
DirkSJ |
So we weren't entirely sure how stat stones worked and I wanted to get clarification.
Lets say you have these stats:
Constitution (d6)
Fortitude +2
Wisdom (d12) +3 (skill feats)
And you have a Pearl of Wisdom in your hand and are faced with a "Constitution or Fortitude 7 check".
If you play your pearl is this a 1d12+5 or 1d12+3 now?
The card says to "roll your wisdom die instead of the normal die". In general the text "wisdom die" would translate to 1d12+3. But it's still a fortitude check so I think you still get the +2. Thus I believe it's 1d12+5.
----
Now let's make it more complicated: How do blessings interact?
What if you play a 2 dice on Constitution checks blessing? The card text does not change what the check is against it just lets you roll a different die. And cards do not do what they don't say they do. So it's still a "Constitution or Fortitude 7" check even though you are now rolling 1d12+3. So a Constitution blessing now gives you 3d12+5 and Int blessing would only give 1 die and thus 2d12+5.
----
Is this all correct?

Hawkmoon269 |

Die just means die now, not the skill feats.
RULES: SKILLS, DICE, AND MODIFIERS
If your character card says “Strength d10,” and the “+1” box next to that has been checked, your Strength skill is d10+1, and your Strength die is d10. (The “+1” is called a “modifier.”) If your character card also says “Melee: Strength +3,” your Melee skill is d10+4, your Melee die is d10, and the modifier is +4.
NEW: DICE VS. SKILLS
In Skull & Shackles, we’re increasing the distinction between “dice” and “skills.” We’ve renamed the step below and added the Rules: Skills, Dice, and Modifiers sidebar on page 7. The last paragraph of Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check is also new.
So "wisdom die" means literally just the die with no modifiers (feats). So you take your Fortitude skill of 1d6 + 2 and swap the d6 part for your wisdom die, which is d12 and get 1d12 + 2. Your Wisdom die plus Fortitude modifiers.
And you have changed the die (sort of like Lini does) so blessings add more of the die you changed it to, so more d12s. You are making a Fortitude check, and your Fortitude is still based on your Constitution skill. It is not a Wisdom check.

nondeskript |

Some cards may allow you to replace a specific die with a different one. For example, Emerald of Dexterity allows you to roll your Dexterity die in place of the normal die for a non-combat check—this means you’ll replace the die (not the skill) you would normally use with your Dexterity die (not your Dexterity skill).
When they say die in S&S they mean just the die. No modifiers/skills. So you'll get d12 (Wis die) +2 (Fort skill).
As far as Blessings go, that is less clear, but I agree with your interpretation that it is still a Con check so Con blessings still double the d12. Wis based blessings would only give you one die since it isn't a Wis check.

Hawkmoon269 |

So here is an example of this with Lirianne
Constitution d6 +2
Fortitude: Constitution + 1
Wisdom d12 +4
Lirianne needs to make a Constitution 7 or Fortitude 7 check. She has Fortitude, so that is what she decides to attempt.
Attempting a Check
Determine which skill you’re using. She is going to use Fortitude.
Determine the difficulty. It is 7.
Play cards and use powers that affect the check (optional). She plays her Pearl of Wisdom and a blessing of whatever adds two dice to a non-combat Constitution check.
Assemble your dice. Because of that Pearl of Wisdom, her die is now a d12. So she picks it up. She also played that blessing, so she grabs 2 more d12s.
Attempt the roll. She rolls 3d12 for 5 and adds in the modifiers. She is making a Fortitude check, so she adds in the +1 Fortitude modifier, and her Fortitude is based off her Constitution so she adds in the +2 Constitution modifier. The total is 8. She didn't use her Wisdom skill, so she doesn't get her +4 Wisdom modifier.
Take damage if you fail a check to defeat a monster. This wasn't a monster, plus she didn't fail, so no damage.

DirkSJ |
I expect that these will now and forever be referred to as "statstones" by the dev team.
:)
I hope there are more and better statstones like there were better "headband of charisma" reveal-for-bonus type items in RotR. I am not sure I can ever get rid of it from my deck...It's just too useful.
With that and my masterwork thieves tools I may never have space for another item in all 6 adventures haha...

Hawkmoon269 |

Just pushing the boundaries of my PACG understanding with these statstones: They would seem to apply even when I opt to use an unlisted skill for the check. Say I have to attempt a Dexterity/Stealth 10 check. And I have a Snake, which adds to a non-combat Stealth check. But I don't have Stealth. But I have Pearl of Wisdom and d12 Wisdom. It seems I can attempt the Stealth check, swap my d4 for a d12 and play my Snake for a pretty nice check.

csouth154 |
Just pushing the boundaries of my PACG understanding with these statstones: They would seem to apply even when I opt to use an unlisted skill for the check. Say I have to attempt a Dexterity/Stealth 10 check. And I have a Snake, which adds to a non-combat Stealth check. But I don't have Stealth. But I have Pearl of Wisdom and d12 Wisdom. It seems I can attempt the Stealth check, swap my d4 for a d12 and play my Snake for a pretty nice check.
Sounds kosher from where I'm sitting...

Hawkmoon269 |

I don't think it is really over powering either. At least not anymore than the statstones themselves are. Since both cards are going to get recharged, to make it works requires you to have both cars in your hand. So it still probably isn't worth it any more to hang on to a card that adds to a skill you don't have listed banking on the fact they will both get drawn at the same time.

DirkSJ |
I don't think it is really over powering either. At least not anymore than the statstones themselves are. Since both cards are going to get recharged, to make it works requires you to have both cars in your hand. So it still probably isn't worth it any more to hang on to a card that adds to a skill you don't have listed banking on the fact they will both get drawn at the same time.
The only problem with them is that I think they are entirely too powerful for base set cards. Unless there are "same but +1" or something versions in later sets it's going to be impossible to replace. Every class with a 1d12 pretty much will run one forever. For chars with limited item slots it's kind of sad to not be looking forward to any new items in later decks.
For base set I wish they had been bury, in a deck or two a same thing with discard, and in the late decks same but recharge. Maybe even add some pluses on the later ones. Reveal obviously is wildly overpowered and shouldn't exist.

csouth154 |
Hawkmoon269 wrote:I don't think it is really over powering either. At least not anymore than the statstones themselves are. Since both cards are going to get recharged, to make it works requires you to have both cars in your hand. So it still probably isn't worth it any more to hang on to a card that adds to a skill you don't have listed banking on the fact they will both get drawn at the same time.The only problem with them is that I think they are entirely too powerful for base set cards. Unless there are "same but +1" or something versions in later sets it's going to be impossible to replace. Every class with a 1d12 pretty much will run one forever. For chars with limited item slots it's kind of sad to not be looking forward to any new items in later decks.
For base set I wish they had been bury, in a deck or two a same thing with discard, and in the late decks same but recharge. Maybe even add some pluses on the later ones. Reveal obviously is wildly overpowered and shouldn't exist.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the fact that they have to take up space in your hand until you get a chance to use them serves as a factor that could mitigate their desirability, especially for characters with a small hand size. I think it will be common for people to recharge them on checks that they might n ot REALLY need them on, just for the sake of cycling through their deck, only to come upon a check that they really need them on before they get it back in their hand.

DirkSJ |
DirkSJ wrote:I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the fact that they have to take up space in your hand until you get a chance to use them serves as a factor that could mitigate their desirability, especially for characters with a small hand size. I think it will be common for people to recharge them on checks that they might n ot REALLY need them on, just for the sake of cycling through their deck, only to come upon a check that they really need them on before they get it back in their hand.Hawkmoon269 wrote:I don't think it is really over powering either. At least not anymore than the statstones themselves are. Since both cards are going to get recharged, to make it works requires you to have both cars in your hand. So it still probably isn't worth it any more to hang on to a card that adds to a skill you don't have listed banking on the fact they will both get drawn at the same time.The only problem with them is that I think they are entirely too powerful for base set cards. Unless there are "same but +1" or something versions in later sets it's going to be impossible to replace. Every class with a 1d12 pretty much will run one forever. For chars with limited item slots it's kind of sad to not be looking forward to any new items in later decks.
For base set I wish they had been bury, in a deck or two a same thing with discard, and in the late decks same but recharge. Maybe even add some pluses on the later ones. Reveal obviously is wildly overpowered and shouldn't exist.
Yeah potentially. And as Hawk said perhaps if your party is really good at scouting (and with Alhazra around it can be) the statstones might be safely dropped.

![]() |

Everyone focuses on the fact that d12 characters should get these gems, and while that's one use, they can also serve as a floor for characters who have some significant weaknesses. In Runelords terms, for example, it would help a character with a d4 INT but several d8 stats to have a shot at closing INT / Arcane locations, or to acquire some super-spell, or something else.
There have been several adventures in the group Hawk & I play together where someone has said: "There are no locations that would be good for me to close." I anticipate that there will be similar scenarios in S&S - just like there was in Runelords - where there's a preponderance of checks of one type required (to close locations, defeat henchmen, etc.). The gems significantly alter the situation there for characters weak in that area, evening things out, so it's one possible strategy to pick from to win.
In other words; rather than just making the peaks a lot higher, it can also raise some of the valleys to a minimum level so that they don't get flooded.

Mechalibur |

Everyone focuses on the fact that d12 characters should get these gems, and while that's one use, they can also serve as a floor for characters who have some significant weaknesses. In Runelords terms, for example, it would help a character with a d4 INT but several d8 stats to have a shot at closing INT / Arcane locations, or to acquire some super-spell, or something else.
There have been several adventures in the group Hawk & I play together where someone has said: "There are no locations that would be good for me to close." I anticipate that there will be similar scenarios in S&S - just like there was in Runelords - where there's a preponderance of checks of one type required (to close locations, defeat henchmen, etc.). The gems significantly alter the situation there for characters weak in that area, evening things out, so it's one possible strategy to pick from to win.
In other words; rather than just making the peaks a lot higher, it can also raise some of the valleys to a minimum level so that they don't get flooded.
This is true, but keep in mind most of the characters with significant stat weaknesses are also the ones that have d12's. Specifically, the only characters with multiple d4's also have a d12.

Mechalibur |

Mechalibur wrote:This is true, but keep in mind most of the characters with significant stat weaknesses are also the ones that have d12's. Specifically, the only characters with multiple d4's also have a d12.Those clearly aren't the characters I was talking about, but...OK.
Then perhaps you could explain what you mean?

MightyJim |

agraham2410 wrote:I knew there was a reason pirates were so keen on pearlsActually, that's kind of ironic. In the S&S RPG, pirates generally had terrible Wisdom, so they'd actually tend to hate pearls.
If they have terrible wisdom, maybe they don't realise that they're stealing the wrong statstone...