|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Or, hey, every case is likely to contain one....
We consider your party's player and character makeup a "social contract" issue, not a rules issue. Which is to say we have never given you rules about this sort of thing before, and we didn't start here. All of those options work just fine.
While an Iconic Heroes version of Seltyiel will be coming, there was a version of him in the Skull & Shackles set.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sometimes it's not worth the trouble contacting CS (or more accurately, sometimes I don't think you should wear the cost for a scrunched book or something, even though I know you're going to. I'd feel similar about one missing card out of a whole set).
Don't worry about that *at all*. CS has already opened a bunch of damaged-box copies of card game products so they can pull individual replacement cards for whatever reason, and since we can put your replacement card in your sidecart so it goes into the next sub shipment, there's not even a postage cost. It costs us nothing but a few minutes of effort.
The answer on 1 is that you choose. The rulebook says "On story cards and location cards, the side with the more colorful version of the artwork is the face; the less colorful version is the back. Very rarely, a card can have two faces." Abyssal Rift has two faces, so either side is "faceup."
The resolution to 3 has been added to the FAQ.
1. When you display Abyssal Rift (or similar flip locations, not that we have any yet) using Planar Tuning Fork, do you get to choose which side is displayed? Or do you use the side designated as the starting side?
Good question. Will get back to you.
2. Does the Fork's power remain in effect if the underlying location is re-opened?
No, because it says "While displayed, treat the closed location as if it had the At This Location power from the displayed card." If the location isn't closed, this sentence becomes impossible.
3. If the underlying location has a closed At This Location power, does it remain in effect during the Fork's effect, or is it suppressed by the Fork's effect?
The intent is certainly "instead."
Also, keep in mind that WizKids has control over who is in what set.
WizKids looks to us to make the set lists for all of the minis sets, including these. For most sets, Erik does pretty much everything; in this case, he also took input from me.
Our number one priority was that we wanted to ensure that the line was successful right off the bat by putting our as many of our "most iconic" iconics in sets 1 and 2 as we could manage. (That is, the 11 classes from the Core Rulebook, which were also the 11 classes in RotR.) So from there, it's a matter of putting puzzle pieces together. Of those 11 characters, 3 are Small, and 2 of those 3 have Medium animal companions, making a total of 13 figures to fit into two 6-figure sets. As you can see, somebody gets left out... and it *can't* be one of the two Smalls that have an animal companion, or then we'd have only 11 of the core figures in the first two sets. And since we wanted to avoid having two Smalls in the same box for these, pushing Lem was the only possible answer.
After the core classes, our second most well-known group of iconics are the ones from the Advanced Player's Guide, so we decided to do an APG-themed set. That book has 6 iconics, of which 2 have animal companions, meaning there are 8 figures vying for 6 slots, so we would have to push back either Balazar and Padrig or Feiya and Daji. I don't recall exactly why—it may have had to do with Wrath coming up, or it may have had to do with the Shattered Star Feiya issue—but we decided to do Balazar and Padrig first.
Then, keeping in mind that the six sets were intended to cover the classes up to (but not including) Occult Adventures, we have 3 Small characters left (Shardra, Enora, and Lem), so those get divvied up (and the fact that we already had a Lem probably sent him to the back of that line); the 3 remaining characters who have animal companions (Shardra, Adowyn, and Feiya) get divided as well. From there, we did some gender-balancing and race-balancing until we thought things felt well-rounded, and ended up where we are.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I don't know any more about the specifics of the price increase than you do—I didn't even know the price was increasing until WizKids solicited the new ones—but I can tell you that the price of the first 3 had to be set before they had made or sold them, while the price on the next ones was set *after* they had made and sold the first 3, so they were able to use *actual* costs and sales to determine the price. I would not be *at all* surprised to learn that the costs were higher than they had budgeted. (We might have talked them into more paint ops than they had planned....)
Doesn't the card pass its traits to a die when it changes the die? (Not when it just adds to it, like Guidance. Now that I reread Guidance, anyway.) If so, isn't that text superfluous (and a little confusing)?
The rules about exactly how traits passed to the check weren't codified until after Runelords, so many of those cards specified things that they no longer need to have specified.
...it's not surprising I am fascinated that I see how far back some of the movers and shakers here at Paizo go and how experienced they are. I'm reading a chapter on Wizards of the Coast and their acquisition of TSR in 1997 and seeing familiar names like Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. I know the 90s isn't that far back but in RPG terms its forever, like three D&Ds ago forever. (I'm coining the use of D&D editions as a measurement of RPG time if that hasn't happened already.) I have to say, these guys have a LOT of experience under their belts.
Paizo has an anniversary party for the employees and their families each summer, and for the last few years, we've been recognizing employees who have reached their 10-year anniversary with us. So far, that's Lisa Stevens, Vic Wertz, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, Jeff Alvarez, Wes Schneider, Gary Teter, Sarah Robinson, Jason Bulmahn, and James Sutter.
Pierce Watters was also with us at the very beginning, though he left and came back, and hasn't quite hit 10 years at Paizo yet... but he was Editor-in-Chief of Dragon and Dungeon before Wizards purchased TSR. Of Paizo employees, he's been in the gaming industry longer than anyone but Lisa and myself, and he's been in the publishing industry longer than Lisa.
Just that group right there is collectively approaching 150 years in the gaming industry.
When you would have the opportunity to close the Abyssal Rift, regardless of whether that's from defeating a henchman or encountering a villain, you go to the rulebook and look at Closing a Location. It tells you to look at When Closing. When Closing tells you either that the location is always open or always temporarily closed. Neither side tells you anything you could do to close it. The open side allows you to bury a blessing to *flip* it, and that's the only option you might have.
Flipping the Abyssal Rift is *not* the same as closing it. All it does is change it from open to temporarily closed and vice-versa (and it swaps the "At This Location" power). "Temporarily closed" is only relevant when cutting off a villain's escape route—it has no other effect.
So regardless of what a henchman (or anything else) says, you don't get to close the Abyssal Rift, so you don't get to do the things that then happen under "Closing a Location" in the rulebook, such as searching it for villains and banishing everything else. You can banish a blessing to flip it, but that's unlikely to be a worthwhile play except when you're encountering the villain.
As far as a henchman that would automatically close it, both sides of the location say "this location is never permanently closed." "Never" is one of the most powerful terms in the game—it can't be overruled. (But even if it *didn't* say "never," the Golden Rule tells you that locations trump henchmen, so that would also mean you ignore that power on the henchman.)
So defeating a henchman there is basically like defeating a regular monster or barrier there—the normal result is you banish the thing you defeated and move on.
Similarly, if you defeat the villain there, you do not get to apply the things that happen under "If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location."
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I still call shenanigans on that one. Any hat that is alive enough to not be an item can't be good
The flavor text says that Balazar talks to his hat; it doesn't tell us whether the hat talks back. And if Sweet Dragon Costume has the Dragon trait solely because its wearer believes it does, who's to say exactly what's going on here?
You said you were going to flag his post—that's the right thing to do. Then a moderator will decide whether he has broken the guidelines or not (and the moderators may or may not agree with you). Fighting back is not the right thing to do.
Mechanically, you may have several different cards that each represent the army, but conceptually, it's one big army that you keep encountering all over the place.
The Cohorts: I thought when you banish a Cohort, you're supposed to remove it from the game? Does that mean these cards are supposed to be one-off, kinda like the Genie ally loot in S&S?
For cohorts that have only "banish" powers, yes.
If your Stealth skill is based on your Dexterity skill, and you are using your Stealth skill, you are also using your Dexterity skill.
But if you don't have the Stealth skill on your character card (so you're just using a d4), then you are using *only* your Stealth skill; your Dexterity doesn't come into play.