Who "you" are


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Consider this sort of a FAQ playtest...

We are considering the following change to the rulebook (RotR p.17; S&S p.25).

In the Banes section, the Powers entry would become this:

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.


Hm. It's a nice addition if you ask me then simply "These are it's powers".

I suggest, if I may add, that you place the whole conundrum about "before/after you act/encounter" also here in the textbook. Since most of the times, if not all, those wordings are placed in the Powers-section of a bane-card.


Hmmm...So, I'm trying to think of where I've felt there was some slightly odd or ambiguous wording with "you". Barl Breakbones is coming to mind.

Barl Breakbones wrote:
After the first check, discard 1 random card from your hand, then reset your hand.

There are two checks, so the encountering character might not have attempted the first one. I'd assume this sort of thing would be worded as "After you attempt the first check..." in the future, and thus the FAQ change would make it clear it applies to whoever attempted the first check. (As it is now, I've treated it like the encountering character did that regardless of who attempted the check.)

Does this also apply to characters who would want to do something? Like a check to be able to play spells? Prior to this there was a distinction between Karzoug and other such banes. Right not there are a few possible ways this could work. (These are all RotR examples, which I've tweaked for S&S language. There might be better examples in S&S where some of these things have been cleaned up.):

Type 1 wrote:
Before you act, succeed at an Arcane or Divine 8 check or you may not play spells with the Attack trait.

This was on the Hook Mountain Hag. It would seem that this would only apply to the person making the encounter. (Or would it be to anyone that is acting, i.e. making a check?)

Type 2 wrote:
You may not play spells with the Attack trait.

This is one the various golems. This thread talks about how the encountering character couldn't play spells, but others could. How would the FAQ affect this?

Type 3 wrote:
Succeed at an Arcane or Divine 8 check or you may not play spells with the Attack trait.

This was on Black Magga. Sort of like the Hook Mountain Hag, but without the idea of it being tied to a check.

Type 4 wrote:
Before attempting to play a spell with the Attack trait, succeed at an Arcane or Divine 15 check or you are dealt 1 Poison damage and you may not play spells with the Attack trait.

This was on Karzoug. It was clear that it applied to whoever wanted to play the spell.

So, are these 4 situations all the same with the proposed FAQ? Or are there still some differences (or will there be ways to denote the differences)?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

This rule does not replace this one; it works in concert with it. I believe that other rule covers your Barl Breakbones question.

This is indeed intended to apply to situations like hags and golems, and unifies them to apply "you" to anybody trying to do that thing. If you want to play a spell against the golem/hag/whatever, you need to succeed at the check.


Ok. Then I think this sounds good. I thought the golems felt a bit too much like a loophole. So this will close that off.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I'll also note that while it might seem that this contradict's Mike's ruling in the golem thread, well... it changes how you get to the result, but it doesn't actually change the result: nobody gets to play spells with the attack trait, though the Toxic Cloud that was cast before the encounter still works.


I think Mike said others could play spells with the attack trait, just not the encountering character, which this would change. But yeah, it does still leave the already played spell in effect, which seems fine.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

He did say that, but he also pointed out that the only spells with the Attack trait that can actually be played by someone who isn't encountering the card are the Toxic Cloud-type spells, and this isn't changing them. So... different path to same result.


Now I might be confused. Scarecrow Golem says "You may not play spells with the Attack trait."

With the proposed FAQ, if character A encounter the Scarecrow Golem could character B play Toxic Cloud during the encounter (at the "when encountered" step)? I thought the change was saying it couldn't, but are you saying the change doesn't affect the Toxic Cloud because the Scarecrow Golem power still only applies to the encountering character (i.e. the power doesn't happen when/if you do something, but if you would do something)?

There are now a few more cards with the attack trait that can be played by the person not encountering the bane. Swipe and Illuminate would apply to.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

You're right—it *is* more of a change than I thought; I was misinterpreting Mike.

Under the new rule, nobody gets to play the Cloud during the encounter. If it had been displayed prior to the golem encounter, though, it still has an effect.


Ok. Sounds good. And, not that it matters, but I personally think that is fine for the golem.


What if you were to change the wording to:

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. These powers also apply to characters who are not encountering the bane, but are participating in the bane via spells, blessings and/or powers."

For instance powers would be Harsk's Ranged support.

Sovereign Court

But then monsters like Breakbones would cause people to recharge their hands just for playing a blessing, which isn't right.

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, or tells you to meet a requirement to be allowed to do something, it applies to any character who attempts to do that thing.

It covers things like "Succeed at X check to play spells with the Attack trait", and keeps effects like Barl Breakbones only affecting the person that attempted the specific check.

A monster says pass a Constitution 12 check to play weapons? The encountering Valeros will make the check, and when Lem decides to shoot him with his Deathbane Crossbow, he makes the check too. That monster says to discard two cards after the first check? Valeros discards two cards, Lem does not.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's how it's supposed to be and my definition covers all the bases.

Adventure Card Game Designer

It would sure be okay with me if no one could affect a Golem with Toxic Cloud. That works now, but if it stopped working, that'd be fine.

Sovereign Court

Agreed. More than just this rule would need to be FAQ'd though, since using the power of the already played Cloud isn't playing the card, correct?


Mike Selinker wrote:
It would sure be okay with me if no one could affect a Golem with Toxic Cloud. That works now, but if it stopped working, that'd be fine.

Re the Golem and Cloud spells already in play, it could be solved easily by something like "The Golem is immune to the Attack trait." (as odd and clunky as that may sound.) It would mean no one can play Attack spells against it, and it is also unaffected by the Cloud (though the Cloud is still "around").

To draw a parallel, say Toxic Cloud is played earlier in the turn, and then someone encounters an Undead monster that is immune to Poison. The character encountering the Undead monster does not get an additional 1d6 on top of her check to defeat, right?


Making the Golem immune to the Attack trait wouldn't stop an already in play Toxic Cloud from applying. The immunity rule prevents 3 things:

1. Playing cards with that trait.
2. Using powers that would add that trait.
3. Rolling dice with that trait.

Since you aren't playing Toxic Cloud during the Golem encounter, #1 doesn't apply. And the powers on the Toxic Cloud spell don't add the Attack trait. And the dice you would roll don't have the attack trait either.

For comparison, if the Golem was immune to Poison, then #1 still wouldn't apply, but #3 would.


Andrew L Klein wrote:
Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, or tells you to meet a requirement to be allowed to do something, it applies to any character who attempts to do that thing.

I like that one!

I'm OK if the toxic golem case isn't perfectly solved. I much prefer a simple to remember rule like this one than any tricky way to solve all issues.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Making the Golem immune to the Attack trait wouldn't stop an already in play Toxic Cloud from applying. The immunity rule prevents 3 things:

1. Playing cards with that trait.
2. Using powers that would add that trait.
3. Rolling dice with that trait.

Since you aren't playing Toxic Cloud during the Golem encounter, #1 doesn't apply. And the powers on the Toxic Cloud spell don't add the Attack trait. And the dice you would roll don't have the attack trait either.

For comparison, if the Golem was immune to Poison, then #1 still wouldn't apply, but #3 would.

Okay ... just so I'm understanding correctly, the reason that #3 applies is because Toxic Cloud specifically says it adds the Poison trait to your check? (Don't have the card in front of me.)


Correct.


This would also mean Erinyes Devils cause any character who plays a Divine boon to banish it.


Ah yes, the Erinyes Devils. That would be fantastic for this change. I'd love that being an end result.

Sovereign Court

Do the Devils say something along the lines of "Any cards with the Divine trait played on this check are banished"?

If so, then I very much believe it should apply to anyone playing a blessing whether they are making the check or not.


They say "If you play a boon with the Divine trait, banish it."

Sovereign Court

Yea then I definitely say assisting should banish the card.


Vic,
So if you made an Erinyes Devil that you wanted, for whatever reason, to only banish the original player's card(s), how would you word it? Are you assuming that will never happen, or happen so rarely that a wordy power section would be acceptable?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

We could say "If the player who encountered the Devil plays a boon with the Divine trait..."

But I doubt that it'll come up much. These effects are generally modeling things from the RPG like spell resistance, immunities, or other things that normally apply to everyone, not just to a single attacker. (For example, a golem's immunity to magic applies universally, not just to somebody engaging it in combat.)


Righto then. I see no problems.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Hmm. Neither my wording nor Andrew's covers the Coral Golem's statement "You may not play spells that have the Attack trait." How about:

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the cards you can play, that limit applies to any character that wants to play those cards.

Sovereign Court

Sounds good.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Hmm. Neither my wording nor Andrew's covers the Coral Golem's statement "You may not play spells that have the Attack trait." How about:

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the cards you can play, that limit applies to any character that wants to play those cards.

"...If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character that wants to do those things" covers character powers as well as cards.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

Consider this sort of a FAQ playtest...

We are considering the following change to the rulebook (RotR p.17; S&S p.25).

In the Banes section, the Powers entry would become this:

Powers: These special rules apply when you encounter the bane. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.

"Jodeeee! DO THE THING!"


I know this is effectively in effect (due to Pathfinder Adventures implementing it), but the WotR rulebook has no provision about it and it was never FAQ'd.

I'm only mentioning this because people are incredibly confused about it in the PA forums. The PA rulebook eliminates the section regarding bane card powers, so that's not helpful either.


zeroth_hour2 wrote:

I know this is effectively in effect (due to Pathfinder Adventures implementing it), but the WotR rulebook has no provision about it and it was never FAQ'd.

I'm only mentioning this because people are incredibly confused about it in the PA forums. The PA rulebook eliminates the section regarding bane card powers, so that's not helpful either.

And it threw me for a loop the first time that all of my chars were suddenly doing a check when I had no desire for them to participate in the encounter. That's a UI thing on the app, but it did make me wonder if I'd been playing this rule as Vic wanted us to playtest properly.


This FAQ was added after this discussion. I believe it was to address this issue.


Oh, so I was wrong. Whoops. I looked in the RotR FAQ and S&S FAQ, but evidently forgot to look in the WotR for it.

Still, that part isn't in the PA rulebook :(

Grand Lodge

This has been a question for decades...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zeroth_hour2 wrote:

Oh, so I was wrong. Whoops. I looked in the RotR FAQ and S&S FAQ, but evidently forgot to look in the WotR for it.

Still, that part isn't in the PA rulebook :(

When I did my approval pass on their rulebook, I noted that that was missing—it was literally the last text in the file I gave them. They didn't have time to make all my changes prior to the first release, but I'm told they'll be adding them in as soon as they can.


People are still confused about it in the PA forums. They don't think this rule helps.


At the risk of back-porting a debate from Obsidian's forum to here -- they raise a good question. Probably there's a good answer, but I don't see it.

Wraithful Sinspawn has the power(I updated "Before the encounter" language):

Wraithful Sinspawn wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Wisdom 6 check or the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1 for the rest of the turn.

Why doesn't this fall under "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing."? Any character in the game may be attempting a check during the current turn (bane-spreader barriers, closing checks, recharge checks, etc.).

I don't want this to apply to all players, but it seems the logical extension of requiring all players to make the Goblin Warchanter BYA check to play a weapon or spell.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:

At the risk of back-porting a debate from Obsidian's forum to here -- they raise a good question. Probably there's a good answer, but I don't see it.

Wraithful Sinspawn has the power(I updated "Before the encounter" language):

Wraithful Sinspawn wrote:
Before you act, succeed at a Wisdom 6 check or the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1 for the rest of the turn.

Why doesn't this fall under "If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing."? Any character in the game may be attempting a check during the current turn (bane-spreader barriers, closing checks, recharge checks, etc.).

I don't want this to apply to all players, but it seems the logical extension of requiring all players to make the Goblin Warchanter BYA check to play a weapon or spell.

Wrathful Sinspawn doesn't say to make that check when you do a particular thing, it just says to make that check. As such, it only applies to the character actually encountering the card. Goblin Warchanter says it applies when you do a particular thing (namely playing a weapon or spell with the attack trait), so therefore anyone wanting to play a weapon or such a spell needs to make the check.

The templating for "do a particular thing" for BYA checks seems to consistently follow "Before you act, do X or you cannot do Y" -- Y is the particular thing, X is the effect that applies to you if or when you want to do Y even if you aren't the one encountering the card. Wrathful Sinspawn lacks the Y component, so it isn't an effect that happens if or when you do Y. As such, that rule doesn't apply and the BYA is only for the character encountering the card.

Examples:
Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 8 check or take 1d4 Fire damage. -- only applies to the current character. "Take 1d4 Fire damage" is not an action that a player can do, it's an effect that happens to them.

Before you act, succeed at a Wisdom 8 check or you cannot play weapons. -- applies to any character who wants to play a weapon. "You cannot play weapons" is an action that a player can do.

Before you act, succeed at an Intelligence 8 check or recharge your hand, then draw that many cards. -- Only applies to the current character. "Recharge your hand, then draw that many cards" is not an action a player can do, it's an effect that happens to them.

Before you act, succeed at a Wisdom 8 check or you must play a weapon if able. (combine with "When a character plays a weapon on a check against this card, banish the weapon." for lots of fun times) -- applies to all characters who have a weapon they can theoretically play on a check against the card. "Play a weapon" is an action that a player can do.

Before you act, succeed at a Dexterity 8 check or you cannot move for the rest of the turn. -- less clear, but I'd say it only applies to the current character and any character that attempts to move during the encounter. It does not apply to characters that didn't encounter the card who have the ability to move after the encounter is over. This is because while moving is an action a player can do, the BYA power is no longer "live" once the encounter is over even though it may have a lingering effect on those that failed. As such, a character that doesn't move during the encounter never meets the trigger condition for the check while that power is active and as such does not need to make the check.


I'm sorry but I see that different.
The questionable "particular" thing in the Wrathful Sinspawn is acting in the encounter. Obviously the character encountering the Wrathful Sinspawn has to act in the encounter and therefore has to make the check. If another character chooses to act in any way, like playing a card on a check made by the encountering character, she would also have to make the check.

Your distinction seems not to be supported by a "particular thing" but would require a "specified/determined/designated thing" since you seem to assume the the "thing" is stated in the power. But if that was intended the rules paragraph should not only use a proper word to clarify the limited nature of this rule but also include an explanation on which powers are worded specific enough and which are not to make this rule applicabel.

EDIT: Or am I missing that "acting in an encounter" is defined as solely making checks against that card? I don't think so.


"Acting" is basically the "attempt the check" and the "attempt the next check" steps of the encounter.

From here on out, this will only be opinion.

Keep in mind, the Goblin Warchanter was made well before the FAQ about "you" was made. If the Goblin Warchanter was reprtinted, it might say something different (it surely wouldn't say "before the encounter"). So, it probably isn't best to argue over the nuances of how the Gobline Warchanter was worded. Today, it might say "When any character would play a spell with the attack trait or a weapon, they must first succeed at a Wisdom 8 check." It might even put that in the BYA step as "Before you act, any character that would play a spell or weapon during the rest of the encounter must first succeed at a Wisdom 8 check." Who knows.

Second, the Wrathful Sinspawn is different, as Skizzerz points out. Here is the wording from the FAQ:

If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things; however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action.

Let's break it down.

1. If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.

2a. If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things;

2b. however, if the limitation is the result of an action such as playing a card or attempting a check, it applies only to the character who took that action.

Ok. So where does the Goblin Warchanter fit into that? 2a. It limits the things you can do, so it applies to any character who wants to do those things.

How about Wrathful Sinspawn? It isn't 1, since it doesn't happen if or when you do a particular thing (i.e. it happens during the BYA step. It doesn't say "If you would attempt a check, succeed at a Wisdom 8 check or the difficulty of all your checks is increased by 1). And it isn't 2a or 2b since it isn't about limiting the things you can do.

That is how I see it at least.


You can look at it that the Wraithful Sinspawn power has an effect (the difficulty of the check is increased by one) when you do a thing (attempt a check). I understand why some people are confused.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a strong point of view on the argument, but I WILL point out that any rule that CAN be argued this contentiously probably deserves clearer verbage.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James McKendrew wrote:
I don't have a strong point of view on the argument, but I WILL point out that any rule that CAN be argued this contentiously probably deserves clearer verbage.

I think the rule itself is pretty clear-cut. The thing that can use clearer verbiage would be the cards themselves, eg stop making things that apply to everyone BYA checks and instead phrase them as Hawkmoon indicated above. That way a BYA check would only apply to the person actually encountering the card. I believe this templating change has already been made (I seem to recall a post from someone officialish saying something like that), but that obviously does not help existing cards. I'm personally surprised that Obsidian decided to use the outdated wording to begin with for their game when they had a golden opportunity to use the modern terminology and clear up a lot of confusion in the process.

Grand Lodge

Totally valid. My focus was on the need for clarification, not on where, exactly, the updated text needed to be.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
elcoderdude wrote:
You can look at it that the Wraithful Sinspawn power has an effect (the difficulty of the check is increased by one) when you do a thing (attempt a check). I understand why some people are confused.

It has an effect that increases the difficulty of checks. It doesn't say the effect happens when one attempts a check, it simply says the effect happens should you fail the check. Cards don't do what they don't say and all that, and the card does not say a trigger condition (a "particular thing") that one needs to do for that power to apply to them. As such, it does not fall under that FAQ and as such only applies to the character encountering the card. Hawkmoon's opinion matches my own, and he did a much better job of explaining what I was trying to say.


skizzerz wrote:
The templating for "do a particular thing" for BYA checks seems to consistently follow "Before you act, do X or you cannot do Y" -- Y is the particular thing, X is the effect that applies to you if or when you want to do Y even if you aren't the one encountering the card. Wrathful Sinspawn lacks the Y component, so it isn't an effect that happens if or when you do Y. As such, that rule doesn't apply and the BYA is only for the character encountering the card.

I am very sorry for not quoting you before but this is the very problem the two of us have here.

"Before you act" is as we all know a term that was named "Before the encounter" in the first ruleset. Therefore most of you do not take it literally. If it was named properly I would not be here discussing at all. If it was named the "puppies and kittens step" and the powers would read "in the puppies and kittens step, make a check or..." the argumentation would be completely different.

To act is a particular thing that one can do. It is not a determined thing or a specific one but it is by the meaning of the word particular.*
Therefore X AND Y are both parts of the effect; of the "BYA effect" to be precise.

So first of all the BYA power would apply if another character attempts one of several checks to defeat.

Next question was: Is acting defined as a term? No it is not.
Therefore not only attempting the check is acting but every subsequent action is acting in the encounter especially playing a card on a check.**

So the FAQ/hotfix says:
If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.
Which can as well be read as: If a bane says a [BYA effect] happens if you [act], it applies to any character who [acts].**

*Sadly people often use particular as if it was definite (finite yes, but not definite) while it is a very ambiguous word. Some possible meanings here are exceptional/especial; different from the ordinary; immmediately present... and none of these can explain why the effect would not trigger.

**you might say "But Michael, acting is not particular, it is (too) general". Well thank you. But acting in an encounter is not since you are already limited to all powers that say that they can be used on a check or in an encounter. Therefore others are excluded which makes the options by the word particular.

So if none or only some of the BYA powers should be extended to players who are not currently encountering the card but want to interfere with the check later on, the current ruling needs a revision.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Who "you" are All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.