The Big Reveal: Demon's Heresy!

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Hi everyone! I'm just getting ready to tell you all about Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Demon's Heresy Adventure Deck, but I want to make sure I have everything I need.

Copy of the adventure deck to refer to as I write? Check.

Supply of snacks? Check.

Mike locked in a closet so he can't interrupt me as I tell everyone about Adventure Deck 3? CHECK!

Mike: MRRPH! BANG! BANG!

MUHUHAHAHAHAHAHA! ALL RIGHT! The biggest surprise in all of Wrath of the Righteous set for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is right here in Adventure Deck 3. It's going to BLOW YOUR MIND! You won't BELIEVE it!

Let's Get It Started

But first, let's talk about the adventure. Demon's Heresy takes place after the players have liberated the city of Drezen. This gives them a safe haven in the middle of the Worldwound from which to strike out against the demons. There is so much to be done that the players can pick and choose the order they attempt most of the scenarios before tackling the Ivory Sanctum at the end.


What is this Heresy?

If you're smart, you'll tackle the Demon's Redoubt first. (I'll get more into why later on.) It's a cheeky little scenario where the demon Arueshalae is trapped in a ruined castle. In each deck, there's an extra monster in the form of a Grimslake. And it should be easy to find, since it's right on top. Not too much to worry about. You just have to make a check or bury some cards from your deck. And if you fail, you can bury another card for good measure.


You shall doubt it a second time!

It's not all bad, though. After you close two of the locations, you get to add another one to the mix, with no henchmen or villains in it. Why would you want to do that? KEEP READING!

In the end, you must track down the hag Jaruunicka. She's pretty nasty. She requires a check to play attack spells, she can force you to discard blessings as damage, and she has the second-highest check to defeat of any villain in this deck. Plus, she has an odd little trick if you fail your check: you have to draw as many cards as you're dealt in damage and then recharge the same number. There's a small chance this will immediately kill you, but if it doesn't, you might get a better selection of cards.


What a hag!

The Demon's Dangers

This deck has some truly impressive monsters. Take the Dominion Scientists, for example. They are masters of learning your weaknesses. They deal 2 Force damage to you, and if you take it, they get tougher. Plus they are resistant to magic, which really tends to annoy the casters in the party.


To-o-o-o-oad Science! Ooh!

My favorite, though, is the Toad Demon. Its check to defeat is 28! That's at least 5 higher than any other monster in the deck, which makes sense, as you can reduce it by 5 if you don't go after it with a melee attack. Still, a very high check, and if you fail, it will ribbit all over everyone at your location.

There are four new Temptations in this deck, each with its own risk and reward. Take a gander at the Glimmer of Hope. Every turn, you can take a chance to stall the blessing deck. All you have to do is look at a random card from your deck. You can choose to bury it and the deck will advance normally, or you can banish it, which will prevent the blessing deck from advancing. Who needs all those cohorts, anyway?


Hope springs eternal.

Good Stuff!

As frightening as these dangers are, there are equally great rewards.

For the spells, there's Steal Soul. Play this spell after a character at your location defeats a monster that isn't immune to the Attack trait, and you'll gain a d4 on ALL of your checks for the rest of the scenario. It's hard to think of a bigger advantage than that for casting a single spell.


They weren't using it anyway.

The Unfettered Imp is one of the best allies we've ever created. It lets you acquire Corrupted blessings for FREE if they are on top of the blessings discard pile during your check. A Corrupted blessing is risky, and you have to play it immediately, but you get to keep it afterward.


Much better than the fettered imp.

And let us not forget the Tome of Mental Prowess. I'm amazed this card got printed. It's an item that lets you gain a FEAT. Yes, we've done cards that give you feats before. But this is the first time we've made one that is usable more than once. It does require a Knowledge 30 check to keep it from being removed from the game, but this is the mythic set. Twenty-sided dice are the characters' bread and butter.


Reuse or recycle.

OH MY GOD!

All of that is very cool. Really! But let's get down to it. No one is going to stop me this time.

Mike: MRRRO! MRRRO! MRRROOOOO!

As I said above, after the players close two locations in The Demon's Redoubt, they get to build the Tower of the Fourth Sphere. It's sort of an optional location to explore, as there's no villain or henchmen in it. But if you put in the time and effort to close the location, and you win the scenario, there is an amazing reward.

YOU GET TO PLAY ARUESHALAE!


She's a WHAT?!

For the first time, we've added a new character to the game after the base set. Any one player can choose to switch to playing her after you win this scenario, or a new player can jump right in and join your party. You will get the same number of feats as any other character, right there on the spot. Leave no character behind, I say.

And she's a SUCCUBUS! We're letting you play a DEMON! But it's okay. She's a good demon... for a demon. She delved a little too deeply into the idea of a soul, and Desna gave her one. Well, part of one, anyway. Now she must fight to become redeemed or risk falling back into her old ways.

There are a number of advantages to choosing to switch to Arueshalae. In addition to resistance to three types of damage and the ability to evade any encounter she doesn't like, she has a special cohort called Arueshalae's Gift that she can give to another character. He gets a bonus to all checks in one skill for as long as he has it. But what a demon gives, a demon can reclaim: Arueshalae can take her gift back (or not) on her turn to give it to another character or change which skill it affects.


Arueshalae giveth… and so does Desna.

There's another subtle benefit to being Arueshalae. The loot cards the players get at the end of this scenario all have the trait "Owner: Arueshalae," which means that she can fill out her deck with them if the party comes up short of cards of the same type at the end of a scenario. (She may want to help make sure that happens if she banishes one of them.)

When the time comes for a player to pick a role for the succubus, that player can either choose to fully redeem her or have her fall again.


Two sides of the same coin.

The Redeemed role doubles down on the character's ability to help others. She can gain the ability to get her Gift back at the start of ANY turn, which lets her basically give a bonus to any one skill for each other character on their turn. She can also heal and peek at her location deck.

The Fallen role turns the corruption mechanic in this set on its head. You can use Corrupted cards to heal yourself, but more importantly, you can ignore the Corrupted trait on any card so all of those penalties that others have to deal with just don't affect you. You can also gain the full benefits of the Corrupted blessings, even if the top card of the blessing discard pile isn't also Corrupted. Oh, and she's a succubus, so if anybody doesn't acquire an ally, she will.

Whew. It feels so good to get that off of my chest. I've been trying to tell you about her for so long now. She's so amazing, and now you can finally play with her!

Hey. Wait. I just realized there's nothing stopping me from telling you about the secrets for the next adventure deck, too!

In Adventure Deck 4 we have...

CRASH!

Mike: PETERSON!!!

Ah, never mind! I'd better go.

Paul Peterson
Adventure Card Game Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Adventure Card Game
51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Sigh. That's what "immune to the Attack trait" was *supposed* to prevent. However, no monsters are actually "immune to the Attack trait." Some monsters *do* say "you may not play spells," or prevent you from playing spells if you fail a specified check, and since that effect lasts until you resolve the encounter with the monster, and this card must be played during the encounter ("When a character at your location defeats a monster" triggers during the Resolve the Encounter step), you still can't play spells at that time. So the phrase "that is not immune to the Attack trait" is not needed to prevent you from doing that. Expect a FAQ entry soonish.


For the villian jaruunicka does her damage work this way.

Say that I fail the combat by 10 points. My hand is 6 cards with 3 blessings. So I take the first 3 pts of damage, discarding the 3 blessings, draw up 3 cards again. Refresh all 6 cards and draw back to 6 and take the remaining 7 damage for a hand wipe?

Naaasty.... :)


No, you take 6 damage. Then you draw six cards and then recharge them. Then you'd end your turn and get a different six cards.

The idea is if you failed your combat by 3 - then you'd have to discard the blessings first. Then draw 3 cards and recharge 3 cards (they obviously don't have to be the same 3 you drew).


No as nasty... Phew. Thanks.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Some monsters *do* say "you may not play spells," or prevent you from playing spells if you fail a specified check, and since that effect lasts until you resolve the encounter with the monster, and this card must be played during the encounter ("When a character at your location defeats a monster" triggers during the Resolve the Encounter step), you still can't play spells at that time.

Ahem, wait just a sec there:

The YOU on Monster X refers to the person encountering the monster. I'm under the impression Steal Soul will be rather more frequently used by a caster who is NOT the 'encounterer' (it's totally a word!).

Now, the Soul Steal DOES care about a power on the monster, but it in no way connects my caster (the not-encounterer) to the card being encountered and therefore at now instant does my character become the 'YOU' referred to by monster powers. And if the monster's power is "Succeed on X or you can't play Attack spells", my character never even got the chance to attempt the check! And how about if the monster was encountered by another caster who made the check: should I assume its 'immunity' broken (and therefore my Soul Steal valid) or should I be somehow required to make the "Succeed at check..." after the monster is defeated?

Finally, if you're thinking of going that way with FAQ: that will mean that I can't play a Strength on a character who encounters a 'can't play spells' monster, or that I'd have to make a 'Succeed at check.." to play Fire Cloud (it had the Attack trait, right?) when another encounters a monster with such power. I strongly doubt these are repercussions you're aiming for.

So, give it some more thought, is all I'm saying.

PS: Have you considered going the Magic route with power wording? For example you could have "Anti-Magic aura" (no player can play spells during the encounter), or "Magic Resistance (Arcane, Divine 12)" (where the player will know they have to make an Arcane 12 check to play Attack spells on the monster). That way you could've worded Soul Steal "you can't play on Monsters with Magic Resistance or Anti-Magic aura" instead of looking for ways to avoid the tad more cumbersome "you can't play on Monsters that don't allow the playing of spells or that require a check to play Attack spells".
It will also save quite a bit real estate on the cards.I can see how you can be loathe to such approach, as to keep the game accessible to new players, but let's face it - new player already have a 30+ pages of new rules that they will constantly check and double-check, a simple half-page "Powers Glossary" that lists powers Name/Effect will hardly break the camel's back.


Those powers already apply to anyone trying to play a card during the encounter. See this post.


All the monsters I can think of with immunity say you cannot play spells (or, for at least one, cards) with the Attack trait. Strength doesn't have the Attack trait, so you can play it.

Incendiary Cloud, however, does have the Attack trait, so yes you would have to succeed at the Arcane check before you play it, if the monster has such a check, even if you are not the person encountering the monster.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Those powers already apply to anyone trying to play a card during the encounter. See this post.

Now an official FAQ entry.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Those powers already apply to anyone trying to play a card during the encounter. See this post.
Now an official FAQ entry.

This is me being an idiot. Can someone please explain in clear and easy to understand language what exactly this means? With examples?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FAQ wrote:
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 a bane says "If you play a weapon, the difficulty of the check to defeat is increased by 5," then if *anybody* plays a weapon on the check, the difficulty is increased by 5.

And if it says "When you play a boon that has the Divine trait, banish it," that applies to any character playing a boon with the Divine trait during the encounter.

FAQ wrote:
If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things.

So if a bane says "succeed at an Arcane 8 check or you may not play spells that have the Attack trait", or "you may not play blessings on this check," those would apply to everyone, not just the character encountering the card.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, for example, the succeed at X in order to play spells.

Will each person have to make that check? Or does one person essentially make the check for everyone?


Each person.


Makes sense. Good faq clarification.


Why doesn't the Tower of the Fourth Sphere get a Grimslake on top when you build it?


Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Why doesn't the Tower of the Fourth Sphere get a Grimslake on top when you build it?

Because a nice Succubus inside the tower already dispatched the Grimslake....


Frencois wrote:
Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Why doesn't the Tower of the Fourth Sphere get a Grimslake on top when you build it?
Because a nice Succubus inside the tower already dispatched the Grimslake....

The scenario power tells you to place a Grimslake on top of each location deck you build. The power doesn't say it's limited to setup only, so should it not also apply when you build the Tower of the Fourth Sphere?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Frencois wrote:
Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
Why doesn't the Tower of the Fourth Sphere get a Grimslake on top when you build it?
Because a nice Succubus inside the tower already dispatched the Grimslake....
The scenario power tells you to place a Grimslake on top of each location deck you build. The power doesn't say it's limited to setup only, so should it not also apply when you build the Tower of the Fourth Sphere?

I will verify design intent.


Definitely no hench men in the tower of fourth sphere right?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Malcolm_Reynolds wrote:
The scenario power tells you to place a Grimslake on top of each location deck you build. The power doesn't say it's limited to setup only, so should it not also apply when you build the Tower of the Fourth Sphere?

Added to FAQ.


Is there a player mat available for Arueshalae?


Thanks Vic!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Steve Geddes wrote:
Is there a player mat available for Arueshalae?

Not currently.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Is there a player mat available for Arueshalae?
Not currently.

Thanks, Vic. I'll take hope in the word "currently" without holding you to anything. :)


Zenarius wrote:
Definitely no hench men in the tower of fourth sphere right?

I am wondering this too. Am I supposed to put a henchmen in this deck?


PabloKruz wrote:
Zenarius wrote:
Definitely no hench men in the tower of fourth sphere right?
I am wondering this too. Am I supposed to put a henchmen in this deck?

You don't add a Grimslake. See the WoTR FAQ.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is there a pdf character sheet available for Arueshalae?

Sovereign Court

Iammars wrote:
Is there a pdf character sheet available for Arueshalae?

In the WotR character sheets

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, so it is. Thanks!

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

So, here's a question. If you don't read this blog... how would someone know how to use Arueshalae? There's no rule on any card that says "you can now play as Arueshalae", and there's no rulebook in adventure deck 3... so if you aren't obsessive like myself, Hawkmoon, and many others, how would you know that you're allowed to start playing her right after chapter 3 with the same number of feats?

In fact, I don't actually know the precise moment when Arueshalae is meant to be available to the players.. is it after you beat the Demon's Redoubt scenario? That would make sense, since you get her loot cards at that point, but there's nothing actually SAYING that. The other option is at the end of adventure 3. So which is it? And where can I point people if they ask for official answers to such questions?

Now, I don't mean to be picky. I'm EXTREMELY excited to play this adventure (and I really hope I get to be Arueshalae) but I'm always thinking of how new or unexperienced players would look at things, and Arueshalae seems like a big 'ol question mark for anyone who doesn't know to read the Paizo blog...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
cartmanbeck wrote:

So, here's a question. If you don't read this blog... how would someone know how to use Arueshalae? There's no rule on any card that says "you can now play as Arueshalae", and there's no rulebook in adventure deck 3... so if you aren't obsessive like myself, Hawkmoon, and many others, how would you know that you're allowed to start playing her right after chapter 3 with the same number of feats?

In fact, I don't actually know the precise moment when Arueshalae is meant to be available to the players.. is it after you beat the Demon's Redoubt scenario? That would make sense, since you get her loot cards at that point, but there's nothing actually SAYING that. The other option is at the end of adventure 3. So which is it? And where can I point people if they ask for official answers to such questions?

Now, I don't mean to be picky. I'm EXTREMELY excited to play this adventure (and I really hope I get to be Arueshalae) but I'm always thinking of how new or unexperienced players would look at things, and Arueshalae seems like a big 'ol question mark for anyone who doesn't know to read the Paizo blog...

I believe it is the location "Tower of the Fourth Wall" that lets you play her.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

First World Bard wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:

So, here's a question. If you don't read this blog... how would someone know how to use Arueshalae? There's no rule on any card that says "you can now play as Arueshalae", and there's no rulebook in adventure deck 3... so if you aren't obsessive like myself, Hawkmoon, and many others, how would you know that you're allowed to start playing her right after chapter 3 with the same number of feats?

In fact, I don't actually know the precise moment when Arueshalae is meant to be available to the players.. is it after you beat the Demon's Redoubt scenario? That would make sense, since you get her loot cards at that point, but there's nothing actually SAYING that. The other option is at the end of adventure 3. So which is it? And where can I point people if they ask for official answers to such questions?

Now, I don't mean to be picky. I'm EXTREMELY excited to play this adventure (and I really hope I get to be Arueshalae) but I'm always thinking of how new or unexperienced players would look at things, and Arueshalae seems like a big 'ol question mark for anyone who doesn't know to read the Paizo blog...

I believe it is the location "Tower of the Fourth Wall" that lets you play her.

Well then... you're totally correct, my good man. I'll go sit in a corner now. That's what I get for not reading through the whole deck before I bi*&h about something! LOL


cartmanbeck wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:

So, here's a question. If you don't read this blog... how would someone know how to use Arueshalae? There's no rule on any card that says "you can now play as Arueshalae", and there's no rulebook in adventure deck 3... so if you aren't obsessive like myself, Hawkmoon, and many others, how would you know that you're allowed to start playing her right after chapter 3 with the same number of feats?

In fact, I don't actually know the precise moment when Arueshalae is meant to be available to the players.. is it after you beat the Demon's Redoubt scenario? That would make sense, since you get her loot cards at that point, but there's nothing actually SAYING that. The other option is at the end of adventure 3. So which is it? And where can I point people if they ask for official answers to such questions?

Now, I don't mean to be picky. I'm EXTREMELY excited to play this adventure (and I really hope I get to be Arueshalae) but I'm always thinking of how new or unexperienced players would look at things, and Arueshalae seems like a big 'ol question mark for anyone who doesn't know to read the Paizo blog...

I believe it is the location "Tower of the Fourth Wall" that lets you play her.
Well then... you're totally correct, my good man. I'll go sit in a corner now. That's what I get for not reading through the whole deck before I bi*&h about something! LOL

And now you'll scratch your head if arushelae has actually completed demon's redoubt scenario since u got her after you complete it... and u need to complete all 4 before progressing to the 5th... :p :p :p


Vic Wertz wrote:
If a bane says "If you play a weapon, the difficulty of the check to defeat is increased by 5," then if *anybody* plays a weapon on the check, the difficulty is increased by 5.

Wait, so if Enora is blasting such a monster with Force Missile, and Adowyn plays a Bow from another location to add a d4, Adowyn is actually adding a d4 AND +5 to difficulty ?!?


Vic Wertz wrote:
Sigh. That's what "immune to the Attack trait" was *supposed* to prevent. However, no monsters are actually "immune to the Attack trait." Some monsters *do* say "you may not play spells," or prevent you from playing spells if you fail a specified check ...

If the phrasing "you may not play spells with Attack trait" and "succeed at Check X to play spells" was meant to confer "immunity to magic", does that mean the Mythic Archmage ('discard a charge to ignore monster immunities') can spend a charge to play spells against such monsters?


Longshot11 wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
If a bane says "If you play a weapon, the difficulty of the check to defeat is increased by 5," then if *anybody* plays a weapon on the check, the difficulty is increased by 5.
Wait, so if Enora is blasting such a monster with Force Missile, and Adowyn plays a Bow from another location to add a d4, Adowyn is actually adding a d4 AND +5 to difficulty ?!?

Yes. Seems so.


Longshot11 wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Sigh. That's what "immune to the Attack trait" was *supposed* to prevent. However, no monsters are actually "immune to the Attack trait." Some monsters *do* say "you may not play spells," or prevent you from playing spells if you fail a specified check ...
If the phrasing "you may not play spells with Attack trait" and "succeed at Check X to play spells" was meant to confer "immunity to magic", does that mean the Mythic Archmage ('discard a charge to ignore monster immunities') can spend a charge to play spells against such monsters?

I would think so. Seems pretty mythic to be able to do such a thing.


Longshot11 wrote:
If the phrasing "you may not play spells with Attack trait" and "succeed at Check X to play spells" was meant to confer "immunity to magic", does that mean the Mythic Archmage ('discard a charge to ignore monster immunities') can spend a charge to play spells against such monsters?

Can we get an official ruling on this please?

This could mean life or death for Archmages.

Adventure Card Game Designer

We have an answer to this, but it's taking a while to formulate the ruling. Basically, Steal Soul was intended to be about the Mental trait, and not the Attack trait. So if it's immune to the Mental trait, you can't Steal its Soul. Or we might make all things that you can't play Attack spells against immune to the Attack trait. We're looking through ramifications of that and seeing what we find. It might end up being a larger change than just to that spell, or we might limit it to Steal Soul. It'll take Vic to sort it out.

Meanwhile, interpret "Attack" as "Mental" and see what happens.


Thanks for your prompt comment, Mike.

I was not clear. What I was asking for is a ruling on Longshot's question below:

Longshot11 wrote:
If the phrasing "you may not play spells with Attack trait" and "succeed at Check X to play spells" was meant to confer "immunity to magic", does that mean the Mythic Archmage ('discard a charge to ignore monster immunities') can spend a charge to play spells against such monsters?

Adventure Card Game Designer

Any time it says "The X is immune to the Y trait," that can be ignored. Otherwise, it can't.


Mike Selinker wrote:
Any time it says "The X is immune to the Y trait," that can be ignored. Otherwise, it can't.

Very clear. Thanks.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Sigh. That's what "immune to the Attack trait" was *supposed* to prevent. However, no monsters are actually "immune to the Attack trait." Some monsters *do* say "you may not play spells," or prevent you from playing spells if you fail a specified check, and since that effect lasts until you resolve the encounter with the monster, and this card must be played during the encounter ("When a character at your location defeats a monster" triggers during the Resolve the Encounter step), you still can't play spells at that time. So the phrase "that is not immune to the Attack trait" is not needed to prevent you from doing that. Expect a FAQ entry soonish.

Added to various different FAQs. (Or, so it would seem.)


Mike Selinker wrote:

We have an answer to this, but it's taking a while to formulate the ruling. Basically, Steal Soul was intended to be about the Mental trait, and not the Attack trait. So if it's immune to the Mental trait, you can't Steal its Soul. Or we might make all things that you can't play Attack spells against immune to the Attack trait. We're looking through ramifications of that and seeing what we find. It might end up being a larger change than just to that spell, or we might limit it to Steal Soul. It'll take Vic to sort it out.

Meanwhile, interpret "Attack" as "Mental" and see what happens.

Hm, but should we wait for a FAQ on Steal Soul itself? With the golem FAQs, the spell would no longer attempt to steal a Construct's soul, which was apparently the intention. However, it steal leaves the possibility of stealing the 'souls' of most Undead, which I'm not sure is desired (or even savory for the spellcaster)? While some undead appear to be *only* souls - Spectres for instance, I kinda assumed zombies and skeletons are animated by negative energy, or somesuch (incidentaly, it will be fun if you can attack a Vampire with a Heal spell, for exampl).

OTOH, if the spell is switched to not work on 'immune to Mental', I believe this will leave a bunch of Outsiders and Aberrations out (more of a guess, I haven't checked really). Can anyone familiar with the RPG chime in what would make most sense for such spell thematically, what creatures or creature type should be excluded, from a purely role-playing perspective?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Vic Wertz wrote:
Sigh. That's what "immune to the Attack trait" was *supposed* to prevent. However, no monsters are actually "immune to the Attack trait."

By the way, while yesterday's FAQ entries have now greatly increased the numbers of things immune to the Attack trait, my statement above was incorrect, as there was one monster that was indeed already immune to the Attack trait: the Karzoug Statue in RotR 5.

Silver Crusade

WotR Kyra at the cemetery frowns at this new ruling. But she will survive. Assuming she can d6+1 it to death.


The Scarecrow Golem one is really tough on Seoni. No more Wands to get her out of that one. She better back Invisibility.

What about cards like the Hags that have you make a check to play spells with the attack trait? Any chance they will be changed so that if you fail they are immune to the attack trait?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Hawkmoon269 wrote:
What about cards like the Hags that have you make a check to play spells with the attack trait? Any chance they will be changed so that if you fail they are immune to the attack trait?

I don't see the mechanical value in that, and making it longer for no mechanical gain isn't a win. Am I missing something?


Vic Wertz wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
What about cards like the Hags that have you make a check to play spells with the attack trait? Any chance they will be changed so that if you fail they are immune to the attack trait?
I don't see the mechanical value in that, and making it longer for no mechanical gain isn't a win. Am I missing something?

Just Mythic Archmage I guess. They can't ignore those things, since they aren't using the word "immune" in the power. Not the biggest problem in the world though.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Yep—I was missing that. It's worthwhile checking with design, if only because there's something coming in MM that would be affected as well.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Longshot11 wrote:
Hm, but should we wait for a FAQ on Steal Soul itself? With the golem FAQs, the spell would no longer attempt to steal a Construct's soul, which was apparently the intention. However, it steal leaves the possibility of stealing the 'souls' of most Undead, which I'm not sure is desired (or even savory for the spellcaster)? While some undead appear to be *only* souls - Spectres for instance, I kinda assumed zombies and skeletons are animated by negative energy, or somesuch (incidentaly, it will be fun if you can attack a Vampire with a Heal spell, for exampl).

Mike says this is in the same category as Caltrops working on Skeletons—accounting for all flavor possibilities isn't worth the mechanical effort.

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The Big Reveal: Demon's Heresy! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.