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

Gwyns Firstborn wrote:

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"?

...

See this post from Vic.

My post tells you *what* we do, but doesn't really tell you *why* we do it. The answer for that is that our house style relies on the Chicago Manual of Style, which says "Although they and their have become common in informal usage, neither is considered acceptable in formal writing, so unless you are given guidelines to the contrary, do not use them in a singular sense."

So yeah, we have never been terribly clear on whether or not Combat is a skill. In RotR, that was deliberate, because it made certain explanations easier, and it didn't matter, mechanically speaking. I count five paragraphs in the current rulebook that are relevant: one implies it is a skill; two sidestep the issue, and two suggest that it is not a skill. But we do want these powers (Varill, Wrath Seelah, Shardra Visionary, Ekkie Guttersnipe, and Mattock) to work with combat, so saying it's a skill solves that. Anybody see any problems it causes?

Regardless, where Varill, Seelah, and Ekkie all replace "any listed skill," that means any skill listed on any card. At the moment, Shardra and Mattock replace "the listed skill," so that suggests that they replace only skills listed on the card you're encountering. I'm checking to see if that's what we actually want—and I suspect those two cards will change "the" to "any."

So, to be clear, if a monster has check to defeat 8, Varril can recharge a card and roll his divine skill to get that 8?

So, to be clear, if a monster has check to defeat 8, Varril can recharge a card and roll his divine skill to get that 8?

I think what you are asking is if the monster's check to defeat is Combat 8, can Varril use Divine instead of the default Strength/Melee skill. This is my question as well.

I just downloaded the character sheets that were updated today and was amused to see that Salim's sheet has Sajan header information. :0 I haven't had time to look for other typos, and won't bother until I receive the actual class deck in the mail and have a point of reference.

Still, it was interesting (and nice!) to see the character sheets made available for download *before* I received my class deck subscription in the mail. :D

Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

So, to be clear, if a monster has check to defeat 8, Varril can recharge a card and roll his divine skill to get that 8?

I think what you are asking is if the monster's check to defeat is Combat 8, can Varril use Divine instead of the default Strength/Melee skill. This is my question as well.

Yes, that was my question.

So yeah, we have never been terribly clear on whether or not Combat is a skill. In RotR, that was deliberate, because it made certain explanations easier, and it didn't matter, mechanically speaking. I count five paragraphs in the current rulebook that are relevant: one implies it is a skill; two sidestep the issue, and two suggest that it is not a skill. But we do want these powers (Varill, Wrath Seelah, Shardra Visionary, Ekkie Guttersnipe, and Mattock) to work with combat, so saying it's a skill solves that. Anybody see any problems it causes?

Regardless, where Varill, Seelah, and Ekkie all replace "any listed skill," that means any skill listed on any card. At the moment, Shardra and Mattock replace "the listed skill," so that suggests that they replace only skills listed on the card you're encountering. I'm checking to see if that's what we actually want—and I suspect those two cards will change "the" to "any."

If Combat is a skill, then Varril can use his power even if he plays no other cards om the check. More importantly, if Combat is a skill, Varril using his power to replace Combat with Divine makes the check a non-combat check. I'm not sure if this is really what we want although I find it quite flavorful, like one is finding alternative solutions to getting around a monster instead of simply hacking at it until its HP falls below 0.

If we want powers like Varril's to work on Combat checks without playing any other cards that list skills (e.g. we're using the default Strength or Melee skill), then the simple solution is to treat the Strength/Melee in the rulebook as a listed skill somehow.

If we do not want powers like Varril's to work on Combat checks unless another card is played that lists a skill, then nothing needs to happen -- I believe that's how it currently works.

Personally, I'm a fan of simply making Combat a skill (and all characters implicitly having Combat: Strength or Melee on their character card), as it means we don't have to treat it like its own special snowflake. However, doing this means things that replace Combat would subsequently make the check a non-combat check (if Combat is no longer a used skill, then no Combat trait is added to the check, so it is therefore not a combat check). I personally think that consequence is fine, and adds a lot of flavor to the game. I can imagine Varril using Turn Undead against a Skeleton, or healing the Bunyip's wounded child and therefore making her more friendly towards him and letting him pass unharmed.

elcoderdude wrote:

Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

So, to be clear, if a monster has check to defeat 8, Varril can recharge a card and roll his divine skill to get that 8?

I think what you are asking is if the monster's check to defeat is Combat 8, can Varril use Divine instead of the default Strength/Melee skill. This is my question as well.

Yes, that was my question.

Assuming Combat is not itself a skill, I would say that is not allowed. We are told that "listed" means "printed on a card", and the default Strength or Melee is printed in the rulebook, not on a card. Ergo, a Combat check with no other cards played on it does not have any listed skills to be replaced. If Combat is a skill, then the answer is obviously "yes".

Keith Richmond wrote:

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

...darn it.

Not seeing pete... I am however myself seeing the previous two and Tom Hughes. I actually cannot unsee tom which is a good thing. He is a great actor.

True, Pete definitely doesn't have those ears.

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

Assuming Combat is not itself a skill, I would say that is not allowed. We are told that "listed" means "printed on a card", and the default Strength or Melee is printed in the rulebook, not on a card.

I still find it odd that you include all check to acquire/defeat sections of cards and any powers on cards but not the skills "listed" by the rulebook.

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

Loose hanging notwithstanding, since I hate the idea of making 'Combat' a skill (just as much as I hated when 'you' became 'everybody'), as it adds needless complication and confusion, I'll throw in some more ramblings:

- Option 1: The ability in question was intended to work with “reveal a Longsword for your combat check” AND with unarmed Str/Melee. I find this exceedingly hard to believe, as at this point , the power as well could say “use Divine for every check, ever”. So that seems like a good wording FAQ – change “any listed skill” to “any other skill”. The ambiguous “listed skill” is not necessary as pretty much always a skill applicable to a situation is listed *somewhere* (with the arguable exception of unarmed combat Str/Melee), and it would be clear that the Strength/Melee listed on weapon falls under 'any other skill”

- Option 2: The ability was meant to work with weapons/arcane spells, but not with unarmed combat (for some reason): OK, this is the only possibility I see where it would be more elegant to just leave “any listed skill” and then FAQ the Combat to be 'skill'. For the life of me I can't see this absurdly exceptional case being a worthy cause for such change.

- Option 3: The ability was meant to work with unarmed combat, but not with weapons /arcane spells. This would be really weird mechanically, but still: the change could be “For your check that doesn't have the Attack, Melee or Ranged traits, you may discard (or recharge) a card to use your Divine skill.”

- Option 4: The ability was meant to work with anything other than Combat. The most probable and best (in my opinion) treatment of this power. Also, the most simple and elegant to fix – just change “attempt any check” to “attempt a non-combat check”.

That's ¾ options where just a slight rewording (one change is slightly wordier but it would plenty fit in the power box, were it to be printed, so I think it's a valid suggestion) does a much better work than changing the concept of Combat being a skill. I'm really coming at this from a clarity and consistency angle – I don't buy Class decks, so I won't be affected by what the Inquisitor can do- but I can't overstate how overpowered this character appears to be with his one-trick pony shtick. There's literally no point whatsoever to put any skill feats in anything other than Wisdom, and basically, by AD2, he's sure to roll d8 + 5 for ALL his checks, like he has permanent Arcane Robes on him. I'm open to suggestions why would I ever upgrade his Diplomacy d10+2 since I can just get the statistically better Divine d8+3, or why indeed any other skill feat boxes are printed on his card – even when I'm eventually forced to put skills anywhere else, I'll just revert back to Divine for the check anyway.

So, this may seem ranty, but all I'm saying is – this character is crazy good even now; it would be a pity to screw with the game definitions just to make him even more god-like.

Apropos, if we decide that “use your Strength or Melee” on weapon is a 'listed' skill, that would also mean that with grenades like Alchemical Fire et al. I'll be able to use my Divine skill twice.

But we do want these powers (Varill, Wrath Seelah, Shardra Visionary, Ekkie Guttersnipe, and Mattock) to work with combat, so saying it's a skill solves that.

Regardless, where Varill, Seelah, and Ekkie all replace "any listed skill," that means any skill listed on any card. At the moment, Shardra and Mattock replace "the listed skill," so that suggests that they replace only skills listed on the card you're encountering. I'm checking to see if that's what we actually want—and I suspect those two cards will change "the" to "any."

I'm zeroing in on the Mattock, since that was the example that surprised me the most. I remembered it being a non-combat helper, so I pulled it out of my RotR box to take a look. The second paragraph talks about changing the listed skill on the barrier to Strength or Melee. Which seems like an odd thing to do if the listed skill-thing is Combat, but I guess it would let your cycle the card. Now, if it becomes "any listed skill", then I suppose Crowe could, for a combat check against a lock/obstacle barrier, cast Force Missile and then use the Mattock to change his Arcane skill into his Melee skill. Which seems weird, but hey, PACG uses abstractions at times and I don't think this breaks anything.

Now, if it becomes "any listed skill", then I suppose Crowe could, for a combat check against a lock/obstacle barrier, cast Force Missile and then use the Mattock to change his Arcane skill into his Melee skill. Which seems weird, but hey, PACG uses abstractions at times and I don't think this breaks anything.

There is a rule that you can only play one card or power that determines your skill for a check. It rarely comes up but I believe you've illustrated why it exists: it means you can't play a chain of abilities like this to turn Combat into Arcane into Melee.

Regardless of how they rule on this issue, do remember that you can only use a power so many times: both per step, and by how many cards you are able/willing to recharge.

(just as much as I hated when 'you' became 'everybody')

err...can someone link me the relevant rules/discussion on this? I think I've been playing it wrong.

Longshot11 wrote:

(just as much as I hated when 'you' became 'everybody')

err...can someone link me the relevant rules/discussion on this? I think I've been playing it wrong.

It just surfaced again the other day, because of the confusion i causes over among Obsidian's app users. Here you go:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s497?Who-you-are

First World Bard wrote:

Now, if it becomes "any listed skill", then I suppose Crowe could, for a combat check against a lock/obstacle barrier, cast Force Missile and then use the Mattock to change his Arcane skill into his Melee skill. Which seems weird, but hey, PACG uses abstractions at times and I don't think this breaks anything.

There is a rule that you can only play one card or power that determines your skill for a check. It rarely comes up but I believe you've illustrated why it exists: it means you can't play a chain of abilities like this to turn Combat into Arcane into Melee.

Hm, wouldn't this very same rule then prevent the Inquisitor's power from converting the Strength/Melee of a sword then? Since the *one per check* power that defined the check is the weapon's reveal power?

How did everyone not see the order of these posts?

Tanis O'Connor wrote:

Keith Richmond wrote:

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

...darn it.

Not seeing pete... I am however myself seeing the previous two and Tom Hughes. I actually cannot unsee tom which is a good thing. He is a great actor.

True, Pete definitely doesn't have those ears.

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

Sorry; you asked us to hang loose, but it is clear we are hanging tight.

Mike Selinker wrote:

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

Sorry; you asked us to hang loose, but it is clear we are hanging tight.

I'm only hanging loose, part of my grip is used on all these thoughts he told us to hold onto.

I will say this though, needs moar DIPLOMACY: STRENGTH +X!

First World Bard wrote:

Mike Selinker wrote:

We are discussing this. Hang loose till Vic can clarify.

Sorry; you asked us to hang loose, but it is clear we are hanging tight.

I'm only hanging loose, part of my grip is used on all these thoughts he told us to hold onto.

I will say this though, needs moar DIPLOMACY: STRENGTH +X!

I'm hoping there's an empiricist investigator someday who has the skill Diplomacy: Intelligence + X

Nefrubyr wrote:

First World Bard wrote:

Now, if it becomes "any listed skill", then I suppose Crowe could, for a combat check against a lock/obstacle barrier, cast Force Missile and then use the Mattock to change his Arcane skill into his Melee skill. Which seems weird, but hey, PACG uses abstractions at times and I don't think this breaks anything.

There is a rule that you can only play one card or power that determines your skill for a check. It rarely comes up but I believe you've illustrated why it exists: it means you can't play a chain of abilities like this to turn Combat into Arcane into Melee.

Hm, wouldn't this very same rule then prevent the Inquisitor's power from converting the Strength/Melee of a sword then? Since the *one per check* power that defined the check is the weapon's reveal power?

No. The power is not a "For your check" style power, it's "When you attempt a check." It is not used in the determine which skill you're using step and therefore doesn't clash with anything used in that step. Personally, I view it as happening in the "Assemble Your Dice" step as that is when you first begin the motions of actually attempting the check rather than playing things that affect it before the attempt, although the exact timing is unclear. One could also argue it happens before you play any cards or use any powers, which seems a bit absurd to me.

As for the four options you posed, I believe currently all 4 of them are incorrect. See my post at the bottom of page 1 for how I view the power currently working as-written and given what we know so far. To recap, it works as long as you play a card or use a power that makes you use a skill or adds a skill to the check.

So I guess that's another question that needs answering: When is "When you attempt a check"?

skizzerz wrote:

Assuming Combat is not itself a skill, I would say that is not allowed. We are told that "listed" means "printed on a card", and the default Strength or Melee is printed in the rulebook, not on a card.

I still find it odd that you include all check to acquire/defeat sections of cards and any powers on cards but not the skills "listed" by the rulebook.

So if somebody wrote it on a support card that was displayed next to the adventure path Varril could use the power but since it is in the book he can not?

Look at Vic's posts in this thread, where "listed" is defined to mean "printed on a card." Last I checked, the rulebook is not a card, so things cannot be "listed" on it. In your hypothetical situation, the support card would indeed work depending on how it is worded.

I'm not saying this definition of "listed" is desirable or not, but it's right now what it seems to mean. If "listed" is expanded to mean "printed on a card or in the rulebook", that's fine too and would mean the implicit Strength or Melee are now "listed skills."

Doesn't CD-Imrijka have one too many Card Feats? Most characters only have 10, that I've noticed.

Doesn't CD-Imrijka have one too many Card Feats? Most characters only have 10, that I've noticed.

Her card feats aren't shown above. Are you looking at her power feats or her skill feats?

Either way, looked fine to me.

James McKendrew wrote:

Doesn't CD-Imrijka have one too many Card Feats? Most characters only have 10, that I've noticed.

Her card feats aren't shown above. Are you looking at her power feats or her skill feats?

Either way, looked fine to me.

The sheets were released in the community use package.

James McKendrew wrote:

Doesn't CD-Imrijka have one too many Card Feats? Most characters only have 10, that I've noticed.

Her card feats aren't shown above. Are you looking at her power feats or her skill feats?

Either way, looked fine to me.

I think James meant to post is comment on the new character sheet thread, which he subsequently did. It's an error in the new character sheets.

Edit: ninja'd

Speaking of Salim, his Reluctant Priest role says "summon and play a spell that has the Divine trait and an adventure deck number no greater than 2". Is this random (similar to Miracle, "summon and play" is draw from the box, which is random)? How does it play out if you can't play the spell? Or is it supposed to have the same errata as Miracle?

I think because of the banish requirement you should get to choose the spell.

See this FAQ entry for the definition of "summon and play." And drawing from the box is random, per this FAQ entry and the one immediately below it.

Well, that makes that power a lot less useful then.

Kinda makes sense since pulling any spell is a ridiculously powerful ability.

EDIT: Cards that display themselves (Eloquence as an example) then are immediately banished afterward when you summon and play them, it looks like; is that correct?

Well, that makes that power a lot less useful then.

Yeah. At least with Spiritual Weapon (or whatever the summon and play a weapon spell was), you knew you were getting weapon for a combat check. If you don't get to pick the spell you want that meets the requirements, it seems like a terrible power. Either I'd be in a check and grab a spell that expects me to not be in a check (cure, detect magic), or i'll be minding my turn, hoping for a cure, and instead pulling an Inflict.

Cards that display themselves (Eloquence as an example) then are immediately banished afterward when you summon and play them, it looks like; is that correct?

Yep. It's all about "can I use this right now?"

Well, that makes that power a lot less useful then.

Kind of an understatement since you are banishing a spell to accomplish this feat of maybe coming up with something useful and then being down a card deck-wise.

And not even down a card in the discarded or buried sense but literally that spell I had is gone and I can't rebuild it into my deck later.

I think I understand the flavor around it: That he really only calls upon the gods when it is absolutely necessary and he has no other choice. This feels like a last resort power, I don't think I'd ever use it unless I had a trash spell I picked up and didn't care for or the character was going to die otherwise for certain.

What I don't understand is how his patron god is just gonna give him the finger like that haha. Getting a heal in combat or attack trait spell out of combat is pretty harsh of Pharasma!

But honestly I'd be interested to see how many people take that feat if they understand that it is a completely random spell and they don't get to choose. Seems like the last resort for spending power feats. Especially since it takes 2 feats to get it in working order. Because the earliest you can get this is AD4 and you've got better options than pulling AD2 spells randomly by that time.

On top of all this he doesn't even carry spells without a card feat or acquire them easily with his d6+0 (Which I believe is a new low for a caster). So the situation of Salim having a spell in his hand is a really unlikely scenario to have *A* power feat geared towards, forget about two. Where is he going to source the spells to actually use it regularly?

I've employed two interns to assist me in scratching my head at the point of this power feat or the wisdom(or lack thereof) in taking it.

My head is very scratched but no answers as of yet.

Shackles of Compliance? Why does this make me feel dirty?

They're from Ultimate Equipment and Skulls and Shackles AP, it looks like

Mine arrived today and I'm hoping to play Varril on Saturday. Did we ever get an official official ruling on his power?

Situation A: If a monster lists combat, can I play a weapon that lists strength or melee for the combat check and discard a card to use my divine skill in place of the strength or melee?

Situation B: If a monster lists combat, can I discard to use divine in place of combat? (Not using a weapon or spell here).

Followup question: Situation A clearly remains a combat check. But in Situation B, is this now a noncombat check? I ask for purposes of using blessing that add 2 dice to noncombat wisdom checks.

(edited for clarity and to add a question)

They're from Ultimate Equipment and Skulls and Shackles AP, it looks like

Yeah, that sure doesn't wash away the dirty feeling. There's no safeword!!!

Besmara needs no safeword!

Mine arrived today and I'm hoping to play Varril on Saturday. Did we ever get an official official ruling on his power?

Situation A: If a monster lists combat, can I play a weapon that lists strength or melee for the combat check and discard a card to use my divine skill in place of the strength or melee?

Situation B: If a monster lists combat, can I discard to use divine in place of combat? (Not using a weapon or spell here).

Followup question: Situation A clearly remains a combat check. But in Situation B, is this now a noncombat check? I ask for purposes of using blessing that add 2 dice to noncombat wisdom checks.

(edited for clarity and to add a question)

No official clarification (it's presumably still under discussion over there and it's a tough problem to work out so it may take some time), however I would play it as the following (per my arguments in past posts in this thread):

A) Yes
B) No
Followup) Irrelevant since B is "No"

The above assumes that Combat is in fact not a skill (the rulebook is ambiguous on this as Vic has stated, however I argue that it lends more support to "not a skill" than it does to "is a skill"). If your table believes/plays that Combat is actually a skill, then both A and B are "Yes" and your followup is also "Yes, it's a noncombat check now"

No official clarification (it's presumably still under discussion over there and it's a tough problem to work out so it may take some time), however I would play it as the following (per my arguments in past posts in this thread):

A) Yes
B) No
Followup) Irrelevant since B is "No"

The above assumes that Combat is in fact not a skill (the rulebook is ambiguous on this as Vic has stated, however I argue that it lends more support to "not a skill" than it does to "is a skill"). If your table believes/plays that Combat is actually a skill, then both A and B are "Yes" and your followup is also "Yes, it's a noncombat check now"

Thanks for your reply...this makes sense to me, so I'll go with it on Saturday if we don't hear anything official before then. I know Vic floated the idea of combat being a skill, but I'm uncomfortable going with that until it's official, because I share your interpretation of the rulebook as it currently stands. (If they do make combat a skill, that's good news for Varril, though! )

DrJill wrote:

Mine arrived today and I'm hoping to play Varril on Saturday. Did we ever get an official official ruling on his power?

Situation A: If a monster lists combat, can I play a weapon that lists strength or melee for the combat check and discard a card to use my divine skill in place of the strength or melee?

Situation B: If a monster lists combat, can I discard to use divine in place of combat? (Not using a weapon or spell here).

Followup question: Situation A clearly remains a combat check. But in Situation B, is this now a noncombat check? I ask for purposes of using blessing that add 2 dice to noncombat wisdom checks.

(edited for clarity and to add a question)

No official clarification (it's presumably still under discussion over there and it's a tough problem to work out so it may take some time), however I would play it as the following (per my arguments in past posts in this thread):

A) Yes
B) No
Followup) Irrelevant since B is "No"

The above assumes that Combat is in fact not a skill (the rulebook is ambiguous on this as Vic has stated, however I argue that it lends more support to "not a skill" than it does to "is a skill"). If your table believes/plays that Combat is actually a skill, then both A and B are "Yes" and your followup is also "Yes, it's a noncombat check now"

I'm not sure that it follows that the check would become a noncombat check in the followup based on this post from Vic on WotR Kyra. Just because Varril would use his divine skill for a combat check does not mean that it stops being a combat check.

skizzerz wrote:

DrJill wrote:

Mine arrived today and I'm hoping to play Varril on Saturday. Did we ever get an official official ruling on his power?

Situation A: If a monster lists combat, can I play a weapon that lists strength or melee for the combat check and discard a card to use my divine skill in place of the strength or melee?

Situation B: If a monster lists combat, can I discard to use divine in place of combat? (Not using a weapon or spell here).

Followup question: Situation A clearly remains a combat check. But in Situation B, is this now a noncombat check? I ask for purposes of using blessing that add 2 dice to noncombat wisdom checks.

(edited for clarity and to add a question)

No official clarification (it's presumably still under discussion over there and it's a tough problem to work out so it may take some time), however I would play it as the following (per my arguments in past posts in this thread):

A) Yes
B) No
Followup) Irrelevant since B is "No"

The above assumes that Combat is in fact not a skill (the rulebook is ambiguous on this as Vic has stated, however I argue that it lends more support to "not a skill" than it does to "is a skill"). If your table believes/plays that Combat is actually a skill, then both A and B are "Yes" and your followup is also "Yes, it's a noncombat check now"

I'm not sure that it follows that the check would become a noncombat check in the followup based on this post from Vic on WotR Kyra. Just because Varril would use his divine skill for a combat check does not mean that it stops being a combat check.

That post doesn't apply, Varill specifically says "instead of" the skill. If Combat is indeed a skill, then Varill replaces Combat with Divine. Contrast with a normal "For your combat check use your Strength skill" which would add Strength to the check, not replace Combat. If Combat is a skill, and Combat is being replaced, then it is no longer a combat check because no Combat trait is added to the check (it isn't a skill being used).

Got a chance to play as Varril last night--really enjoy him! And now I have an opinion on whether I actually *want* his power to be able to be used on straight combat checks (without using weapon or spell).

The inquisitor deck doesn't have anything in terms of offensive combat spells, and Varril has two weapons in his deck (one more with a card feat). So he has a relatively low chance of having something in his hand that will let him roll something in combat besides just his strength (d6, skill feat only allows up to d6 +1). He doesn't have stellar evading options (caltrops only work for so long), and he doesn't have an abundance of armors (one slot to start, only one card feat upgrade). And with a starting hand size of 6, he's pretty squishy. There's also only one cure in the inquisitor deck, so you don't have the option of using a second cure to get the first cure off the bottom of your deck to be used again in a timely manner.

So basically, he's pretty easy to get killed. I think that either of the following would help:

1) making combat a skill, or

2) rewording his ability to specify that it applies to listed skills AND as your (non-skill) combat check

Thoughts? I don't personally think it would be overpowered, but I could be missing something. I don't want him overpowered, because that takes the fun out of it. But currently, he feels pretty vulnerable compared to many other characters.

Another option is to make "listed" skill include the Strength and Melee offered in the rulebook. That way, combat isn't a skill, but powers like Varril's still apply to combat checks.

We don't have the exact wording down, but the ruling will be something like this, at the end of "Determine Which Skill You're Using" (Wrath p. 12):

Anything that refers to "listed skills" for a check includes the skills specified by the card itself and, if the card specifies Combat, the skill that you're using for combat. So if a card specifies a check as Combat 9 or Charisma 6, and you're using your Melee skill for the combat check, the listed skills are Melee and Charisma.

That makes sense to me. I'm assuming that the intent is for Varril to use his power when using a weapon or spell for combat, but not when he's making an unarmed attack.

That makes sense to me. I'm assuming that the intent is for Varril to use his power when using a weapon or spell for combat, but not when he's making an unarmed attack.

If I'm understanding Vic correctly, Varril can use his power when he's making an unarmed attack.

But if you're using your dexterity for combat, say with a dagger, then the listed skill for combat is dexterity, right?

But if you're using your dexterity for combat, say with a dagger, then the listed skill for combat is dexterity, right?

Correct. It also works with the unarmed Strength or Melee check.

My question is that while this clarifies what the listed skill for a check is, Varill uses the words "any listed skill." As such, in light of this addition, can Varill still use his power on skills that are added to the check (rather than just the skill that defines the check)?