Can Masterwork Thieves Tools auto-defeat say Skeleton Horde or any other card that has no check difficulty? I think yes, but this is another situation that could be clarified.
A Check to Defeat of "None" is not the same as a Check to Defeat of 0 or any other number.
You can't use cards such as Masterwork Tools on cards like Skeleton Horde because they don't have a Check to Defeat.
My point of view is centred around the fact that Skeleton Horde never makes it to the "Evade the Card" step. What you say in your point 3) is good (the best argument I've seen) but since Skeleton Horde isn't around at that point then it doesn't apply. It may well apply to a card such as Pit of Malfeshnekor but not with Skeleton Horde (because by then the Skeleton Horde has been replaced by the Ancient Skeleton henchmen).
I'm using the guideline set out on page 22 of the new rulebook.
Cards Do What They Say. Read any card as it is encountered or played, and do whatever it says as soon as it makes sense to do so. Let the card tell you what to do, and don’t impose limitations that aren’t there.
"do whatever it says as soon as it makes sense to do so". My interpretation is that is does make sense to implement what Skeleton Horde says at the point before the evade happens.
BTW, Falling Bell does have a "Check to Defeat" so your point 3) doesn't apply to that card. But as you say, Falling Bell is another can'o'worms, one I would also like to see better defined.
Why say that if you evade a card then you ignore the text on the card? Nowhere in the rules does it suggest that you can (or need) do that.
Read the "Encounter A Card" sequence (in either the revised PDF rulebook or the FAQ). It's clear you have to read the card before you start any of the checks. You have to read the card to ensure it doesn't have any immunities to specific traits. Even if you plan on evading the card, you still have to pay attention to the text on the card.
I can't see a reason why you should need to have to ignore the text on the card if you do evade. If you evade a card then it is immediately shuffled back into the deck (or if summoned, it is returned to the box). Evading a card is before any of the checks so it doesn't matter at that point what the card says because it's no longer around. There is no need to ignore the text on the card.
The point with Skeleton Horde is that the card itself is a placeholder. Read the "Encounter A Card" sequence.
"After you flip over the top card of the location deck, put it on top of the deck and read it". You read Skeleton Horde and it tells you that (at that point) you summon Ancient Skeleton henchmen and then banish Skeleton Horde.
Once you begin the "Evade the Card" step, Skeleton Horde is no longer present. You have summoned Ancient Skeleton henchmen instead.
The Skeleton Horde is always banished, even if the active player does evade the Ancient Skeleton henchmen. There is no other reason why Skeleton Horde has the words "banish this card" printed on the card. Do what the card says. It doesn't say "Banish this card if defeated", it doesn't say "Banish this card if not evaded", it just tells us to banish the card.
Skeleton Horde is just a placeholder for the Ancient Skeleton henchmen. It's the Ancient Skeleton henchmen that need to be evaded, not the Skeleton Horde.
As a follow up to Skeleton Hordes, there is a similar question as to how do you deal with the Falling Bell Barrier.
Over on BGG, there is a thread in the Skinsaw Murders forum asking how to deal with the card if one or more character evades it. So far, there have been a number of replies, most of them giving a different viewpoint or answer.
Here's a copy of the reply I made.
The way I would deal with Falling Bell is just to follow the instructions on the card. It's not really any different to Skeleton Horde. The important thing to note is that you banish the card after you complete the instructions, it makes no difference if one or more characters have evaded the barrier or not.
The usual rule for when you evade a card is that it gets shuffled back into the deck it came from (or if it was summoned it is returned to the box). Due to the fact that Falling Bell (and Skeleton Horde for that matter) has the words "Banish this card" on it means the card is banished, even if the card was evaded. Text on the card over-rule the rulebook (i.e. the Golden Rule)
So, it doesn't matter how many characters are in the same location when Falling Bell was encountered, each character has to either attempt to defeat it or (if possible) they may evade it. If one character evades it, then any other character at that location still has to either attempt to defeat it or evade it. It makes no difference if one character does or does not evade Falling Bell, the text of the card applies separately to each character.
After the encounter, the card is banished. It doesn't get shuffled back into the deck for any reason. The card text doesn't say "Banish this card if defeated", it just says "Banish this card". Follow the instructions, don't bring the assumption that the card needs to be defeated to be banished. Even with the fact that an evaded card is "neither defeated nor undefeated", it makes no difference. Nowhere does the card say "Do not banish this card if undefeated".
For example, Merisiel and Kyra are in the same location and Merisiel encounters a Falling Bell. Merisiel evades the bell but Kyra (having no way to evade) still has to attempt the check to defeat the barrier. It doesn't matter if Kyra fails or succeeds at the check, the Barrier card Falling Bell is now banished.
Like most cases, follow the instructions on the card :)
Judging by replies I've seen in other threads (over on BGG and here), I think most people would say that you are allowed to evade a Skeleton Horde Barrier.
I suspect this is in fact incorrect, while you are allowed to evade the Ancient Skeleton Henchmen it summons, you are not allowed to evade the Skeleton Horde Barrier card itself. What I would like to get an official response for this and possibly an addition made to the FAQ (for whatever the correct answer happens to be).
If you are wondering what the difference is between evading the Skeleton Horde and evading the summoned Ancient Skeleton is, here's an example.
In a four player game, Merisiel encounters a Skeleton Horde Barrier. The other three characters are all located in open locations.
Scenario 1 (which I suspect most people do)
Scenario 2 (which I think is the correct sequence)
Points to note:
Anyway, the above is my current understanding of the rules, I'm sure others have different views so it would be nice to obtain an official view on how the card should be played. I must admit, the example I outlined above come up in a game I played and we followed scenario 1 (Merisiel evaded the Skeleton Horde and it was shuffled back into the deck) but I now think sequence is incorrect. But what do I know :)
Henchmen are a good way to distinguish one scenario from another...in fact, it's one of the most important ways to do so. One could certainly argue that the henchmen could be more unique from one scenario to the next, but I certainly wouldn't argue to make all scenarios more similar to one another by giving them all the same henchmen.
I think you misunderstood what h4ppy is suggesting.
The idea is to still have different henchmen from scenario to scenario but there is no need to provide seven copies of each of them.
As an example, let's take the base set of henchmen (along with the character add-on deck).
The following henchmen are provided.
Instead of providing these 21 cards, all you need are 7 placeholder cards and one each of Ancient Skeleton, Bandit, and Poison Trap. A total of 10 cards instead of 21.
When you prepare the location decks for a scenario, you add the appropriate number of henchmen placeholder cards as instructed by the scenario card. You then place the actual henchman card somewhere nearby and whenever you reveal a henchmen placeholder card you refer to the actual henchman.
It does add to the setup time and distracts from the theme but it saves something like 26 cards of the 110 cards of Adventure Deck 2. Similar savings in the number of cards could be made with each Adventure Deck, this could have lead to a cheaper price point or it could have meant more variety in other banes or boons.
If, as Ezren, I end up with no spell-cards - how do I attack anything? Is the basic Arcane die roll he gets a stripped down attack for him (like a very basic magic missile every wizard always has available), so no matter what's in his hand, he always has a d12 attack at the very least?
Page 11 of the (original or new PDF) rulebook.
Every character has at least the Strength skill, so with Ezren he would use a d6.
This only applies to those monsters that have "Combat" listed for "Check to Defeat". A few monsters need a different skill, for example the Siren requires "Wisdom", so Ezren would use a d8.
Barrier cards are more varied. You just follow what the card says it needs to defeat it. For example, Mystic Inscription would require either an Intelligence or Arcane skill check.
I've just noticed the section in the (new) rules where it explains at what point you recharge a card. It's only in the November 12th 2013 PDF version of the rulebook, on page 15 and 16.
A better description that involves Ezren and use of his special power is detailed later in the rules on page 20, Example of Play. Trouble is, it's part of an example! Examples are not exactly the best place to put rules.
While the example isn't exactly the question asked in the OP, is does involve Ezren playing an Arcane Spell, activating his special power (examine the top card of his deck) and then recharging the original spell played.
This does result in the order being defined as #3, #2, #1 just as Mike stated.
While I have no issue with this ruling, I do find it makes nonsense one of the new guidelines detailed on page 22 of the new rules.
The problem is that a "process" isn't defined anywhere and seems to be rather subjective. For me, if I'm in the middle of playing / recharging a spell, suddenly switching to activating a characters special power (in this case, Ezren's ability to look at the top card of his deck) is definitely starting a new process.
To be fair, that section is good for the main steps during a turn (Advance the Blessing Deck, Give a Card, Move, etc.) but it doesn't seem to apply to the intricacies of attempting a check. My impression (from comments from Mike and Vic) that there are no "interrupts" but the example above does seem to me that Ezren's special power does interrupt the sequence of a card being recharged after it has been played. I can't find any further details in the rules on how the timing of such interrupts are meant to be handled.
For the case that we defeat a villain, we "must" close the location, right?
As in when you defeat the Villain but he is able to escape to an open location. The rule book doesn't seem to give an option that the location may be left open.
Page 18 "If you Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain's Location". Unlike the situation when you defeat a Henchman on page 17 "When you defeat a henchman from a location deck, you may immediately attempt to close that location...", where it says you may close the location.
There have been times where I would like the location to remain open but I've played it that the location must be closed.
If you defeat the Villain and there is nowhere for him to escape, then you have won and you proceed to "After the Scenario". Rule book offers no options there either.
Will you be able to play Adventure one of Skull & Shackles with the Runelords base set or will you need to buy the Skulls & Shackles base set also?
To be pedantic, if you have Adventure 1 of Skull & Shackles, then you will already have the Skulls & Shackles base set :) Adventure 1 will be included in with the base set, it will not be available separately. Adventures 2 to 5 will be available separately.
But answering what might be your intent, no it shouldn't be possible to realistically play without the base set because the base set will include most of the cards required to play. For example, there will be new location cards specific to Skull & Shackles, new Henchmen, new Villains and so on. Without these you will be not be able to construct the new scenarios, if you use the RotR weapons, spells, armour, items, allies and blessings then it will be a real hodge-podge mess IMHO.
I think Mike may be playtesting a Ezren variant for the new Skulls & Shackles Adventure Path because his answer (concerning #2) is incorrect for the existing Ezren :)
Back to the question. The FAQ tells us that #1 occurs after #3 so that seems clear. I would assume that #2 comes after #1 (and #3) due to the "Finish One Thing Before You Start Something Else" FAQ guideline.
So, #3, #1, #2?
Vic Wertz wrote:
While the concept might sound good, in practice this will result in the scenario being a cake-walk something like 40% of the time (depending on the number of players).
If there is a Henchman in the same location as the Villain, then there is a 50/50 chance that you encounter the henchman before the Villain. If you defeat the Henchman then you will end up with a location that contains just the Villain. Knowing this, you can spend your time looting the remaining locations and gearing up ready to take on the Villain at your leisure just before the Blessing deck runs out.
Mike Riley 302 wrote:
Hmmm....guess not. Was I just smoking something when I thought this was going to be the case? Wasn't the whole attack spell/arcane armor issue going to be "fixed"?
It has been, but in a different way.
From the FAQ.
Resolution: On the spell Arcane Armor, add the following at the end of the first power: "You may play this card even if you have played another spell on this check."
On the spell Mirror Image, change the first power to the following:
The golden rule is: 1 card type and/or ability per PC per CHECK.
After that you can play anything you want up to the golden rule: One card type and/or ability per PC per check.
While that is a rule, it certainly isn't the golden rule.
A noob question but can i take Weapons as a Power feat before Armour. I know the take the left first is mentioned but this got changed for certain boxes for example (+1) (+2) (Allies) you can take Allies before the +1 etc.
I think the intent is that you can choose to take the Weapons Power feat before you take the Light Armours Power feat. The FAQ is clear that as long as the boxes are not immediately adjacent then it is allowed.
Trouble with this is that if you apply the same logic to (say) Ezren's Hand Size Power, you would be allowed to take an 8 card hand size and skip a 7 card hand size entirely. I don't think this is the intent with the Hand Size feat, you need to progress them. Trouble is, this isn't what the FAQ says.
BTW, your example of "(+1) (+2) (Allies)" would mean you need to take "+1" first, then "+2", and only then could you take "Allies". I don't know of any Power feats like this, I assume it was just an example. Out of the (non-specialized) Role character cards, only Seelah has check boxes that are not adjacent.
Just wanted to clarify that barriers count as banes. Therefore when a barrier is undefeated, it is shuffled back into the location deck for another character to encounter. Thanks in advance for the clarification.
From the top of page 17 of the rules.
page 17 of the rules wrote:
It should be clear from the paragraph title that Barriers are Banes. Unless the Barrier card specifies (such as the Battered Chest), then undefeated Barriers are shuffled back into their location deck.
Nathaniel is incorrectly reading the line
"Then roll 1d6 and add the number of Haunts in front of all players"
"Then roll 1d6 and add that number of Haunts in front of each player".
The game would have to come with a huge number of haunts if it was taken to mean this :)
Don't forget that your character will improve over time. Better boons, weapons, items, etc. New Feats, skill increases, powers, etc.
If the game has been designed / balanced correctly, then there is no reason why the difficulty of the game isn't offset by the improvement of your character as new Adventure Decks are released.
If you can beat the game now, then there should be a good chance that you will continue to do so. Or die trying :)
Mike Selinker wrote:
Ah, that entry should say "have to banish it," not "have to discard it." My fault.
Fair enough but if you plan to just change the FAQ question to "The rules say I have to choose one power on a card when I play it. Why would I choose the power on a spell that says I have to banish it?" then that still doesn't address the fundamental issue of this particular FAQ entry. I think the main problem that the answer is hidden by the actual FAQ question.
I would suggest you add another FAQ entry along the lines of "My character acquires a divine/arcane spell but he doesn't have the divine/arcane trait, does he have to banished it immediately."
The answer is in the FAQ but it is so well hidden that I suspect a lot of people don't realise it answers this sort of question.
Given the number of times the question has been asked (i.e. the number of threads both here and on BGG), I'm surprised that Vic hasn't made a better entry in the FAQ to cover this.
The problem is that the "At this location" effect of a location isn't a power. The rulebook just tells us on page 14...
"At This Location: These are special rules that are in effect while the location is open."
The Farmhouse special rules are "If you would discard an ally, bury it instead". Trouble is, it doesn't define which version of "discard" it means.
If Farmhouse stated "If you would play an ally, bury it instead of discarding it" then there wouldn't be a problem.
I agree with what you say. I don't really doubt Farmhouse uses the words "discard an ally" to mean "play an ally and discard it" but the current wording doesn't seem specific enough so it may be worth adding to the FAQ.
The "At this location" effect at the Farmhouse states...
The term "discard" is used in the rules for two different effects.
(i) Play a card to invoke a power on the card that involves discarding the card. Example: Archer - Discard this card to explore your location.
(ii) Discarding a card as part of a cost. Example: You take combat damage and have to discard a card.
Does the Farmhouse "At this location" effect apply to both of these cases? Clearly for case (i), if I play an Archer to explore then I would have to bury it instead of discarding it. But what about case (ii), if I discarded an Ally as part of my combat damage, would I have to bury it instead?
What about effects such as Seelah's power "You may discard the top card of your deck to add 1d6 to your check. If the top card was a blessing, recharge it instead of discarding it." If the top card happens to be an Ally, should it be buried instead of discarded?
I suspect that the "At this location" effect of the Farmhouse only applies if you play an Ally and discard it. If so, then it may be worth adding an entry for Farmhouse to the FAQ.
No. Playing by the rules, you may not "discard" cards during the rebuild deck phase of "Between Games" (page 19). You must trade them between players if possible and you only go the box if there are not enough of a specific card type in the pool.
To do what you are suggesting requires your group to banish more Spell cards than they acquire during the scenario. It's not impossible but it's down to a fair bit of luck to do this.
There's no reason why you can't house-rule this (replace a Basic card in hand with another Basic card from the box) but it is a house-rule.
So, just to be clear here (and make sure I'm not missing something), the only time Val's recharge really comes into play is if he discards a weapon to get the extra plus-up, then he can recharge it (and if he discards something like the dagger to add to another weapon check, he can recharge it). At least, that's how I see it with the cards we have up to this point (don't have Skinsaw yet).
Not sure if this is the same as you're saying but the way I see his power ("When you play a weapon, you may recharge it instead of discarding it") is that whenever Valeros has more than one weapon in his hand, then use the "discard" bonus of the weapon. It's a good way to cycle through your deck without losing "hit points".
As Dave Riley correctly pointed out, the following is incorrect as I forgot that the Battered Chest barrier is not a Combat Check. Oops :)
Kysmartman has answered your question (as did you) but I thought I would add the following.
2) Lini discards a card to do her roll d10 rather than strength. It's an animal, can she recharge it? (I think no)
Lini can use her power ("You can reveal an ally with the Animal trait to add 1d4 to your check") and reveal the Animal Ally before discarding it to gain an additional 1d4.
I'm not sure in what context you are asking this question.
Maybe have been discussed, but i would like to know if a character can move multiple times during his turn.
If you have a card or a power, then yes, you can move several times during your turn.
Without such a card or power, then the rules (page 9) say "You may move your token card to another location". This is taken to mean that you can only move the once.
(in the move phase, you can move to another location without restriction,so you can move as long as you want).
Without a power or card, then no, you cannot move more than once.
For example, if you had Detect Magic and Detect Evil in your hand. You could play Detect Magic before you move, examine the top card of your current location (and possibly encounter it). You could then move to a new location and play Detect Evil to examine the top card of your new location (and possibly encounter it). After all this you can then Explore and flip over the top card of your current location.
In general, I'm not sure why you would want to move multiple times during the Move Step, unless you had a situation such as you had three or more Detect Magic / Detect Evil cards in your hand and you wanted to use each at a different location.
If you did have 2 Detect Magic cards, a Detect Evil and a Cape of Escape, then you could move to two new locations and examine the top card of three locations.
Bottom line, do as the card or power tells you. Sometimes, the extra move only can be performed at the end of a turn (such as Levitate or Amiri's power). During the Move step, the rules say that you can only move the once.
What in the world are you talking about? I suspect there is something you don't understand with this mechanism and have misunderstood what I'm saying and what the rules are saying.
Please read the FAQ again.
The paragraph in question is something along the lines of..."If you do not have the Arcane/Divine skill, banish this card."
That paragraph is not standalone. It is what the FAQ refers to when it states "Any paragraph in the power section of a boon that doesn't involve playing the card for a particular effect is not itself a power—it's a mandatory action that you must take when you play the card."
If you use the card's power then you must banish the card if you do not have the Arcane/Divine skill.
You seem to be under the impression that the paragraph "If you do not have the Arcane/Divine skill, banish this card" is optional. It is not. If you use a power on the card then this paragraph must be carried out.
Let's take the card Guidance as an example.
The first line "Discard this card to add 1 to a check" is the card's Power.
The second line "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card" is not a power, it is a mandatory action that you must take when you use the card's power.
If you moved the second line into the Recharge section (as you suggested) then it would become optional. Recharging a card is optional (page 15 of the rules) "Recharge: This explains circumstances under which you may recharge the card." If the line was in the Recharge section of the card then I would never bother attempting to recharge it, I would just discard it.
Perhaps on the next boxed set, when you print spell cards with that line, you can instead move the line in the recharge section. I think that would eliminate the confusion that I at least had. (i.e. Recharge says "If you lack the Divine skill, banish rather than discard this card; otherwise, succeed at a Divine x check to recharge."
Doing that would introduce an error as to how the card was intended to be played and used. If you moved the line into the Recharge section, then you would simply never Recharge the spell, you would just Discard/Reveal/Bury it instead.
That line has to be in the Powers section because it applies to the "Discard/Reveal/Bury this card" part of the text.
What might help if the sentence in question reads something like..
@xris - I'm not sure if your suggestion is in line with the intention of the Golden Rule. It may be that cards CAN over-rule "cannots" from the rulebook... until we see the whole AP we cannot be sure of this.
Yes, I was also concerned with my suggested wording for the reasons you put forth. But I think something has to be added to the FAQ to resolve the issue.
As has been discussed a number of times on this board and even BGG, a summoned Henchmen does not allow you to close a location. Ignore that line of the card.
This might be a better solution, change the wording on page 17.
Some cards may summon a particular henchman card into play temporarily. Since this summoned henchman doesn’t come from the location deck, ignore the line on the henchman card to close the location if defeated.
This at least keeps the existing Golden Rule intact.
As it stands we have a Golden Rule that should always apply, expect for the times when it doesn't! Currently, the rules don't cover when it doesn't apply.
On page 2 of the rules we have the Golden Rule.
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types. Despite this hierarchy, if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot.
My concern is that the last sentence of the Golden Rule only applies to cards (if one tells you that you cannot do something then that over-rules the hierarchy ), this doesn't seem to apply if the rulebook tells you that you cannot do something.
If we take the following situation, I think the outcome is obvious but it doesn't seem to be supported by the wording of the Golden Rule.
The barrier Skeleton Horde is encountered. "Each character at an open location summons and encounters an Ancient Skeleton henchman".
This would suggest that any location where one of these summoned Ancient Skeleton henchman were defeated could now be closed (this question has come up a couple of times in the BGG forums). The rulebook does cover the situation, Henchmen, page 17.
Some cards may summon a particular henchman card into play temporarily. Since this summoned henchman doesn’t come from the location deck, defeating it doesn’t allow you to close a location.
Trouble is, according to the Golden rule, cards over-rule the rulebook. So despite the rulebook saying that you can't close the location, the Golden Rules tells us that cards over-rule the rulebook. The last sentence of the Golden Rule doesn't apply because there is no conflict between cards. The only conflict is between the rulebook and the Ancient Skeleton card and so the card is correct.
I think it would help if the Golden Rule is reworded to something like...
If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct. If cards conflict with one another, then Adventure Path cards overrule adventures, adventures overrule scenarios, scenarios overrule locations, locations overrule characters, and characters overrule other card types. Despite this hierarchy, if one rule tells that you cannot do something and another rule tells you that you can, comply with the rule that tells you that you cannot.
(The word "card" has been replaced with "rule" in the last sentence.)
Yeah, but your standups have, like, legs! Why in the world would you design standups that can, like, stand up!
For those that don't know, this is a bit of an insider's joke taken from BGG. The joke is in no way against h4ppy but against someone else who seemed to have abused the Paizo Community Use Policy.
It's only a contradiction if you assume the sentence you quoted starts with an implied "Only", as in
"Only if your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check..."
If you assume the sentence starts with an implied "Even" then it's no longer a contradiction but a confirmation.
"Even if your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check..."
Since Vic gave an example of this exact situation then I can't see it meaning anything else. Just because it isn't in the lastest version of the FAQ doesn't meaning anything. It may mean Paizo doesn't see it as an issue and expect that people read the sentence starting with "Even ...".
Mike Selinker wrote:
Certainly once only.
The point I was trying to highlight was that answers of this nature can cause further issues.
The full answer of "once per encounter" might be obvious in your mind but it actually needs to be stated, we've seen far to many rules misunderstandings because it has been assumed the correct interpretation would be "obvious" to all.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Certainly once only.
Once only "per turn", or once only "per game"?
For example, Player A defeats the giant hermit crab on the first roll therefore has to roll again, on the second roll he fails.
Kevin Fernandes wrote:
As TClifford mentioned, I believe subscribers are supposed to get them as part of their subscription (one in each pack I think). Again I remember reading on a thread here somewhere but don't recall exactly.
It was the Paizo Blog that mentioned how and where you can obtain the promo cards, see Dont Need Be No Sissy Bard Get You Promo Goblin Card.
Have a read of the discussion thread as well for comments such as...
Vic Wertz wrote:
Each of the 8 promo cards are a different type: there's one each of the 6 types of boon other than loot, and there's a monster and a barrier. Poog is an ally.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Does this mean on average we will only be using half of the possible 10 locations in each scenario?
Oops, I meant 8 locations, not 10 (each scenario uses two more locations than there are players). So with three players we would use 5 of the possible 8 locations, not so bad as I first posted but I still wonder how many of these locations we will never encounter during the Adventure Path.I guess there is no reason why we couldn't add a few home-brew scenarios using locations we have yet encountered. Will have to wait until the game is released to see how feasible this is.
My group will be playing this with either 2, 3, or 4 players. it will be most unlikely that it will ever get played with 5 or 6 players. Does this mean on average we will only be using half of the possible 10 locations in each scenario?
Searching the Rules forum here, I just found this thread Dispel Magic
There, James Jacobs seems to agree that the DC for targeting a specific spell would be different (mostly lower) that the usual DC = 11 + the spell's caster level.
James Jacobs wrote:
But I think it would make it easier (rules wise) if the DC was 11 + caster level all round.
As for the counterspell use, maybe I'm just reading too much into the fact it doesn't states that the DC is 11 + caster level.
I'm not sure I understand what the DC would be when you use Dispel Magic to target a specific spell or when using Dispel Magic to counterspell.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
What is meant by "DC of that spell"?
Does it mean 10 + spell level + spellcaster's INT/WIS/CHA modifier? Or is it 11 + the spell's caster level (like the DC for Targeted Dispel)?
Example, if I wanted to target the spell Fly (3rd level spell) that was cast by a 10th level wizard (INT of +5), what is the DC?
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
What is the DC in this case?
Thanks all for the quick replies.
There are many spells that don't require ranged touch attacks, this is one of them.
This is partly why I asked. Most of the spells I've noticed that have a range but don't require a ranged touch attack seem to have the "mind-affecting" descriptor (which, clearly Blindness / Deafness doesn't).
As far as I can see, the only roll required for Blindness / Deafness is a Fortitude saving throw.
Spells of a similar nature, for example Bestow Curse or Contagion, are Touch spells therefore require a Melee touch attack roll (as well as having a saving throw).
I just wanted to check if I have this correct.
Couple of points when reading this.(1) "You may also add your CON modifier..", there is no "may" about this, you must add your CON modifier be it positive or negative. Your wording suggests this is optional, as in if you did have a -1 modifier then you don't have to factor it in.
(2) The wording also suggests that you gain an additional +1 HP each level minimum on top of your dice roll (no matter what you CON modifier is). My understanding is that you will always gain 1 hit point at worst (not an additional +1 hit point per level at worst).
Suggested new wording wrote:
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level
I'm unsure if the spell cast using your bonded object counts toward your available spell slots?
The PRD states that while the spell doesn't need to be prepared, it is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard. This seems to suggest that it counts as one of your spells of the day as it "is treated like any other spell cast".
Is this correct or is it an additional spell?
while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item.
This suggests that the bonded object gives "additional spells", but I'm not sure why it says "spells" instead of "spell" (or is this an extension of one of the additional core rulebooks?).
And lastly, why does it say "or to serve as a magical item". Why can't it "cast additional spells and to serve as a magical item".
Very basic questions but would welcome any help. Cheers.
Why not ask your GM?
BTW, you get +1 Ability increase at 4th level I believe (BB or Core). Also 18+2+1=21, so even if there is a limit of 21 there should be no reason why this isn't allowed.
And why are you posting yet another generic pathfinder thread in the Beginner Box forum?
Sean, Quandary, many thanks for your replies.
Going by what Quandary posted above (along with other similar posts I've seen) I'm tempted to simply combine the Spellcraft and Knowledge:Arcana into one.
I'm also tempted to remove the auto-identify from Detect Magic in the BB rules. It seems odd that the BB rules actually take the time and space to explain how to use Spellcraft to identify magic items only to then say it's totally unneeded. I think it would be more fun to include the requirement for the check.
So far, we have found the Knowledge skills somewhat under-used so it will give a boost to the use of Knowledge:Arcana from mostly using it to infrequently identify constructs, dragons and magical beasts. Using this skill to identify certain monsters as well as magic items gives it some focus and a reason to build the skill up.
I'm sure the players in my group would not object to this. I think there's some "enjoyment" to see if you can identify a magic item along with the knowledge that you might fail. Knowing that you might not be able to identify a potion, for example, brings some tension into the game without it being a show-stopper.
Many thanks for the suggestions above for examples of when Knowledge:Arcana could be applied (from the GM standpoint). I will try to introduce more of these scenarios into the game from now on. Great stuff!