Jenceslav's page

144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Also, there are character sheets available for RotR (and most other) characters on this website, so technically, you don't need the role card at all. Bonus points: most errata are covered in the character sheets.
I usually use only the sheets and both character card and role card remain in the box (character token is used, of course, because I don't have any miniatures or standees for my S&S characters)


OK, thank you for detailed analysis, Yewstance, and confirmation, Vic. I just wasn't sure, if that was the intent :) Now I am.


Thank you, Vic, for clarification and looking into Blackjack role. As to your proposed option for changing role from DD into Blackjack - what if, for example, someone took a role and checked only the power feat(s) that is(are) already present on the character card and did not check anything from the role card? I did that strange thing with Core_Seelah ;)
Should we still be able to just "redistribute" them?


It's a normal Combat check, so you can either play a weapon, spell, attack item or whatever you like (key words: for your combat check, ...). Then, after this After Acting phase is over (regardless of result), you have to pass a regular Combat check to defeat the Teddybear. And on that check, you can play a weapon / spell / attack item / whatever again, as it is a different check...


I think the suggested wording for Cogsnap works - it would be maybe odd-looking if the "On a check or step," was in the front (i.e. timing first) as in other post-Core powers.

Regarding the proficiencies - I'd like to remind you that Vic has just retracted the "gain Melee / Ranged proficiency if you gain that skill" rule from conversion FAQ and Core rules. You most probably noticed, but it never hurts to repeat stuff.
Wiederholung ist die Mutter der Weisheit :)


It is probable that you can "reveal" a displayed card for its power, but the wording is more than just redundant. If the intention was that the power is active always, Frencois' second variant would be much more probable.
1) the current power has freely - it does not count as playing an item anyways.
2) the current power is revealed from a displayed state and returned back right away
so "While Displayed > On your Perception check, you may add 1d10" has the same functionality and much shorter and cleaner wording.

In addition to Frencois' suggestions for the intent, it could be also "may reload / recharge to add 1d10". So it is a great idea to ask developers, as he just did :) "Worst case" is: works-as-intended


Most assuredly, they are. It is displayed by another effect, so the text on the displayed card is ignored. If it were displayed for its power, it would also be next to character's deck (like armors) and not next to a location.


See a post above - 3 or 4. RotR Seoni (or, precisely, her player) burned through her deck at prodigious speed and this was extremely useful to her. Along with Masterwork Thieves' Tools, Wand of Enervation and Sihedron Amulet one of our most-liked items.


It's still the same step of the encounter, so unless these spells were meant to have freely, you cannot cast them if you (or anyone) used a non-freely spell on your combat check which you failed.


Not arguing against the Giant Fly :) That one is a pest. After Acting does not come into play in your examples. Resolve the Encounter step seems to me like a part of the encounter just after After Acting and before Avenging.

Resolve the Encounter wrote:
If you did not succeed at all of the checks required to defeat the bane, it is undefeated; if no local character wishes to avenge your encounter (see below), apply all effects that happen when the bane is undefeated, then shuffle the bane back into its location.

So undefeated bane (including Villains) becomes "undefeated" in this step and Harsk's power can trigger, replacing shuffle into reload. No uncertainties here. However, there is a Check if Villain escapes step of an encounter few bullet points later. That one replaces the "shuffle the bane" with specific instructions. If that is replaced by Harsk's power as well is in question, but I would guess so. Most other powers reloading monsters specify a non-villain monster, probably to prevent confusion such as this.


I believe so - and here is why:

Golden Rules wrote:
If the storybook, cards, or rules are ever in conflict, the storybook overrides the cards, and the cards override the rules.

It depends on "when" you reload the bane - is it during Resolve the Encounter step? Do all other steps after that apply?

Definitely the Villain would be reloaded for your second variant - the Villain would be shuffled back in to the same location even if it escaped into the same location, so the Harsk's power and rulebook instructions are in conflict => it gets reloaded instead.
For the first variant, the question is "should I reload it first and then maybe apply all the other steps, including Check if the Villain Escapes"? The "do what the card instructed you to do even if it is not in sight" instruction might or might not pertain to the rulebook. My opinion is to reload the story bane into the location.
Why? Symmetry. If the story bane was just henchman, it is reloaded. Aberration, Dragon, Giant? Reloaded. Villain? Huh, reloaded, I guess, as it should be similar, right?


Longshot11 wrote:
Pre-Core SoMH was indeed considered on our 6-player tables to be one of the most useless cards ever printed.

:-D And our different experience with this great game reveals itself again. We considered that card to be one of the most useful items, with Seoni using it quite a lot - it depends on how effective is your character in recharging cards from their hands. :)

From my experience, SoMH is nowhere near as useless as pre-Core Blast Stone or most Basic armors or most RotR potions (without Alchemist) and so on.


Longshot11 wrote:

"really powerful"? "insane combos"?!?

... I realize now that we might be -quite literally- be playing different games :)
As someone who almost exclusively plays 6-player games...

Well, that might be the difference :-D. I almost always play games with 3, or more often, 4 characters. Then there are quite a few draws more. I'd like to think that the strength of each particular card in that number of players (around the middle of the possible range) represents an average strength of that card. The extremes (1;6) will be clearly the most different :)


EmpTyger wrote:
I do not think that Jenceslav's concern about difficult recharge checks is relevant to the issue here. (For a couple reasons, but most of all WotR Seoni can automatically recharge Attack spells!)

Ups :) I have to read more carefully, I missed that power (and misremembered the way how the power in question replaces a typical Sorcerer power - I though it was instead of auto-recharging and it is instead of turn-anything-into-fireball). I am sorry ;)


I understand that it no longer works that way and I think recovery is a great thing to break such insane combos. I said that as a background story to illustrate why I thought "heal and shuffle the card back" is too powerful in my opinion and why I used the word "unfortunately". With Kyra, it's at least only one card :) and not 1d4. I am very much aware of everything you said, Yewstance ;) but thank you for elaborate description.
Healing is powerful and I wouldn't like to start a Divine caster without at least Cure, but I'd never consider adding Cure to Arcane caster for RP reasons. Definitely the healing Arcane spells from Core like Life Drain, but not Cure. :-D


Longshot11 wrote:
Jenceslav wrote:

but unfortunately the rulebook is pretty clear:

How is that unfortunate?!

Well, I played Damiel in Skull & Shackles. Combine his power with two Potions of Healing and you have insane healing machine. He recharged a Potion of Healing AND then could shuffle it back in with the healed cards. Don't you consider that too powerful? That's why I have a healthy respect for healing cards (pun intended) that get shuffled back into your deck.

And in this case, shuffle is really somewhat better than recharge, Yewstance, as you can get to the healing card sooner (on average). I usually do not bother trying to remember the deck order through recharges, so that "advantage" of recharge over shuffling is lost for me :-D

Still miss a second Cure, my Core Seelah could really use two of them ;)


I don't think there is much conflict - the quote is about cards that heal you by discarding it (that means, they should be in the discard pile / discards at that moment) and thus need to be excluded from that list.
For recharge/reload a card to heal, the question is about timing - 1) you recharge and THEN heal, 2) you heal and then recharge.
My inclination would be 2), but unfortunately the rulebook is pretty clear:

page 7 wrote:
For example, if a card says “Recharge this card to recharge a card from your discards,” recharge the card you’re playing before recharging the card from your discards.

so unless the intention was opposite, you first recharge a card and then heal (shuffling the card in the deck, if Kyra healed herself).


Hello Keith,
I think the only character that may be heavily influenced by the "spell from discards" not including recovery pile is WotR Seoni:

Seoni wrote:
Before your combat check, you may discard a card to draw a card that has the Arcane (□ or Magic) trait from your discard pile.

The idea is that spells that she failed to recharge pre-Core would be available for drawing from the discard pile. For example, Disintegrate with huge recharge check difficulty. She has no other reliable way of fighting and cannot auto-recharge spells. Now, it is in the recovery pile during her turn and she cannot do anything with that spell. I never played with her, so I don't know how it would affect gameplay if she wasn't changed. Drawing from the recovery pile, however, has the potential to break things even more.

Other characters (IMHO) are slightly, but not crushingly, lowered in power.


Yewstance wrote:
The Midwife wrote:

When a local character would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, discard to exchange that card with a new card of the same type instead; all checks against it are blessed.

Discard to explore. This exploration, the first time you would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, you may exchange it with a new one of the same type instead.

By Vic's statement, The Midwife literally says "When a local character would encounter a boon or [any non-story-bane card, including boons]", and can be used against Ships and other Support cards in the rare situations that they are encountered (including Cohorts, I suppose).

I'm not saying I don't follow Vic's logic, I'm just publicly warning that it is not consistent with at least one Curse of the Crimson Throne card as-printed, and I believe it may not be consistent with a few others (but I'd need to look closer to re-find them).

Good catch, Yewstance. I always just skimmed through the Harrows, looking at the cool pictures and not reading the text (well, unless it became the hour or we encountered it). I believe that if the "non-story bane monster or barrier" wording is universal, then it calls for FAQ to The Midwife harrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is what my idea is about Skull&Shackles locations. Sometimes the assignment of "Wild" is governed by the amount of action seen on the card or reflects the weather (if that is an appropriate thing to do). My assignments are completely subjective and as expected, the Aquatic trait dominates. Some islands were not assigned Aquatic if I thought beach is not important for that. I am open to any suggestions / objections :)

Spoiler:
Alehouse Urban
Beach Aquatic
Cannibal Isle Wild
Coastline Aquatic
Dagon's Jaws Aquatic Wild
Dinosaur Corral Wild
Docks Aquatic Urban
Eye of Serenity Aquatic Wild
Festhall Urban Wild
Fishing Village Aquatic Urban
Floating Shipyard Aquatic Urban
Fog Bank Aquatic
Fort Hazard Underground Urban
Fringes of the Eye Aquatic Wild
Gannet Island Wild
Ghol-Gan Ruins Sacred Wild
Gozreh's Flow Aquatic Wild
Great Stone Bridge Wild
Hall of Champions Sacred Underground
Harbor Aquatic Urban
Hatchery Aquatic Wild
Holy Isle Sacred
House of Stolen Kisses Underground Urban
Chapel Sacred Urban
Jasperleaf Apothecary Urban
Jungle Wild
Lonely Island Aquatic Wild
Lucrehold Aquatic Underground Urban
Mancatcher Cove Aquatic Wild
Mangrove Swamp Aquatic Wild
Merchant Marina Urban
Murder Hole Underground Urban
Pinnacle Atoll Aquatic
Raker Shoals Aquatic Wild
Riptide Cove Aquatic Wild
Rocky Cliff Wild
Ruined Amphitheater Sacred Urban
Sacred Spring Sacred Aquatic
Safe House Urban
Scar Bay Underground Wild
Sea Caves Aquatic Underground
Sea Fort Aquatic Urban
Seaside Warehouse Urban
Shark Island Aquatic Wild
Sharkskin Reef Aquatic Wild
Shipwreck Graveyard Aquatic
Shrine to Besmara Sacred Urban
Shrine to Norgorber Sacred Underground Urban
Teleportation Chamber Underground
Tempest Cay Aquatic Wild
Tengu Rookery Urban
Theater of Corruption Urban
Tidewater Rock Aquatic Urban
Torture Pit Underground
Tower Underground
Widowmaker Isle Aquatic Urban
Windward Isle Aquatic
Wishing Well Sacred Wild


I did not include the bonus for finishing CoCT 7A, as it would complicate things for rexx2264, but you are right that you can get up to #=9 and actual_feat_limit=10 - if the rewards stack.
One thing it took me a while to decypher - apparently you cannot spend hero points to gain feats later, so you cannot "store them" and spend them later. That is why the feat limit is not 11 (finished 7A for the second time with a different character that went through DD: 7+3(DD "bonus")+1(CoCT 7A reward)), but 10 :) If there was a hero point awarded for 7A, you could have any combination of 11 / 10 / 10 for card/skill/power feats :-D But that could break/test the limits of the game, though, with 12 power feats, 10 card feats and 15 skill feats. :-D


My opinion is so far very positive. Minor remark: I own only Skull&Shackless (full) + Core + Curse and use sleeved cards exclussively - perfect size.
Even with the very thin perfect size sleeves, I could never fit the whole AP into the box in Skull&Shackles. Locations were crammed into the provided space (so I threw out character cards into a bag and split the locations), Villains as well - and I had to put named henchmen into a special bag because they did not fit at all into the henchman section. Never got to add AD6 cards into the box, so it might have been OK or not.
With Core, everything is customizable and the plastic foam spacers do a great job of holding the cards in place. I would prefer the dividers to be more durable as well (their top becomes a little frayed over time, as they are essentially from paper) and to have dividers for Curse and potentially other APs - main divider ("Curse of the Crimson Throne") and dividers for adventures 1-7 + maybe a second Further Adventures divider. Dividers for Core adventures 2,3 might also come handy.

Regarding the Curse box - you can store the cards in that pretty easily and everything fits, but only if you are using tight-fitting sleeves like perfect size or no sleeves at all (the latter is kind of barbaric, for such a nice game). There was another thread, where I sent a picture proving it ;)


That depends, rexx. You have two options - the reward for Dragon's Demand lists:

DD AP reward wrote:
You may play your character in another Adventure Path starting with adventure 1. Build the Vault with all of its level 0, 1, 2, and 3 cards, and treat # as 3 during adventures 1, 2, and 3.

The second option is in the CoCT introduction:

CoCT storybook, page 3 wrote:
… or bring in characters who have started The Dragon's Demand Adventure Path first. … you should add (choose) one wildcard for every adventure in DD that the players have completed; also, increase # by the # of the last scenario you completed, and treat encountered banes' levels as higher by that same #.

Choose whichever you want. The second option allows you to have up to 9 skill feats eventually instead of 6 (the bonus 7th adventure does not give you hero points) and the same for cards and powers.

I don't like that there are two incompatible rules and you can choose which one to follow. Also, there is a slight loophole in CoCT option - you can finish DD and then replay some scenario in adventure 1 to get #:=#+1; in that way, you loose any level 2 or 3 cards while replaying, but it is still a small loophole.


Ad Jirelle, this is the power in question

S&S Jirelle, the dashing Duelist wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.

and the question is, what happens if the monster has several checks to defeat. Do all of them need to be Swashbuckling? Or at least one?

If the latter, then…

Adelita Doloruso, the terrible S&S villain, based on FAQ wrote:
… your turn, and any check to defeat invoked Swashbuckling, …

On Talitha, your suggested splitting looks perfect to me.

CD Talitha wrote:

On your check, you may recharge a buried blessing to reroll (□ or reroll 1 die).

□ On your check to recharge a spell, you may recharge a buried blessing to succeed.


Brother Tyler, you do a great job with all these changes, guided along with the voice of Golarion's Gods Vic. Regarding the #1 issue, here is my reasoning (also, my preferences are (3A ~ 1) >> 2; we really need qualifiers):
For the 3A variant, I think it needs more tweaking to make it work.

S&S Feiya wrote:
You may discard an Animal ally to draw a spell from your discards or, if proficient and that spell alllows a check to recharge, from your recovery pile.

It's not nice, but preserves the original functionality (I hope). We cannot just say "spell that would be discarded", because that happens only when you choose not to take the check-to-recharge or fail it. And we don't know the result at the moment this power is activated. "Automatically banished during recovery" has similar problem, as the banishing is not automatical, you have to check some conditions for the spell not to be banished as we "(rulebook~) banish any cards that remain" at the end of recovery.

Proficiency is needed, because originally, non-proficient spells would be banised after playing and never get into the discard pile. If you omit proficiency, you change the functionality, which we are not allowed to do, as you yourself said.


Thank you, Vic, for the clarification. I wasn't sure precisely because they seem so similar in meaning. Would it be possible to make some distinction between "base" (Strength, Dexterity, …, Charisma) and "derived" skills (Diplomacy… ) in these cases? (Insert any better designation instead of base and derived; when teaching the rules, I often call them skills and sub-skills)

Zeroth hour's question would then be easily parsable if it were e.g.:

Changes to what Vic wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another derived skill, its base skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

That distinction would make me feel content, but if I just know what is the intent and play that way, that is also completely fine with me.


OK, but I don't see much difference between these two.

Vic, our champion wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

When Alahazra gains "Arcane: Charisma+2", she does gain a skill equal to another skill (+2), doesn't she? For me it is a shorthand for: "gain Arcane skill equal to your Charisma +2". So I was asking if the proposed rules change can affect such powers or not. If it shouldn't, then for the sake of less-comprehending people like me, the wording might need some tweaking to make it clear. :)


My personal opinion:
1 - either 1 or 3, definitely not 2
3 - not a molehill, definitely a mountain; could it be something like "randomly select a spell from your discards and recovery pile; then, recharge it"?
4 - definitely not guard. I thought the instructions were: if the power adds to a check to close your location (and similar), it is "close or guard"; if it is "when you close your location" (condition), it stays as close. I may be misremembering or misunderstanding it.
5 - I do not understand the problem with second option. The check "has the Basic trait" if and only if you play a Basic boon to determine the check you are using (covered - play a level 0 ...), it specifically is added by a card's power (extremely unlikely with Basic) or is added through an effect on some card like "discard a card. Add its traits to the check". The last part is unlikely enough that I would ignore that. Or am I missing something? Be concrete, please, or I may not understand :)
8 - the thing is, she has proficiency with Fire, but her Pan-Elementalist role adds other elements to her existing powers, so it is more like a question of priorities. She cannot have spells, so it is down to items or weapons. Her gained proficiency with "Fire" also does not have any other support from pre-Core functionality other than her power 4 and flavour. Pan-elementalist proficient with Fire and not with Cold? Strange sounding to me. If the proficiency would be added, then maybe for "[] Add 1d4 ([] 1d6) to …" power
10 - seems to me like "use skill X instead of Y", but developers's word IS needed. If it remained "For", which I don't mind much, that would be "determine the skill you are using", which would prevent her from using it if the Arcane check was combat spell ("For your combat check, use Arcane"). It would be a different character (much more non-combat oriented), which I don't mind.
12 - I am slightly against "you may" here. Never played with her (like most other characters), but it seems to me that the player will almost never choose "I don't want a new spell instead of the one I just burned" and if they are in a situation when they need for the bottom card to be non-spell for some reason, they should not have that option. OH, I retract my first statement! "When you don't have enough cards of any type, choose cards from the vault". Definitely should NOT have "you may" as it would allow choosing any spell they like, for the same levels as in this power. Example: she is the only "caster" and consistently banishes spells without taking new ones. After the scenario, she chooses the spells she wants. Repeat for any scenario. BAD.
16 - "instead" to me smells like replacement for "recharge, discard, or bury" actions, therefore it might be considered valid for recovery (becoming ~ "banish for its power", the condition for recovery pile). And Bound Imp + Bound Homunculus truly are in Core+Curse :)
19 - you meant display and not discharge, right? Comparing to Poog, I would broaden Poog's power and left Oloch's as it is. Reason? Purely thematical (and also because Poog's power is actually a sort-of disadvantage, and it is better to "nerf" something than to make it stronger). Reload did not exist, but so no Animal allies with display power existed (I believe) at the moment Poog was created. So I would even add "display" to the set of conditions for Poog :-D - did not think about that. P.S.: In Pathfinder Adventures app, the banishing occurs even outside "for its power" condition and I always passionately hated that, so (il)logicaly I am to include as many play-keywords as possible to spread the hate :)
20 - well, read the Conversion Guide, code word "Dream Voyage". The truth is out there, Scully.
22 - too many words for no gain (pun intended); honestly, I don't mind either option :)


One question, Vic - would that affect for example S&S Alahazra - Tempest? If she gains Arcane equal to Charisma +2, is the check considered "Arcane" instead of "Arcane Charisma"? If that is so, it affects many more characters than the ones you mentioned.


Don't forget S&S Damiel, who needs no check at all. He's a beast with Noxious Bomb and co.


My money is on Kasmir #2. Also, the #3 and #4 most probably need the "of your turn" added, as Vic said; otherwise it might imply the first/last explore step of the game and not on the turn. Plus, #3 has the potential problem of not being able to check the conditions forward (also, if there was a power that said "When a character heals a card on their turn, they may explore.", he would be able to explore if he healed himself, right?).


The old Alchemical items that have banish-to-use effects should definitely be revisited for the Conversion Quide, if that is a big problem. If I am not mistaken, most spells and post-Core Alchemical stuff have recharge check difficulty equal to check_to_acquire_difficulty+2, so the easy solution would be to have them have text "DURING RECOVERY: If proficient, you may succeed at a Craft XYZ check to recharge this card." (XYZ = the ?highest? number in the checks to acquire + 2) - if that does not screw many things.
Of course, that may not help Quinn if he doesn't have a nice way to add dice to Craft check, but is in line with the new meaning of alchemical boons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I slightly disagree with Frencois. If there is a boon in the hourglass, you may not close or guard with that boon unless it is a blessing, because you are not acquiring it at all (the power states blessing). They way I understand this closing requirements, you have to find the top blessing, not check if the top card is a blessing.
So my understanding is:
1) you flip over the top card in the hourglass; if it is a blessing, try to acquire it, else - put it aside and repeat flipping cards over
2) once you acquire the blessing, return all cards flipped over in the order they were originally (there was some discussion a while back that if the card does not instruct you to shuffle, you will not shuffle; similarly with ordering cards - unless it is written on some power, return them in original order
3) if you fail to acquire the blessing, then it seems it is banished (returned to the vault) - rulebook, p. 10, Resolve the Encounter.
4) if you fail to find any blessing in the hourglass, you cannot close or guard - pretty bad situation, I think

The only part of the rulebook that comes close to my understanding of 2 (and which I could find) is:

Rulebook, p. 13 wrote:

If a power tells you to examine something until you find a particular card type, begin with the top card and stop when you find a card of the specified type. If you don’t find a card of that type, ignore any directions related to that card.

Examine the cards in the order you find them, and put them back in
the same order unless instructed otherwise.

You are not technically examining (I think), so any Trigger cards that somehow got into the hourglass should not trigger (pun intended).


Hmmm, Brother Tyler, there is one error in your last post. The discussion to the "At the start of the first explore step of your turn" relates to a different character and not to Kasmir (who cares about the end of the old-style exploration phase, i.e. the last explore step), but has the same result: there are many explore steps.
As stated above, we need something that forces this Kasmir's power to prevent additional exploration, so Fox's suggestion is the best (You may not explore this turn). See my mock-up gameplay conversation above (post 251).
"If the discarded card is Magic card" works. It may be even better to use "If you discarded a spell, …" and "If you discarded a Magic card" - even though English does not hate repetition as much as my own language, I always try to limit it ;)


Also, Curse of the Crimson Throne has few magical armors based on Hide Armor, and some of them "add Survival" instead of just the modifier :) So keep an eye for such nice armors the druids (and some other characters) will definitely love...


Slacker, that was one of my crazy ideas, although it might be hard to control it. "OK, at the end of my last explore step, I heal myself. OH, full 5 cards? Hmmmmm, then I will discard this ally to explore some more." Other player: "you can't do that". Kasmir's player: "Well, it was the last explore step at that time, right?" Other player: "Ugh"

EmpTyger - my several suggestions in that regard were sparked by WeBeHeroes? Siathorn Treemugger - first power. It is definitely not suitable everywhere, but sometimes it might be useful for long lists.


My opinion is:
1 - 1A is the best for me
2-4 - all OK
5 - I would modify the suggestion: "; if it is Alchhemical card, …"
6,7 - I am against changing, keep return to the vault :)
8 - I am going to repeat myself, but whenever there is "banish" instead of e.g. recharge for its power, I think about Bound Imp and similar allies. One could argue that you are banishing it for its power (e.g. power on a card that says "if XYZ, discard this card instead of burying" would count as discarding the card for its power, right?). "you may return it to the vault" and then all variants are OK
9 - fox's second proposed wording "on your check" seems the best for me. may + passive does not bother me :)
10 - I would probably choose "spell you are proficient with" over "Arcane" over "no addition", but the question is, if the "you may attempt to recharge a spell" is used anywhere in Core or Curse. That is, if there is still that action. If it was "you may attempt to recover" (again, if there is such thing), then she would definitely need to check proficiency.
11 - the checks to acquire is fine - many cards have "check 1" THEN "check 2"; we can change it to "you may attempt to acquire …" and add at the end "If you fail, discard it." and regarding timing - either fox's Proposal 3 or "This power may be used once per turn" look the least intrusive regarding the power.

Emptyger & ordering of cards - when proposing such changes, I was not motivated by attempts to put it alphabetically, but more to get rid of so many "or" - or combinations "A or B ([] or C or D) ([] or E or F)" Brrrr. I don't think we need to bend ourselves into Pretzels trying to make each trait list alphabetical :)


Brother Tyler, I understood your point about ", or" - personally I don't care if there is or isn't a comma. Meaning is important to me and that is clear with or without the comma. My suggestion (optional, as suggestions do) was to get rid of the awkward A or B or C or D.

I agree that punctuation should probably break the sequence, but that's not the point. The point is, if you have some brackets divided by ".", "," or ";", many people might be confused about the sequence, so it is better to avoid that whenever possible. In one occasion, the "." thematically did NOT break the sequence in the original text, so better avoid any ambiguity. :)


Some clarification are needed (well, fox already correctly identified the intent of my several comments; thank you and congratulations in understanding my twisted and jumpy mind).

Trait reordering is to get rid of excessive "or"s to make a more nicely looking list: A, B, C, D or E. And I don't really care about if you do or don't include comma before "or", that's just minor correction and I don't adhere to that Oxford comma rule (also because in my native language we never put comma before and/or in a list).

Imrijka - I wrote the first part, then the second part of the sentence and the way I planned to say it changed without me noticing. Of course I meant: if they should be in sequence, do it "([] … .) ([] … .)", otherwise try to find a better solution.

Ahmotep - my attempt to limit any confusion about sequence of powers. I did not notice that it lost "you may". Sorry :)

Estra - Huh, I did not notice that you rearranged things a lot. In this case, I strongly second the suggestion of moving the "ignore trigger effects" BEFORE the encounter. It needs a little clarification, but I think Estra should a) ignore Trigger on Undead cards only, b) encounter only an Undead card, c) shuffle only if Undead was examined (not 100% sure about this, but OK).

Mavaro (Magic Item) - I wasn't sure about the intent, so I asked. Indefinite articles are missing in many places in the original powers, so I mostly ignore that. E.g. sometimes it is "a weapon, an armor(,) or an ally", sometimes "a weapon, armor or ally". :)


Thank you very much, Vic, for the direction about proficiency (include / don't include) we should take. I was aware of this change, and that is why I pointed out the characters that might be affected by gaining Melee / Ranged skill => proficiency.
Do we have to spell it out even if the character is proficient with weapons to start with? Unless there is a Melee / Ranged non-weapon boon that cares about proficiency, the "you are proficient with Melee" sentence does exactly nothing (based on my sometimes imperfect understanding).
What about the characters that gain the skills only with specific types of boons (like Finesse)? Should they be proficient with Melee or directly with Finesse?
E.g.:

S&S Merisiel possibly wrote:
On your check that invokes Finesse, gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1. During that check, you are proficient with Melee.

or

S&S Merisiel alternatively wrote:
Proficiency: [] Weapon Finesse

Could you please tell me if either of the suggestions has any problem from developers' perspective? Thanks


Ugh, this took longer than I expected, but here are some suggestions for WotR and MM - the remaining powers are usually clear, precise or very cleverly translated into Post-Core by Brother Tyler.

Murder, she wrote:

WotR

Adowyn Pack Leader 8 - timing is not correct - it checks for Combat damage, and second part is about any damage. "When you would suffer damage, ... recharge an Animal card to reduce COMBAT damage by 2... any damage to 0"
Alain 4 - why has the base character different wording than both roles? Roles have better-looking wording.
Alain Glory Hound 7 - discard a card to ... sounds a little better
Arueshalae Redeemed 8 - "INto the location."
Balazar 4 - I'd prefer "return it to the vault", but this might work
Balazar Tyrannomancer 7 - lacks [] before the power
Ekkie 4 - I don't like the "has or", as it does not make any sense (to me); I prefer adding "or on which a level 0 card was played to determine the skill you are using" after the bracket.
Ekkie Guttersnipe 7 - "you may discard ..." unless it was meant for her to always be sneaky sneaky even when she doesn't want to
Enora 5 - I am against including recovery pile without qualifiers. Divine spells, Bury-after-playing (now Bury-during-recovery) should NOT be rechargeable, as they originally would never end in discard pile (pre-Core). Serious issue, I think. Mark red!
Enora Eldrich Savant 8 - you can put the ([] Acid, Electricity, Force,) before the Cold or Fire
Harsk 4 - maybe "; otherwise, ..."
Imrijka Wandering Judge 6 - are the last two boxes part of a sequence or not? "). ([] " If they are not, maybe make the next-to-last power a separate sentence so that the dot can be included within brackets.
note on Kyra Dawnflower's Flare 6,8 - recharging blessing without conditions (e.g. "instead of discarding") seems too powerful
Seelah 5 - "On a local character's check, ..." because of "If they defeat...", where they is not defined
Seelah Inheritor's Blade 7 - lacks a power box "[] When"
Seoni 4 - similar to Enora, here I don't mind as much due to cost incurred. Mark red! "or, if proficient and the card allows a check to recharge, from your recovery pile." Wordy, but hopefully with no loopholes. May be possibly inserted into Enora and other additions of "do something with recovery" - you may omit the proficient part for Lem, though :)
Seoni Element Master 8 - "mastered card" like 6 and 7?
Shardra Visionary 7 - the last power box gives Divine skill - should it give Divine proficiency as well?
Shardra Spirit Guide 8 - another power that somebody would argue should include recharging from recovery pile (I am not in favour of that)

MM
Ahmotep 6 - what about moving the Fire trait? "On your combat check, you may recharge a Staff card ([] OR A SPELL) to add ([] the Fire trait and) 1d8 ([] 1d12)." - also, the spell was missing for Staff Magus
Ahmotep Eldritch Scion 8 - another power that someone beside me could be inclined to improve to "or recovery pile". All necessary conditions ~ Enora, Seoni et al.
Alahazra 4 - it was written that way for some reason so unless we know what reason, I suggest to keep "on any check" there. Maybe it is a reminder - and is useful even more today with all the Heat Metal type spells (its 2nd power)
Alahazra Seeker 5 - "...([] or 4) cards of any ([] stack or) location ([] and put..."
Alahazra Seeker 7 - "your ([] or any local character's) check"
Channa Ti 4 - maybe reorder a little? "invokes ([] Electricity, Poison,) (([] Fire, Liquid,)) Acid or Cold, you ..." shorter, isn't it?
Damiel 4 - cosmetic change in Toxicologist "a card) ([] or you may ...it)." - there would be two dots :)
Damiel 6 - "if THE card" maybe? Invoke without "the" and "trait" is also possible. On Toxicologist maybe also reorder to "invokes ([] Cold, Electricity,) Acid or Poison"
Estra Speaker to the Dead 4 - maybe change "); ([] then ... )." to "). ([] Then ... location .)" It still is connected in power and non-sequentiality might be more evident.
Ezren Spell Sage 7 - the result of this power pre-Core (+1 spell you may play on a check compared to normal situation) is, by my opinion, best translated by "[] On any check, you may play 1 spell freely. Only 1 power that determines the skill used for the check may be played." The second sentence, which I slightly modified, is a reminder and might be omitted. I changed it to "power" (instead of "spell"), because when weapon is used, some might interpret this ability as "I may play one spell that determines the skill" in that case. :)
Ezren Spell Sage 8 - this power might be problematic if we are talking about Divine Attack spells, Divine non-Attack spells are OK. The loss in power is rather small, as huge percentage of Divine Attack spells are also Arcane spells. I suggest keeping it with a small loss of power to Ezren.
Mavaro 3 - I would seek the developers' opinion, but in light of the recent update to gaining proficiency, you might delete the Arcane and Divine (see the next line)
Mavaro 5 - while thinking about it, Mavaro cannot attempt to recharge spells easily, as he loses the displayed cards BEFORE recovery even starts. Thus, I suggest "After recovery, recharge the displayed cards." Also, he should get proficiency not only in Arcane and Divine, but also Melee or Ranged due to gaining skills - the recent FAQ. If you agree with this suggestion, mark it for developers' approval, please: (insert before the last sentence) "When those skills include Arcane, Divine, Melee or Ranged, gain proficiency with the corresponding trait." I would not include Melee or Ranged, as he doesn't seem to be a fighter type, but FAQ says differently, sadly.
Mavaro 5 roles - lack one word: "acquire FOR that card"
question on Mavaro Channeler 6 - should only the item have Magic trait or is that "(weapon, armor or item) that has the Magic trait"? Now I am not sure :)
Mavaro Channeler 7 - should stay the same even if we apply the explicit gaining of proficiency in Mavaro 5. He could have only one spell in hand => no Arcane or Divine boons to display => wouldn't be proficient.
Simoun Lightning Thief 7 - the new wording (first bracket) is somewhat clumsy, but I do not see a way to improve it :)
Yoon Pan-Elementalist 7 - maybe invoke without "the" and "trait"?
Yoon Pan-Elementalist 3 - should she be proficient with Acid, Cold and Electricity (or gain that proficiency with some power, e.g. 4/7)? That way there might be some symmetry :). Up to developers, not us.
Zadim 5 - "invokes ([] Acid, Undead, or) (([] Obstacle, Trap, or)) Poison, you ..."? That also avoids the changes in sequence for Outrider if we omit the "trait"
Reepazo 4 - UGH :( so ugly and complicated; I suggest splitting into two (or, for roles, more) parts like S&S Alahazra Stargazer. 1st part: "When you encounter a card, ... add the Vermin trait to your checks."; (optionally 1.5th part - extract from the text to make it more easily read: "[] You may recharge a card displayed by the above power to evade your encounter.") 2nd part: "After any encounter, you may recharge all cards displayed by the above power."; 3rd part (Beetle Broker): "[] After any of your checks, you may draw cards displayed for the above power.", 3rd part (Verminator): "[] On your checks, add 1d4 for each card displayed by the above power.", 4th part (Verminator): " ([] When you defeat and would banish a Goblin, Swarm, or Vermin BANE, you may display it for the above power. Goblin, Swarm or Vermin banes in your hand count as Divine boon for the above power)". Such proposed changes (well, the last one) require developers' approval. What do you think about it?
Reepazo 5 - "invokes Poison, Swarm or Vermin, add ..."? Additionally, Beetle Borker has a broken sequence (thematically) - see the last power "If you do, add another 1d6": if you do what exactly? Add 1d6, which is not optional? Then it would be 1d6 (2d6). It clearly relates to drawing a card, but due to a "). ([] ... " the powers are "not in sequence". I suggest: "1d6. ([] Before the roll, you may draw a card) ([]; if you do, add an additional 1d6)." Also, Verminator has a surplus "a" in "your ... A check that invokes ..."


The way I see it with the proficiencies, they are better spelled out, because post-Core, Arcane skill and Arcane proficiency are different thing. And if powers pre-Core grant Arcane, they should be explicitly stated so to prevent confusion. That's if I understood your last paragraph correctly :)
I will continue checking with WotR and MM in the newest version...


Based on a new update to Conversion Guide here, the powers that temporarily grant Melee or Ranged also give you proficiency. Huh, OK.
S&S Jirelle, Lem - unaffected, already have weapon proficiency (or are there any non-weapons with Melee trait that care about proficiency? Even then, it should not matter, because these would have to have Finesse trait as well. Highly improbable)
S&S Merisiel - affected if she hasn't already taken weapon proficiency. "During that check, you are proficient with Melee."?
Bard Bekah - unaffected, proficiency with Weapons
GobFght Chuffy ~ S&S Merisiel
GobFght Reta - unaffected
Gunslinger Angban - unaffected
HV2 Emil - unaffected
Inq Salim - unaffected
PT Varian - unaffected
Rog Lesath - unaffected
Rog Wu Shen ~ S&S Merisiel
UE Reiko - unaffected
UI Red Raven - unaffected

Ranged
S&S Lem - unaffected
S&S, Magus Seltyiel - unaffected

I don't think the unaffected characters need any additions, so just ignore the Melee proficiency gain, as it would just add unnecessary text. The three affected characters should gain proficiency temporarily (~ S&S Merisiel).


foxoftheasterisk wrote:
S&S Alahazra: Proficiency with Attack spells opens up the ability to use Divine Attack spells, so we should make it proficiency with Arcane Attack spells.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alahazra already have proficiency with that? :-D I played quite a few Fireblades with Alahazra. Not to mention her power that adds static bonus to Attack spells. Of course we can limit her added proficiency to Arcane Attack spells, but one overlap does not hurt anybody, right?


Well, there is more coming once I get some spare time and get through it.
Some comments to your comments to my comments :) follow:

Lini Wild Warden might be indeed reworded to include "you". My feeble attempt on wording is not perfect, I just wanted to put the Divine in the conditions.

Ad After recovery / At the end of the turn: my "feel" is that those recharge powers are something the character has to actively do rather than it being automatic. That's why end-your-turn effects from banes should stop it (I think).

Alahazra - I propose only changing the proficiency, not removing Charisma+2. Skill and proficiency are now separate. Something like (another feeble attempt): "□ When you play an Attack spell and on your check to recharge it, gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2 (for that check). You are proficient with Attack spells." See my intent? Giving her proficiency with Arcane allows Arcane non-attack spells, items and other crazy stuff.

Lem Freebooter - hmmm, maybe I should have written it "On YOUR check against a …", which I intended. Thank you for pointing out my mistake in writing.

Seltiyel Marauder - I know it "changes" the power, but to me it seems wrong. He can just recharge any blessing regardless of its original word? Similar to Sarenrae recharging (WotR Kyra), but here it really affects many powerful blessings. I don't think that was intended, that's why I am pointing that out.

Legacy character's powers affecting recovery pile in general are very dangerous, possibly allowing many ugly things like I mentioned above. That's why I am against such changes (which need approval from developers) even if that makes the character slightly less powerful.


Vic Wertz wrote:
We did a deep dive on character power optionality when adding the Active and Optional Powers sidebar, and issued FAQ entries for everything we felt needed adjustment. Anything that still doesn't say "you may" should not have it added.

Thank you for clarification, Vic - I have one question to that: was there FAQ made for promo characters, specifically Ranzak?

Ranzak Kleptomaniac wrote:
□ Discard a card from the blessings deck to explore your location.

If this one did not have "you may", then he has to do it if there cards in his location, right? Probably not something anyone would ever pick.

Ranzak Wrecker wrote:
□ Recharge a card to add 2d4 to your check to defeat a barrier or a henchman, then discard the top 1d4 cards from your deck.

Similarly, this power forces him to recharge a card and discard cards from his deck every time he makes a check against a barrier or henchman.

Both powers have the template: "do something to get some bonus", and if this were MtG, they would be written as activated power, i.e.:
Do something:get some bonus
(which doesn't have to be activated).
So are we safe to assume that both these powers should be "you may" and Ranzak doesn't fail the scenario for the entire party if there is a bane in his location that gets always shuffled in - or doesn't kill himself by running into several barriers and/or henchmen in sequence? Zombie Nest says hello!


It took me some time to go through RotR and S&S characters, but here are my subjective suggestions for these characters.
Ad "Invoke XYZ" vs. "Invoke the XYZ trait" below - Core sheets are inconsistent; cf. Fumbus, Quinn, Varian (lack "the ... trait") and Harsk, Lini, ... ("the ... trait")

RotR wrote:

Amiri Juggernaut 6 - it can be shortened to "([] or any)"

Lem Virtuoso 4 - maybe "On ([] your) or another local character's..."?
Lem 5 - I am somewhat OK with this proposed change, but flag it for developers' approval, please. Fortunately, he has both Divine + Arcane; if he had only one, it may allow playing one that would be banished and then exchanging it for the one that he might be able to recharge. !! S&S Feyia, WotR Enora, UM Enora HAVE that problem !! So we should add something like "or, if proficient (with the spell), from your recovery pile." in these three cases. Also, what about Charm Person and other spells to be buried during recovery?
Lini 2 - lacks power box before Weapon proficiency for base character + both roles!
Lini Wild Warden 7 - I propose rearranging so that the Divine "condition" is in front: "When playing or recharging a DIVINE spell, add 2 ([] 4) to THE check."?
Merisiel Acrobat 6 - "your location" vs. Thief's "a location"; make them the same, please; Also, Thief has the barrier mentioned, which she should not have in that role
note on Merisiel Thief 9 - this power is even less useful post-Core than before (and that is really something), with most involved cards requiring proficiency before recharge check. I do not propose to change it.
Seoni 5 - it was a suggestion to prevent potential confusion; most items now have check-to-recharge only if proficient - and Seoni is proficient only with Arcane, so any misunderstanding does not broaden her power anyway; also - Core Seoni has it spelled out
Seoni Abyssal Sorcerer 6 - "suffer ([] Acid, Cold or) Fire damage" - it also has the benefit of being alphabetical :-D
Tup Bale-Flame of Naughtiness 7 - "invokes Fire"; "another" is redundant, as there is nothing added before this 1d8
Tup BFoN 9 - it might be construed as similar situation to Lem, Enora&Enora and Feyia with the recovery pile; if you suggested that, then you really must add something about the fact that the "any character" must be proficient with that Fire card. Which, on the first (and second, and third) reading would seem non-sensical in here.
(note) S&S Alahazra solution to this might be the best option to prevent shenanigans or add proficiency requirements. That is, exchange "at the end of your turn" with "after recovery"; however, that option has another unitentional consequence - if it were "at EoT", effects that end your turn prevent you from using such power, but recovery is NOT affected by this and you could use these powers. Needs more discussion!
Valeros Weapon Master 6 - "instead of" instead of "in place of" (pun intended)

S&S wrote:

Alahazra 5 (Stargazer 7) - discussion needed (see above)

Alahazra Tempest 8 - There are some problems with the proficiency, so I suggest deleting the whole proficiency part and adding "You are proficient with Attack spells" (something we can do now, see Core_Sajan with "Ranged weapon"). Reason? To prevent recharging of Arcane ITEMS and non-Attack spells during recovery. That leads to another thing - is there another character that gains temporary proficiency in something? The way it is written now, during an encounter in which Alahazra cast an Arcane attack spell she may use hypothetical item that has Arcane trait and power "If proficient, banish to add 3d12" or advanced power of RotR Wand of Enervation - and that is not the intent. Proficiency with Attack spells seems to solve these problems without creating other. What do you think?
Bikendi Otongu 8 - it would be better to have "or if your character would die" - RAW it implies you die first (discard > bury) and then you cannot "revive"
Damiel 2 - mechanically, there seems to be no reason for him to have Alchemical proficiency (auto-recharge of Alchemical boons without check is better than having to pass checks); thematically, of course he should have Alchemical; to more closely correspond to his original powers, I would prefer "non-Attack Spell" as his proficiency instead of Spells (as I discussed when the conversion was first shown)
Damiel Grenadier 4 - part of the power is missing. "the ([] Acid, Cold, Electricity, Mental,) Poison or Fire trait"
Damiel 7 - (minor suggestion) some reordering might be possible; Grenadier: "an Alchemical, ([] Firearm,) or Liquid boon"; Chirurgeon: "an Alchemical, ([] Healing,) ([] Fire, Poison) or Liquid boon; the indefinite article really throws things askew, otherwise I would put it in front
Feiya 5 - allows for returning Divine spells from recovery! "or, if proficient with that spell, from your recovery pile." + still does not prevent drawing Charm Person/Animal! In Charm Animal's case, it is a possibly infinite loop that ends only if Feiya draws all Animals in the vault. Better leave out the recovery pile...
Jirelle 4 - "invokes Finesse" is enough
Jirelle 5 - "On your check that has the Swashbuckling trait ([] or a check to defeat a ship), you may"
Jirelle Duelist 7 - discussion needed for multiple-check monsters. Adelita Doloruso FAQ leads me to suggest: "... your turn, and any check to defeat invoked Swashbuckling, ..."
Jirelle 10 - "On your check, after the roll, if any die rolled is an 8 or higher, add 1d4." ~ Core Lem
Lem 4 - "On A local check", similarly in Lini Aquamancer 9 "to A local"
Lem 6 - "invokes Finesse" (or "invokes THE Finesse trait" :) )
Lem Freebooter 7 - "invokes Firearm"
Lem Freebooter 8 - one check? all checks to defeat the bane? I suggest "On any check to defeat a Task ...; for each ally recharged, add 1d6" as it is probably what was intended and does not increase Lem in power. Flag for developer's approval, please.
Lini 5 - based on Core Lini, the original order is acceptable - and "for" implies bad things, i.e. determine the skill you are using.
Lini Aquamancer 7 - "ElEctricity"
Lini Aquamancer 8 - "On A local combat check against an Aquatic card ([] or a ship), ..."
Merisiel 6 - "invokes Finesse"
Merisiel Sumggler 4 - maybe shorten to "encounter ([] and if you encountered a Pirate or Swashbuckling card, ..."
Oloch 4 - "On another character's check, ..."
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 7 - definitely not "guard"; also, why not "draw a new plunder card"? :)
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 9 - why not? "draw a new plunder card"
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 10 - "YOU MAY discard ...", also add it to Wrecker 7 "you may recharge" (there could be other instances where I did not notice this)
Seltyiel 4 - "On your combat check, you may choose"; "WHEN YOU play one, you MAY recharge the other" - the way you wrote it sounded like it is a mandatory action, which it is not. "You may play one and recharge" is also OK, I think
Seltyiel 5 - the FAQ changed it so that the power happened only once per turn, which is covered now; I prefer "At the end of your turn" as it is stopped when a bane tells Seltyiel to end his turn (thematical); he should be able to attempt this for a "spell you are proficient with". I am still not convinced that the "may attempt to recharge" is precise enough.
Seltyiel Marauder 9 - "recharge the blessing instead of discarding it"? It doesn't seem right for Bury-type spells like Lamashtu, Geryon and Asmodeus (available at that time)
Seltyiel Spellblade 9 could be considered as another case "draw a spell from discards & recovery pile" - I am strongly against this, but pointing that out anyway.


CoCT barrier 1 Concealed Hatch
CoCT weapon 0 Bolas, Scythe
CoCT spell 0 Sanctuary

Core barriers 2 - Invisible Wall, Guardian Door, 3 - Summoning Trap, Wyvern Blade Trap

all reload into a location


Reload / recharge into - focus on magical weapons and Symbol of <XYZ> barriers. Maybe some spells do that as well. Definitely some monsters get reloaded when you don't defeat them.

Ad Kasmir - well, if it is not needed for that function, then it might be omitted to conserve space, even though it deviates from other templates.
NOTE: There seems to be a lot more of Healing Arcane spells now, which Kasmir cannot recharge easily with only Divine sklil added (he only discards them, as he is proficient) and that should stay as it is.

Hayato - I am OK with any of the two versions being used, as long as they are consistent in both mirrored powers. :)

Rivani 4 - I get the intent, but as Vic said in the discussion about Quinn, "for" at the start of the power strongly suggests that it will be the "power to determine the sklil you are using". Apart from Quinn, also one goblin features this weird thing "For …, you may use XYZ instead of YXZ" that does not follow template given in the rulebook.
See Vic's comment here

Rulebook, p. 11 wrote:
Other powers allow you to use one skill instead of another. These powers say things like “when you attempt a Perception check, you may use Knowledge” or “use Strength instead of Diplomacy.”


And I can testify that I have at least 4 shades of colour in one card type - with all / almost all cards for a given level in Core having different colour than the other levels both in the front and in the back, Curse cards having yet another colour. As it is pretty mixed up within types and Core/Curse, there is almost no problem in that. Well, apart from a big red splotch on Short Sword's back and small one on Lightning Touch.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>