One more Balazar question


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


And I think this will be much easier to answer than my previous question about discarding spells for monsters during an encounter.

Lets say Balazar is teaming up with Andowyn in a location, and during Andowyn's turn she encounters a bane with two checks to defeat. Andowyn takes 1, and then Balazar takes another.

Is a bane considered defeated only by the person whose encounter it is, or could Balazar capture that bane into his hand?

I don't think he can but wanted to make sure.


Well if I remember well Balazar's power says when YOU would banish.
And for me the character defeating is the one banishing.
And the character encountering is the one defeating.

So yes at the end Balazar can only get the bane when it's his encounter.

Now it works both ways : if someone helps him on his encounter, he doesn't lose the right to get the monster in his hand.

As usual, unless proven guilty by the Powers Above.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Frencois is correct, the person encountering the card is the one that ultimately defeats it so Balazar could not capture the monster if he wasn't the one who flipped the card over.


Yes I believe I asked a similar thing in another thread related to alain glory power. The one that actually encounters the card defeats it (or not) and deals with the consequences/rewards (including closing locations if it was villian/henchman)


Zenarius wrote:
Yes I believe I asked a similar thing in another thread related to alain glory power. The one that actually encounters the card defeats it (or not) and deals with the consequences/rewards (including closing locations if it was villian/henchman)

You did indeed. And I agree. You don't defeat it be simply attempting one of the checks. You only count as the one defeating it if you are the one that encounters it. Similarly, if a henchman had two checks to defeat and you attempted one while the character that encountered it attempted the other, you wouldn't get to attempt to close the location, just the character that encountered it would.


Here's a wrench then: Siwar

With her ability to make another encounter her bane instead.

Does Balazar get to keep the monster then?


ryanshowseason2 wrote:

Here's a wrench then: Siwar

With her ability to make another encounter her bane instead.

Does Balazar get to keep the monster then?

Yes. He's encountering it, he's defeating it, he's banishing it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

See what Hawkmoon just said, "You only count as the one defeating it if you are the one that encounters it."

No wrench here, same thing applies. The person who actually ends up encountering the card is the one that deals with all the effects of the encounter.


A more interesting wrench then, I don't remember exactly which scenario this was but...

Scenario rule:

When you close a location reset your hand and end your turn

Siwar Encounters Villain
Hands encounter to another character
Character defeats villain, villain auto closes the location and flees.

The character gets all the ramifications of closing the location and then by scenario rules is then told "Reset their hand and end their turn". It isn't their turn though *STACK OVERFLOW*

I'm really digging deep for a way for this to not make sense though now.


Oh... That is a good one. It doesn't have to be the villain either. Siwar could pass a henchman to someone else, who by defeating said henchman gets an opportunity to attempt to close the location.

I think that is fine though, Siwar can avoid that by it not being her turn.

It is also interesting to think about the fact you have two instructions there. I think that was a RotR scenario, so the "Reset your hand" was still a step and not just part of "End your turn." In the current wording, that would just say "End your turn." So I wouldn't make the person who closed outside of their turn reset either.

Really, a lot of this situation existed before Siwar (and Ranzak). It has already been covered that you can permanently close a location on someone else's turn.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So the Golden Rule applies, and you ignore the impossible instruction due to it not being your turn. Don't see any issues here either :)

EDIT: Ninja'd by hawk because I spent time typing how "reset your hand and end your turn" would've been modernized to "end your turn" due to the two being rolled into the same step post-RotR. But +1 from me on that you would NOT need to reset your hand; that is part of the instruction you are ignoring since it is intrinsically part of ending your turn.

Sovereign Court

I'd guess if that scenario were rewritten today, where we now have ways to pass off encounters with multiple characters, it'd probably be worded in a manner that ends the turn regardless of who encountered it.


Maybe. But I don't think the Ghoul or other such monsters will be rewritten, and they essentially do the same thing. It just lets Siwar be awesome, like she is.

Sovereign Court

Yea I definitely don't see any FAQs coming out of this. I just meant more like if they chose to use the mechanic on a new scenario, monster, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ghoul is present in WotR and has the text "If undefeated, end your turn." The your is still referring to the person doing the encounter, so if isn't your turn when you encounter it I believe nothing happens.


skizzerz wrote:
Ghoul is present in WotR and has the text "If undefeated, end your turn." The your is still referring to the person doing the encounter, so if isn't your turn when you encounter it I believe nothing happens.

Yeah. That was what I was trying to say. That the only change would be removing the "reset your hand" part. Siwar or Ranzak could avoid the risk of the negative consequence by passing the encounter to someone else. Just like if you someone else had to summon a random monster on your turn and they drew a Ghoul, you wouldn't end your turn if they didn't defeat it.


As usual I agree with anyone ninj'ed by Hawk.:-)


Arueshalae's slightly circuitously worded "checks that use a marked skill." Is that a Go for Balazar adding a d4 to his Strength checks when Arueshalae's Gift is on his Charisma, or is this phrasing meant to be 1:1 for "Your [Strength or Whatever Else] checks" (and therefore no d4s would apply)?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Adding a skill is not the same as using a skill. You determine the skills you're using during the "Determine Which Skill You’re Using" step of the check; Balazar's power comes in during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" step.


Totally makes sense and I wouldn't expect anything different (much as I might've liked to. :D) Don't expect this'll come up with most characters in the first place? Except for rare instances like Damiel w/ alchemy bombs.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / One more Balazar question All Messageboards

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