Then you don't have the skill when you play the card, so you never get to make the recharge check. Insta-banish.Well, haven't they brought the term "checks against" into the game to refer to any check a given card requires or allows? So how about just saying you get Arcane or Divine equal to your x skill for checks against any spell card you play that has (or doesn't have, depending on who we're talking about) the attack trait?
The "you play" bit makes it clear that this doesn't apply when attempting to acquire. Seems like this would give the ability to effectively play and recharge the appropriate spells (if that is, as we suspect, indeed the intention) without worrying about exactly how long you are granting the ability for.
I'll just make the point that whether or not you have the skill when you play the spell doesn't matter for banish vs recharge. What matters is whether you have the skill AFTER you play. Examples:
... After playing this card, if you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish it; otherwise, you may succeed at an Arcane or Divine 4 check to recharge this card instead of discarding it
... At the end of the encounter, if you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card; otherwise, attempt an Arcane or Divine 7 check. If you succeed, recharge this card; if you fail, discard it.
... At the end of the turn, if you do not have either the Arcane or Divine skill, banish this card; otherwise, attempt an Arcane or Divine 8 check. If you succeed, recharge this card; if you fail, discard it.
So, with the power as written, he would always have to banish speed & strength.
If the "until the end of the step" is the step of an encounter, he would always have to banish Frostbite, and other spells would be questionable, though Mike has expressed that the intent was to recharge them (though, you would only have a d4 to do so, as written).
If, on the other hand, "until the end of the step" is the step of the turn, he could attempt recharge any spells that don't last until the end of the turn with his Craft skill, but he also gets a boost to acquiring spells and casting attack spells afterwards.
And the more I think about it, this last interpretation is the only interpretation of the rule as written that actually works. For example, if he casts Detect Magic, he is not in an encounter so the only "step" defined in the rules is the step of the turn that you cast it in.
Or this maybe:
"When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, treat that spell as if you had the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill."
|
I've interpreted this ability as "When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill for the purposes of casting of that spell."
I started to write "until the spell is recharged", but then remembered that some spells are displayed.
I think the problem lies in the whole mechanic of displaying a spell as it takes the spell out of the nice tight turn order.
Just realized this, too:
Nearly every wording allows Damiel to cast Aid on any Arcane or Divine check and roll his Craft skill +1d6. Don't know if that is intentional or not, but it's a powerful boost for boons or the rare bane with an Arcane/Divine check.
Interesting, but I would disagree. Aid is played to affect the check, which means that the skill being used for the check would have already been determined in a previous step.Just realized this, too:
Nearly every wording allows Damiel to cast Aid on any Arcane or Divine check and roll his Craft skill +1d6. Don't know if that is intentional or not, but it's a powerful boost for boons or the rare bane with an Arcane/Divine check.
I don't see why that matters. Here is how it plays out, according to the steps listed for attempting a check:
1. Determine the skill. I'm using Arcane, which is currently a d4.
2. Determine the difficulty. Look at the card and see it's an Arcane 10 check.
3. Play cards that affect the check. I play Aid. Now my Arcane is d10+3 (or more if I've used Skill feats) and I further get +1d6.
4. Assemble your dice. 1d10+1d6.
You don't actually care what the dice are until step 4 so there is no reason it can't change. Otherwise stat stones wouldn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think replacing "until the end of the step" with "for the purposes of that card" (as Hawkmoon suggested) works just fine. And it only increases the length of the power by 4 characters. Does anyone have a problem with this or see any way that it can be misunderstood?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or this maybe:
"When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, treat that spell as if you had the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill."
I think this does what is intended. It doesn't specifically have him using his Craft, and it doesn't cause problems like the Aid one mentioned directly above as you're only treating Aid as though you have the skills, not the whole check.
Oh, re-reading the thread, I see that Orbis had issue with the "for the purposes of that card" wording. I don't really see the ambiguity there. You cast a spell without the Attack trait. You now have Arcane/Divide skills equal to your Craft skill for any purposes of the spell you cast but not for any other uses. It seems pretty understandable and clean cut to me.
How about "when resolving that card" or "for the power of that card" or "for checks related to that card".... Just throwing things out there to see if anything resonates or inspires anyone else to come up with something better.
Oh, re-reading the thread, I see that Orbis had issue with the "for the purposes of that card" wording. I don't really see the ambiguity there. You cast a spell without the Attack trait. You now have Arcane/Divide skills equal to your Craft skill for any purposes of the spell you cast but not for any other uses. It seems pretty understandable and clean cut to me.
How about "when resolving that card" or "for the power of that card" or "for checks related to that card".... Just throwing things out there to see if anything resonates or inspires anyone else to come up with something better.
How about "treat that spell as if..?" :3
I do like all of those suggestions better than "for the purposes."
EDIT: Except "for checks" as that insta-banishes.
I think this is the way most of us think it should be played:
When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, you gain the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill for skills determined by the spell and for recharging the spell.
I think that is unambiguous and closes all the loopholes without nerfing the ability and uses terms defined in the rules. I await someone telling me I'm totally wrong :-)
Yeah, I just realized the issue the the "for checks" wording as well. I think "for the power" would be best since it uses the terminology of the game.
So your new suggestion something like: "When you play a spell that does not have the Attack trait, treat that spell as if you have the skills Arcane and Divine equal to your Craft skill."
That might work.
Based on the RPG, Damiel's spells should be no more one-shot than Ezren's. They are essentially the same type of "casters" with both of them having "spellbooks" and preparing "spells" at the start of the day or leaving preparation slots open to prepare what is needed when a situation arises. The only difference (and the reason for excessive "quotations") is that Damiel isn't technically a caster, his spellbook is called a formula book, and his spells take the form of potions. Otherwise, his extracts/infusions act exactly as spells do (including being affected by dispel magic) and he can prepare them for free at the beginning of the day just like a wizard can, day after day.
From your description, that sounds an awful like like in the RPG, potions are a mechanic that work similarly to how spells work. As you say, they're not actually spells. Unless I'm missing something, that is easily addressed in PACG by making potions that functionally work like spells (something they've already done quite a bit even by Chapter 2, both offensively and defensively). Is it, for example, the case that in the RPG an alchemist can ready the exact same teleport spell the a wizard can? Or rather does he have a similar ability in potion form? If its the former, than using a spell for him would be essentially using a scroll, hence the argument for banishing it. With more limited space in PACG, the designers may want to make him able to actually use spells repeatedly, simply to not have a potion form of some existing spell card, but if so it would be natural to make him use craft to imply that he is still using his "potion" skills. Just how I see it anyway.
Is it, for example, the case that in the RPG an alchemist can ready the exact same teleport spell the a wizard can? Or rather does he have a similar ability in potion form? If its the former, than using a spell for him would be essentially using a scroll, hence the argument for banishing it.
In the RPG, teleport is not on the Alchemist spell list, but Invisibility is. (note that teleport is also not on the Bard list in the RPG) Although he doesn't technically cast spells, his extracts function just like the spell in potion form. The distinction that separates them from you comparing them to scrolls is that he can prepare a number of these extracts, day after day, just like a Wizard can, at no cost. You have to pay additional money to craft or buy actual scrolls or potions and once you use them, they are gone. That is not the case with an alchemist's extracts.
So, wouldn't giving Damiel the option to recharge potions make them function similar to spells for casters? Other characters can not recharge potions as a general rule, so I'm not seeing why he'd have to specifically recharge spells thematically...
Because alchemists have the ability to use spells, just in potion form. If you wanted the recharge of potions to represent the Alchemist's extracts, you would have to have a potion of invisibility, potion of strength, potion of rage, potion of resist energy, etc. It would be a lot more cards to use and it, again, doesn't really represent what extracts are.
I see the recharge of potions not representing Alchemist extracts but instead representing the fact that Alchemists can create alchemical items and potions better than most other classes. They get a bonus to Craft (alchemy) checks equal to their level (the higher your craft check, the faster you craft), they get the Brew Potion feat for free, they get Swift Alchemy at 3rd level cutting their time to craft alchemical items in half, and although it is at the rather high level of 18 an alchemist gets Instant Alchemy so he can create an alchemical item as a full-round action (about 6 seconds).