Nobody Expects the... Oh, Wait—You *Are* Expecting the Inquisitor Deck Preview?

I was hoping for a Calistrian Inquisitor, but Salim is cool too!

I see a lot of Eddie Redmayne in Varril, was that intentional? Love the idea, always fun seeing interesting class/deity combos like inquisitor of Shelyn.

The Blessing of Lady of Graves is my favorite thing about this preview. Varril's second power with a power feat is my second favorite.

I see a lot of Eddie Redmayne in Varril, was that intentional? Love the idea, always fun seeing interesting class/deity combos like inquisitor of Shelyn.

Please to read caption. :)

Ooh, I just realized, Salim is another character that has an available miniature already!

OmegaZ wrote:

I see a lot of Eddie Redmayne in Varril, was that intentional? Love the idea, always fun seeing interesting class/deity combos like inquisitor of Shelyn.

Please to read caption. :)

I can't un-see Pete Davidson, personally.

I can't un-see Pete Davidson, personally.

...darn it.

I'm playing Imrijka in our online WOTR play through here on the forums and am really loving her character. I am very intrigued to see how she will play with the class deck.

So when I checked the (or your location) feat on CD Imrika's role card. she can use that power on her own combat check? Is that intended?

Varril loks like a young/sexy version of Steve Buscemi.... now try to get That out of your mind :D

So when I checked the (or your location) feat on CD Imrika's role card. she can use that power on her own combat check? Is that intended?

Yup. It then becomes available for your own combat checks.

Innnnteresting. Her Ranged skill is based on Dexterity now. I REALLY liked how it was her Strength before. Because then when the weapon said to add your strength die I was like "BAM! D10!"

Uhhh I might have to play as Varril. Recharge to use Divine for ANY check? Even combat checks? I'm looking forward to seeing the Allies and Spells in this deck.

Time to dust off the Mysterious Disk, eh?

Uhhh I might have to play as Varril. Recharge to use Divine for ANY check? Even combat checks?

It says to use Divine instead of "any listed skill", however. I'm not sure how that would apply to combat checks?

Innnnteresting. Her Ranged skill is based on Dexterity now. I REALLY liked how it was her Strength before. Because then when the weapon said to add your strength die I was like "BAM! D10!"

Uhhh I might have to play as Varril. Recharge to use Divine for ANY check? Even combat checks? I'm looking forward to seeing the Allies and Spells in this deck.

Sorry, Rebel. I believe I claimed that 9 posts above you. ;-)

Rebel Song wrote:

Uhhh I might have to play as Varril. Recharge to use Divine for ANY check? Even combat checks?

It says to use Divine instead of "any listed skill", however. I'm not sure how that would apply to combat checks?

Well, if you have a ranged weapon, for example, it says to use dexterity or ranged. So instead of dexterity or ranged, you could use divine.

Whether you could use it on a combat check with no weapon is a separate question. The rulebook lists strength or melee as the skills you use, but I'm not sure if the "any" extends into the rulebook.

Rebel Song wrote:

Uhhh I might have to play as Varril. Recharge to use Divine for ANY check? Even combat checks?

It says to use Divine instead of "any listed skill", however. I'm not sure how that would apply to combat checks?

The definition of "listed" is going to be fun. If your have a bane with Combat listed as the only check to defeat, that's not a skill. The default skills of Strength or Melee aren't "listed" anywhere, and therefore would not, I imagine, apply.

On the third hand, if you have a weapon, and it says, "for your combat check, use your Strength or Melee or Acrobatics or Basketweaving Skill..." is that considered LISTED(tm)?

My understanding is listed is to be understood broadly. Any skill Varril can otherwise use for a check, he can replace with his Divine skill. I admit we may need a FAQ to make that clear.

I'd like to see the card type allotment for each, but I'm already pretty happy with how this deck looks.

I'm a fan of Salim from the novels, but Varril looks pretty cool to us healer types.

The definition of "listed" is going to be fun.

Various forms of the word "listed" appear throughout the rules, always in a context that is equal to "a thing that is printed on a card." ("Each scenario card lists one or more villains and one or more henchmen," "The character card also lists a favored card type; if more than one is listed, choose 1 type before drawing," "If you have a cohort listed on your deck list, add it to your hand," just to take 3 examples from Wrath page 7.)

James McKendrew wrote:

The definition of "listed" is going to be fun.

Various forms of the word "listed" appear throughout the rules, always in a context that is equal to "a thing that is printed on a card." ("Each scenario card lists one or more villains and one or more henchmen," "The character card also lists a favored card type; if more than one is listed, choose 1 type before drawing," "If you have a cohort listed on your deck list, add it to your hand," just to take 3 examples from Wrath page 7.)

I guess the crux of the matter here is - if I play a Longsword against a monster to "For you combat check... use your Strength or Melee skill ...", do Strength / Melee count as "listed" skills just because they appear on A card (the sword), though not on the encountered card (the monster).

If I encounter a Satyr (Dex/Acrobatics to defeat), I think everyone agrees that the Inquisitor's power can be used to replace Dexterity with Divine. The question is - if a monster has only a Combat check (which is not a skill in and of itself) - is the Inquistor's power in any way useful for that?

This is how I interpret the power:

Theorem: Combat is not a skill. On page 25 of the WotR rulebook we are told that for the Check to Defeat on a bane, that "This is the skill check or combat check needed to defeat the bane." The fact that the rulebook explicitly distinguishes skill checks from combat checks indicates that combat is not a skill check. By extension we can also see that combat is not a skill. The "Determine Which Skill You're Using" section further reinforces this dichotomy by referencing combat checks separately from other skill checks; notably it does not say we can use a plain d4 for a combat check because we lack the combat skill, instead it tells us that we must use our Strength or Melee skills if we do not play any cards or use any powers that determine the skill.

Axiom: Listed refers to "a thing that is printed on a card". (per Vic's post above)

Lemma: A listed skill for a check is a skill printed on the card which tells you to make the check. We can see from context that "listed" is always in relation to a thing, and it only means something printed on the card related to that thing. From the WotR rulebook on page 12: "Each check to defeat or acquire a card lists one or more skills; you may choose any of the listed skills for your check. For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may use any one of those skills to attempt your check."

Corollary: Since Combat is not a skill, a combat check has no listed skills.

Corollary: You cannot use Varril's power on combat checks.

QED

Lemma: A listed skill for a check is a skill printed on the card which tells you to make the check.

This is not clear, and is exactly the question Longshot is asking.

Your conclusion contradicts what I think is the intention of Varril's power. His Strength & Dexterity are d6 each, and he has no combat bonus, yet he can gain Weapon proficiency on his character card. I think the intention is he would be using Divine with a weapon.

The rulebook on page 12 tells you exactly what the listed skills for a check are: they're the skills that appear on the card telling you to do the check.

I do not agree that the intent is to cover combat checks as well, I believe this is mainly for non-combat checks or the rare combat check that somehow lists a skill. The fact Varril can get Weapon proficiency simply makes him slightly better at fighting, but the blog says "he's a lover, not a fighter" (I know at least partially in jest, but still... if he was able to use that on combat checks, he'd actually be a pretty dang competent fighter). There are certain things about him that put me on the fence about that statement, but I'm still on the side of "no combat" for now until someone who actually does know the intent can inform me otherwise.

This also affects Shardra's Visionary role, which allows her to close a location using Knowledge instead of any listed skill. Guess what has a Combat-only close? The Citadel, which is also in WotR! Ekkie also has the same power (except she uses Stealth)

Varril loks like a young/sexy version of Steve Buscemi.... now try to get That out of your mind :D

Yeah, he is kinda funny lookin'.

The rulebook on page 12 tells you exactly what the listed skills for a check are: they're the skills that appear on the card telling you to do the check.

While this does specify that the skills in the "Check to Acquire/Defeat" area of a card qualify as "listed", there is nothing about the verbage to define "listed skills" EXCLUSIVELY as those skills in that area of a given card.

Therefore, with Vic's definition "a thing that is printed on a card", one could argue that the skills "listed" in the power section of a weapon, for example (q.v. "Basketweaving") could also qualify.

I'm not stating that you are wrong. I'm stating that when this character gets loose, the definition of "listed" is going to be heavily argued until Vic or Keith or Mike or someone lays down the law. I was hoping to get that done NOW so that we could all have a thread (or FAQ entry) to quote when it starts.

Yeah it sounds to me like if Combat is an option for defeat, it's a "skill listed on the card" and therefore can be replaced with Divine in this context.

Yeah it sounds to me like if Combat is an option for defeat, it's a "skill listed on the card" and therefore can be replaced with Divine in this context.

See, I was more wondering if "combat" was not a skill listed on a card, but a weapon that said "For your combat check, use your strength or melee skill + 1d8" listed strength and melee as skills, so you could use your divine skill in place of one of them.

Also, the quote on the character card is, "When you attempt ANY check..." "Any" is a powerful word, and seems to be the key point of the power.

cartmanbeck wrote:

Yeah it sounds to me like if Combat is an option for defeat, it's a "skill listed on the card" and therefore can be replaced with Divine in this context.

See, I was more wondering if "combat" was not a skill listed on a card, but a weapon that said "For your combat check, use your strength or melee skill + 1d8" listed strength and melee as skills, so you could use your divine skill in place of one of them.

Yeah, sorry I was thinking about it from the wrong angle. You're using your Strength skill (as LISTED on the weapon card), so you can substitute Divine for that skill. Seems pretty cut-and-dry.

skizzerz wrote:

Lemma: A listed skill for a check is a skill printed on the card which tells you to make the check.

This is not clear, and is exactly the question Longshot is asking.

For the record, it seems prety clear to me that Combat (or Str/Dex on weapon played for Combat) are not-listed skill and therefore the skill is unusable for combat (this guy is already powerhouse by gaining potentially d8+7 to ANY non-combat check, for a recharge no less).

There are obviously people of the opposite persuasion however, so a clarification seems needed.

elcoderdude wrote:

skizzerz wrote:

Lemma: A listed skill for a check is a skill printed on the card which tells you to make the check.

This is not clear, and is exactly the question Longshot is asking.

For the record, it seems prety clear to me that Combat (or Str/Dex on weapon played for Combat) are not-listed skill and therefore the skill is unusable for combat (this guy is already powerhouse by gaining potentially d8+7 to ANY non-combat check, for a recharge no less).

There are obviously people of the opposite persuasion however, so a clarification seems needed.

Yeah, I'm finding skizzerz's argument pretty convincing. I'm confused, because I had reason to believe this is not the intention.

whatever happened to the good ol' days when we would use "their" when referring to a random person? Varril says "random card from her discard pile". I know nobody wants to use "his" anymore, but what's wrong with "their"?

whatever happened to the good ol' days when we would use "their" when referring to a random person? Varril says "random card from her discard pile". I know nobody wants to use "his" anymore, but what's wrong with "their"?

"Their" is grammatically incorrect when referring to an individual. It's only appropriate when referring to multiple people.

I think the pattern they're going with is that for a male character (e.g. Varril), they use "her" when referring to another character's discard pile, and for a female character (e.g. Seelah), they use "his".

Check out Seelah's first ability--it's very similar. http://static1.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderACG/PZO6808-SeelahFront.jp g

The rulebook on page 12 tells you exactly what the listed skills for a check are: they're the skills that appear on the card telling you to do the check.

I do not agree that the intent is to cover combat checks as well, I believe this is mainly for non-combat checks or the rare combat check that somehow lists a skill. The fact Varril can get Weapon proficiency simply makes him slightly better at fighting, but the blog says "he's a lover, not a fighter" (I know at least partially in jest, but still... if he was able to use that on combat checks, he'd actually be a pretty dang competent fighter). There are certain things about him that put me on the fence about that statement, but I'm still on the side of "no combat" for now until someone who actually does know the intent can inform me otherwise.

I believe that you are referring to the following excerpts from p.12 of the rules:

Cards that require a check specify

the skill or skills you can use to attempt the check. Each check to defeat
or acquire a card lists one or more skills; you may choose any of the
listed skills for your check.

I am still trying to get a full rewrite of that whole page but let's focus on the fact that as you can see the "listed skills" are perfectly defined for checks to acquire and checks to defeat but not the various other checks you make throughout your turn. Two other quick examples are checks made to see if you can recharge a card and checks to close a location both of which should fall under "any check" and not jut checks to acquire and checks to defeat.

Flip-flopping again. If we go with skizzerz's listed skills argument, are the skills indicated for BYA checks listed skills? If not, Varril can't use his Divine skill for them. This definitely doesn't seem like the intention. If they are, why wouldn't skills listed on weapon cards be listed skills?

whatever happened to the good ol' days when we would use "their" when referring to a random person? Varril says "random card from her discard pile". I know nobody wants to use "his" anymore, but what's wrong with "their"?

"Their" is technically still bad grammar, since it doesn't agree with its antecedent in number. It can also in some cases lead to confusion over whether the power applies to multiple characters or just one.

Since Paizo has iconic characters, and those iconic characters have genders, they've tended to use the gender of the iconic character. In this case, the Iconic Inquisitor is female, so the singular pronoun defaults to "her" when it is otherwise ambiguous. If this was a fighter, you'd see "his" since Valeros is male.

If they can't fall back on that rule, they just alternate between "his" and "her" in those cases.

See this post from Vic.

I think the pattern they're going with is that for a male character (e.g. Varril), they use "her" when referring to another character's discard pile, and for a female character (e.g. Seelah), they use "his".

If it's an ability primarily for the character to use, I try to match gender, and if it's primarily for use on others I try to do the opposing gender.

I'll admit to not paying attention to if editing then changes things. I'd probably have noticed if it was frequent.

@HM's Vic cite is perfect :)

Gotta love how the developer pops in to talk about language use but not the raging rules debate going on :D lol

Whether or not you can use Varril's power for combat (I hope you can!), he looks super fun! This deck is a definite buy for me. Imrijka looks powerful (though I've never loved her big red hat) and I'm looking forward to seeing Salim's skills and powers.

Innnnteresting. Her Ranged skill is based on Dexterity now. I REALLY liked how it was her Strength before. Because then when the weapon said to add your strength die I was like "BAM! D10!"

I really liked that feature about WotR Imrijka, too. I tend to like it when a character has a skill association that isn't common. CD Imrijka still has a d8 for Strength, so the Longbows aren't the worst thing.

Flip-flopping again. If we go with skizzerz's listed skills argument, are the skills indicated for BYA checks listed skills? If not, Varril can't use his Divine skill for them. This definitely doesn't seem like the intention. If they are, why wouldn't skills listed on weapon cards be listed skills?

I would also pose the question that if Varril is not intended to use his power for combat, why would it not say that he may use his divine skill for any non-combat check? It seems to me that would be a clearer way to word that, if that were the intention.

Singular they usage. Seems to have been criticized in the 19th century.

@DrJill, the team is probably still in discussion, so Keith has nothing to report :) they are not robots! Well, anymore than Hawkmoon is...

Gotta love how the developer pops in to talk about language use but not the raging rules debate going on :D lol

When a rules question has already been well established, I cheerfully weigh in. I avoid any debate over new cards or potentially unclear language until Vic calls the shot. :)

I'm sure that is all the more true if you aren't the one who primarily created this particular character. It would be one thing if you could say "Well, when I wrote it, I was thinking..." but you obviously can't say "Well, when this other person wrote it, they were thinking..."

And even if was your character and you knew what you were thinking, that doesn't mean that everyone else on the team was thinking the same thing as you when they looked over it and gave feedback/approval. So, that is the process Vic has to navigate as part of his decision.

For now, I'll play it as if it works on any skill, whether in a check to defeat/acquire box or a power box. But since it is ambiguous enough, I'd let Varril's player decide.

I think Varril's power should read "any indicated skill" instead of "any listed skill". That would clear up the confusion.

I'm sure that is all the more true if you aren't the one who primarily created this particular character. It would be one thing if you could say "Well, when I wrote it, I was thinking..." but you obviously can't say "Well, when this other person wrote it, they were thinking..."

And even if was your character and you knew what you were thinking, that doesn't mean that everyone else on the team was thinking the same thing as you when they looked over it and gave feedback/approval. So, that is the process Vic has to navigate as part of his decision.

For now, I'll play it as if it works on any skill, whether in a check to defeat/acquire box or a power box. But since it is ambiguous enough, I'd let Varril's player decide.

Backing Hawkmoon up with quotes from Mike and Vic about why devs generally don't come on saying what was "intended."

DrJill wrote:

Gotta love how the developer pops in to talk about language use but not the raging rules debate going on :D lol

When a rules question has already been well established, I cheerfully weigh in. I avoid any debate over new cards or potentially unclear language until Vic calls the shot. :)

Oh, I wasn't meaning to take a shot--just found it humorous. I know you guys probably have to talk about it before giving an "official response" :)

Singular they usage. Seems to have been criticized in the 19th century.

@DrJill, the team is probably still in discussion, so Keith has nothing to report :) they are not robots! Well, anymore than Hawkmoon is...

I prefer descriptive linguistics to prescriptive, and so don't mind the use of the singular they. It was used commonly, fell out of fashion for a while, and is coming back into vogue. It's of tremendous help when discussing non-binary gender, or any time you want to leave gender out of it. That said, I could see some people misinterpreting it as a plural they. It looks to me like Paizo's system is in line with (or slightly ahead of) its time.

I would like to revise my earlier statement, I misread Varril's power when I initially made my post. It does not refer to the listed skill, but rather any listed skill, e.g. "any skill that is printed on a card."

I still believe all of my statements in my initial post are correct save for "Corollary: You cannot use Varril's power on combat checks." That was derived from my reading of the power which (incorrectly) said "When you attempt any check, you may discard a card to use your Divine skill instead of the listed skill." What Varril actually says is "use your Divine skill instead of any listed skill." As stated in my initial post, the listed skill for a check is whatever skill is on the card telling you to make the check. If the power indeed said the listed skill, then I would maintain it does not work on combat checks because such checks have no listed skills. However, the wording "any listed skill" expands it to not just skills listed for the check, but any skill listed on a card in the course of attempting the check.

This has the following consequences:

• Varril still cannot use his power on Combat checks unless he plays a card or uses some other power to determine which skill he's using. If he plays no such cards or powers, the default Strength or Melee defined in the rulebook is not a listed skill (as it does not appear on a card), so the power cannot be used in that instance.
  
• If Varril plays a card to determine which skill he's using, he can swap out that skill with Divine. For example, playing a weapon that lists the Strength or Melee skills would let him swap Divine out for one of them.
  
• If Varril plays a card that adds a skill to the check, he can swap out that skill with Divine.
  
• Only one skill can be swapped with Divine per check, due to the wording "When you attempt any check"; you only attempt the check once.
  
• (edit) Despite saying any listed skill, you can still only swap out a skill that you'd otherwise be using on the check (e.g. one that defines the skill you're using or a skill added to the check). Sure, a card may list other skills, but you can only use a power that applies to the current situation, and swapping out a skill that isn't being used on the check does not apply to the current situation. As such, you cannot use this power to target an arbitrary skill you are not using as a means to discard/recharge a card every time you make a check without also replacing a skill you're going to be rolling with Divine.