Forgefiend


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

First line says he does fire damage if you use the Melee trait, second one says damage dealt by by him may not be reduced.
I assume that means this initial fire damage may not be reduced?


Yes. If multiple powers on a bane apply, then you apply them all.


That brings up a question, does just attacking without a weapon (just STR), does that have a 'Melee' trait? What about an unarmed person with the Melee skill?


Ironvein wrote:

That brings up a question, does just attacking without a weapon (just STR), does that have a 'Melee' trait? What about an unarmed person with the Melee skill?

Using the melee skill (armed or unarmed) or using a weapon with the melee trait to determine the die makes it a melee check.


csouth154 wrote:
Ironvein wrote:

That brings up a question, does just attacking without a weapon (just STR), does that have a 'Melee' trait? What about an unarmed person with the Melee skill?

Using the melee skill (armed or unarmed) or using a weapon with the melee trait to determine the die makes it a melee check.

Didn't answer the question. Does making a melee CHECK mean that it includes the melee TRAIT? Some cards (particularly with spells) have traits that do not carry over to any checks that are made when it is used.

In other words, what traits are included in a barehanded attack normally?


Ironvein wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Ironvein wrote:

That brings up a question, does just attacking without a weapon (just STR), does that have a 'Melee' trait? What about an unarmed person with the Melee skill?

Using the melee skill (armed or unarmed) or using a weapon with the melee trait to determine the die makes it a melee check.

Didn't answer the question. Does making a melee CHECK mean that it includes the melee TRAIT? Some cards (particularly with spells) have traits that do not carry over to any checks that are made when it is used.

In other words, what traits are included in a barehanded attack normally?

Well, I answered your question...just not directly.

Using a skill OR having a trait means that it is that kind of check. If you make a melee check without a weapon, does that mean the check has the melee trait? Technically, the answer is no, because traits and skills are different things; but practically, the answer is yes, because whether it's because you use the skill or play a card that grants the trait, you are making a melee check.

If you use the "x" skill, you are making an "x" check; and if your check has the "x" trait, you are making an "x" check, even if you aren't using the "x" skill. So if you make a check using the melee skill, you are making a melee check, and if you make a check with a weapon that has the melee trait but using your strength skill, you are also making a melee check (and a strength check, and a combat check, and a whatever-other-traits-the-weapon-has check) because the weapon adds all of its traits...so what's the difference?

To answer your direct question, unarmed attacks do not possess any traits unless another card or power played to affect the check adds them. May I ask why you are asking, specifically?


Part of what he's asking, Csouth, is what if you attack with no weapon using the strength skill BUT NOT the melee skill (his second post had two questions).

I don't have the Forgefiend card in front of me, but if what was posted of his power is accurate, then using the strength skill, but not the melee skill, will not cause fire damage.


Orbis Orboros wrote:

Part of what he's asking, Csouth, is what if you attack with no weapon using the strength skill BUT NOT the melee skill (his second post had two questions).

I don't have the Forgefiend card in front of me, but if what was posted of his power is accurate, then using the strength skill, but not the melee skill, will not cause fire damage.

Oh! Yeah...I wasn't putting his question into the context of the thread topic. DERP! But now that I'm considering that, it doesnt make much sense that having the melee trait in your check is the only thing that would cause the fire damage. Seems like the intent is for any close attack to cause it. Would have been better to say he does fire damage if your check DOESN'T have the ranged or attack trait. Either that, or rule that unarmed attacks actually DO automatically possess the melee trait, which would make perfect sense, now that I'm thinking about it.


Does seem to be a loophole here against the Forgefield if you can avoid getting burning just by punching it with your fist.... looks like something one of the game designers need to specify next time.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

You choose your skill, and then you apply all the effects of using that skill. If you use the Melee skill, it has the Melee trait. If you only use Strength, you don't get burned.


Mike Selinker wrote:
You choose your skill, and then you apply all the effects of using that skill. If you use the Melee skill, it has the Melee trait. If you only use Strength, you don't get burned.

So the skill you use adds itself as a trait? This makes perfect sense but it's something that has not been clarified, yet. What doesn't make sense is that the melee trait should trigger the effect but not the strength trait.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

Hmm. OK, I'll look into that.


Mike Selinker wrote:
Hmm. OK, I'll look into that.

Which one led to your "hmm" Mike? The idea that the skill you are using hasn't been stated to also be a trait? Or that attacking the Forgefiend with pure Strength wouldn't activate it's Fire damage?

I'm fine with the Strength thing (you will probably have a harder roll if you go that route). And besides, Sajan is going to be able to do his "no weapon attack" and avoid the Fire damage, and I'm pretty sure thematically he is still touching the Forgefiend. PACG is a card game after all.

And I've always thought the the Skill it self wasn't a trait, though some traits and skills have the same name. And that if a power should effect only a skill, it would say "A check using your Melee die/skill." And if it should effect only a trait it would say "A check with the Melee trait." And if it should effect both skill and trait it would say "A Melee check".


When you think about it, there is absolutely no reason that the skill you use shouldn't add itself as a trait. It makes perfect sense and actually makes things easier to understand, because you can then say that a check is defined ONLY by its traits. It's more elegant that way. Everything about the check is a trait. A combat check has the combat trait, the skill you use adds itself as a trait, then other traits are added by the rules we are familiar with. So, yeah...I like.

As for the forgefiend, you could simply rule that "unarmed" is a trait that all unarmed attacks get, and the effect triggers with any attack that has the unarmed or melee trait. That would cover any attack that doesn't have the ranged or attack traits. I'm fairly sure that's the intention, anyway.


csouth154 wrote:

When you think about it, there is absolutely no reason that the skill you use shouldn't add itself as a trait. It makes perfect sense and actually makes things easier to understand, because you can then say that a check is defined ONLY by its traits. It's more elegant that way. Everything about the check is a trait. A combat check has the combat trait, the skill you use adds itself as a trait, then other traits are added by the rules we are familiar with. So, yeah...I like.

That's how I thought it went. Makes sense too, by the definition of a trait...


Orbis Orboros wrote:
csouth154 wrote:

When you think about it, there is absolutely no reason that the skill you use shouldn't add itself as a trait. It makes perfect sense and actually makes things easier to understand, because you can then say that a check is defined ONLY by its traits. It's more elegant that way. Everything about the check is a trait. A combat check has the combat trait, the skill you use adds itself as a trait, then other traits are added by the rules we are familiar with. So, yeah...I like.

That's how I thought it went. Makes sense too, by the definition of a trait...

Yeah. It actually is exactly identical to an alternate way of explaining check type that I posted in the Black Arrow Ranger thread. The only thing that needs to be clarified is that if the skill you use references another skill on your card, that other skill gets added as a trait, too.


So, maybe this idea is sort of hinted at in the rulebook:

Rulebook v3 p10 wrote:
Encountering a Card. If the card you’re encountering states that it is immune to a particular trait, players may not play cards with the specified trait, use powers that would add that trait to the check, or roll dice with that trait during the encounter.

Maybe that part about your die having a trait is in reference to your die being your "Melee" die. But I'd have to say it isn't super clear.

That would raise another question for me. Seoni using her "fireball" power at the Thassilonian Dungeon.,

Thassilonian Dungeon wrote:
If you play a spell with the Arcane trait, you may immediately draw a card.
Seoni wrote:
For your combat check, you may discard a card to roll your Arcane die + 1d6 with the Attack, Fire, and Magic traits. This counts as playing a spell.

I've played that Seoni's power didn't count as playing an Arcane spell, and even advised others the same. My reasoning was that there was no mention of it having the Arcane trait, and that while it counted as a spell, it didn't say it counted as an Arcane spell. But if the skill is also a trait, then it counts as a spell with the Arcane trait.


I always played that Seoni's power is an Arcane check because she uses her Arcane die. So now it's just ultra-clear that it is considered to be playing a spell with the Arcane trait.


I've always played it as and ruled it as using x die means the check has x trait. I've never allowed Seoni to fireball at the Thas Dungeon.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
I've always played it as and ruled it as using x die means the check has x trait. I've never allowed Seoni to fireball at the Thas Dungeon.

So, you are saying that the spell itself doesn't have the Arcane trait, but Seoni is making a check with the Arcane trait. Is that an accurate statement of your understanding?

That makes more sense about the spell not having the Arcane trait. I think I jumped the gun second guessing myself there. Ignore that and carry on.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
I've always played it as and ruled it as using x die means the check has x trait. I've never allowed Seoni to fireball at the Thas Dungeon.

So, you are saying that the spell itself doesn't have the Arcane trait, but Seoni is making a check with the Arcane trait. Is that an accurate statement of your understanding?

That makes more sense about the spell not having the Arcane trait. I think I jumped the gun second guessing myself there. Ignore that and carry on.

Right. If Fireball said that it used her divine die, I'd say it was a divine spell.


Easiest way to look at it is that since skills and traits both define the check, there is no reason to see skills, or any other words that define the check (such as "combat", "non-combat", or "unarmed"), as anything other than traits. Everything about the check is a trait, and every trait defines the check.


I can very easily see that understanding, though I'd say it isn't 100% clear in the rules. I'd been keeping skills and traits more separate in my mind. I'm not sure there is any other situation where this has mattered so far, since it is worded as "Melee trait" instead of "Melee check".

I believe the terms that are both traits on card and skills for characters are Melee, Ranged, Arcane, and Divine. Melee is the only one you can determine as the die you are using without playing a card that would also have the same Trait as the Skill. So Melee is the only one that the idea of a skill also being a trait would seem to matter, at least for what we've seen so far. If a barrier later allowed you defeat it with Ranged and had a power that did something if your check had the Ranged trait or if a location said that something happened if your check had the Divine trait, that would also matter. But I don't think anything like those have shown up yet.

The Seoini thing was my mistake in letting the trait "flow" the wrong way. Just because she uses her Arcane skill when she plays a spell, doesn't mean the SPELL has the Arcane trait. Her CHECK has the Arcane trait (assuming the skill used is also a trait), but that doesn't make the SPELL have the Arcane trait. That was all on me.


Oh, I'm not saying it's made clear in the rules. It isn't. Nowhere does it state clearly that the skill you use, and any other skill that skill may reference, should be added as a trait. It should be made clear, for sure.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
The Seoini thing was my mistake in letting the trait "flow" the wrong way. Just because she uses her Arcane skill when she plays a spell, doesn't mean the SPELL has the Arcane trait. Her CHECK has the Arcane trait (assuming the skill used is also a trait), but that doesn't make the SPELL have the Arcane trait. That was all on me.

Well, actually, I think it would count as playing a spell with the arcane trait. If the die you use counts as a trait (it does), and the power counts as playing a spell (it does), then I think it follows that that counts as playing a spell with the arcane trait. I think it follows the intent of the location rule. She is using her arcane skill to cast a spell, and there is no other case where you can do that without the spell having the arcane trait. Would be nice to hear official confirmation, though.


I'm separating out the trait of the card from the trait of the check. Your skill/die might lend its trait to the check, but it doesn't lend its trait to the card.

If Kyra or Lini play Fire Sneeze they are playing an Arcane spell even when they roll their Divine die/skill.

I think what makes the spell Arcane is only the trait on the spell's card itself. What makes your check Arcane are the traits on the card and the die/skill you use.

And Thassilonian Dungeon, I think, cares about the traits of the spell, not the traits of the check.

But that is just my opinion. It would be nice to have it confirmed.


I guess I'm trying to say that I think they intended for Seoni's power to count as playing a spell with the arcane trait and it got overlooked. I'd love to hear from them..and considering how involved they are with this forum, I'm sure we will. :)


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

I'm separating out the trait of the card from the trait of the check. Your skill/die might lend its trait to the check, but it doesn't lend its trait to the card.

If Kyra or Lini play Fire Sneeze they are playing an Arcane spell even when they roll their Divine die/skill.

I think what makes the spell Arcane is only the trait on the spell's card itself. What makes your check Arcane are the traits on the card and the die/skill you use.

And Thassilonian Dungeon, I think, cares about the traits of the spell, not the traits of the check.

But that is just my opinion. It would be nice to have it confirmed.

I see your argument.

I'm inclined to think that the intent is that Seoni can't cast there, however, so that's how I'd rule it.

Getting Mike or Vic would be nice at this point, though.


Wait, why don't you think she can use her power there? The Thassilonian Dungeon allows you to draw a card if you play a Spell with the arcane trait, but it doesn't prohibit playing spells. Are you just saying you don't think she gets to draw a card if she uses her power?


I think he just derp'ed on what the location rule is. I think the main point is that we think Seoni's power should count as a spell with the arcane trait.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Wait, why don't you think she can use her power there? The Thassilonian Dungeon allows you to draw a card if you play a Spell with the arcane trait, but it doesn't prohibit playing spells. Are you just saying you don't think she gets to draw a card if she uses her power?

This:

csouth154 wrote:
I think he just derp'ed on what the location rule is. What we are saying is that we think Seoni's power should count as a spell with the arcane trait.

I REALLY hate that there's not a database somewhere I can go to to reference these cards and make sure I get things right. I sound like an idiot far more than I care to because I can't double check what I think I remember...


Orbis Orboros wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Wait, why don't you think she can use her power there? The Thassilonian Dungeon allows you to draw a card if you play a Spell with the arcane trait, but it doesn't prohibit playing spells. Are you just saying you don't think she gets to draw a card if she uses her power?

This:

csouth154 wrote:
I think he just derp'ed on what the location rule is. What we are saying is that we think Seoni's power should count as a spell with the arcane trait.
I REALLY hate that there's not a database somewhere I can go to to reference these cards and make sure I get things right. I sound like an idiot far more than I care to because I can't double check what I think I remember...

Agreed. I am thinking about making my own database for myself, for just this reason. I know for sure that I get cards wrong all of the time. Nothing terrible, but little things here and there...


I've never had this problem before with a card game's forums because the other games all had their cards posted somewhere online...


Orbis Orboros wrote:
I REALLY hate that there's not a database somewhere I can go to to reference these cards and make sure I get things right. I sound like an idiot far more than I care to because I can't double check what I think I remember...

Been there my friend. I think we all have.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Orbis Orboros wrote:
Getting Mike or Vic would be nice at this point, though.

We are discussing. (The answer will not be timely as Mike is traveling.)


just stress-testing the 'a boon that determines what die is used for a check add its traits to the check theory':

if I use Swipe for its combat element, and choose to use my arcane die, does the check gain the arcane and divine traits, because the spell has both?


Yes it does. All the traits on the card are added to the check.

If a character like Kyra plays Swipe, she is playing an arcane spell, so any rule about playing an arcane spell would apply. (Like at the Thassalonian Dungeon.)


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Yes it does. All the traits on the card are added to the check.

If a character like Kyra plays Swipe, she is playing an arcane spell, so any rule about playing an arcane spell would apply. (Like at the Thassalonian Dungeon.)

no doubt that it's an arcane spell, but I was really questioning the check

would it become, to use the nice manner from that other thread, a Combat-Magic-Arcane-Divine-Attack check?


Yes, indeed it would.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

From the S&S rulebook:

Any skills you use are added as traits to the check. (For example, if your character has the skill Melee: Strength +2, and you use your Melee skill, both the Strength and the Melee trait are added to the check.)


OK...but this leads to a question of your intent for this monster. Is it that any close attack triggers damage and any ranged/attack trait check does not? Because as things stand now, weapon master Valeros, using melee skill with a ranged weapon, would trigger damage because of the melee trait added to the check.


csouth154 wrote:
OK...but this leads to a question of your intent for this monster. Is it that any close attack triggers damage and any ranged/attack trait check does not? Because as things stand now, weapon master Valeros, using melee skill with a ranged weapon, would trigger damage because of the melee trait added to the check.

I think that is a case where you have to say "This is a card game. Its rules can't perfectly emulate real life (or fantasy life in this case)." If Weapon Master Valeros wants to avoid that consequence, he can use his Ranged weapon but not his power to use Melee in place of Ranged.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
OK...but this leads to a question of your intent for this monster. Is it that any close attack triggers damage and any ranged/attack trait check does not? Because as things stand now, weapon master Valeros, using melee skill with a ranged weapon, would trigger damage because of the melee trait added to the check.
I think that is a case where you have to say "This is a card game. Its rules can't perfectly emulate real life (or fantasy life in this case)." If Weapon Master Valeros wants to avoid that consequence, he can use his Ranged weapon but not his power to use Melee in place of Ranged.

Well, honestly, in the absence of official errata, it's easy enough to honor the intent through a house rule.

"If your check does not possess the ranged or attack trait, take fire damage".


Or you could just look at as Valeros finally getting fed up trying to shoot arrows at guys when he can just run up to them and whack them with the longbow itself...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Forgefiend All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion