, in Pathfinder is very easy. Just deal 3-8 locations, draw random cards and you are set. tl;dr: Pathfinder is easier, lighter and more random. The appeal of the game is watching your character grow, not creating an efficient deck.
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
I find 4 players the sweet spot between "leisure walk" and "Oh, god, time is running out GO, GO GO!". I feel that 5+ will end up with a lot of downtime, becuse there isn't much you can do between turns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 12:02
|
|