Michael Klaus's page

170 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

It only makes sense if the stairs from S1 and the eastern balcony both go down and meet under the rubble. I'd imagine there would be a ladder or steep staircase on the side of the excavator where you would normally start to ascend the massive vehicle.
EDIT: On the other hand the stairs from S1 could go under the balcony and the ladder from the balcony could go up somewhere above S1 - basically the roof of "area S" - but then the stairs do not meet at all.


Vic Wertz wrote:

The quote referenced above was only as accurate as it needed to be to answer the question being asked, and it's technically incorrect. Technically, *encounters* don't happen at any location.

"Where the encounter is" is never relevant—no cards or rules ask about it. The things that may be relevant are where the encountering character is, and where the encountered card is (if it's even in a location), and those two things need not be the same.

So umm. I'm still lost on how cards like abattoir work.

Let's say Hepzamirah is part of the Abattoir and Shardra is no longer there.
So is the villains difficulty increased because she is part of that location or is it not since the character does not encounter her there.
The first one would mean that a character at the abattoir encountering a summoned bane would not increase the difficulty since that bane is not part of the location.


skizzerz wrote:
The templating for "do a particular thing" for BYA checks seems to consistently follow "Before you act, do X or you cannot do Y" -- Y is the particular thing, X is the effect that applies to you if or when you want to do Y even if you aren't the one encountering the card. Wrathful Sinspawn lacks the Y component, so it isn't an effect that happens if or when you do Y. As such, that rule doesn't apply and the BYA is only for the character encountering the card.

I am very sorry for not quoting you before but this is the very problem the two of us have here.

"Before you act" is as we all know a term that was named "Before the encounter" in the first ruleset. Therefore most of you do not take it literally. If it was named properly I would not be here discussing at all. If it was named the "puppies and kittens step" and the powers would read "in the puppies and kittens step, make a check or..." the argumentation would be completely different.

To act is a particular thing that one can do. It is not a determined thing or a specific one but it is by the meaning of the word particular.*
Therefore X AND Y are both parts of the effect; of the "BYA effect" to be precise.

So first of all the BYA power would apply if another character attempts one of several checks to defeat.

Next question was: Is acting defined as a term? No it is not.
Therefore not only attempting the check is acting but every subsequent action is acting in the encounter especially playing a card on a check.**

So the FAQ/hotfix says:
If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.
Which can as well be read as: If a bane says a [BYA effect] happens if you [act], it applies to any character who [acts].**

*Sadly people often use particular as if it was definite (finite yes, but not definite) while it is a very ambiguous word. Some possible meanings here are exceptional/especial; different from the ordinary; immmediately present... and none of these can explain why the effect would not trigger.

**you might say "But Michael, acting is not particular, it is (too) general". Well thank you. But acting in an encounter is not since you are already limited to all powers that say that they can be used on a check or in an encounter. Therefore others are excluded which makes the options by the word particular.

So if none or only some of the BYA powers should be extended to players who are not currently encountering the card but want to interfere with the check later on, the current ruling needs a revision.


I'm sorry but I see that different.
The questionable "particular" thing in the Wrathful Sinspawn is acting in the encounter. Obviously the character encountering the Wrathful Sinspawn has to act in the encounter and therefore has to make the check. If another character chooses to act in any way, like playing a card on a check made by the encountering character, she would also have to make the check.

Your distinction seems not to be supported by a "particular thing" but would require a "specified/determined/designated thing" since you seem to assume the the "thing" is stated in the power. But if that was intended the rules paragraph should not only use a proper word to clarify the limited nature of this rule but also include an explanation on which powers are worded specific enough and which are not to make this rule applicabel.

EDIT: Or am I missing that "acting in an encounter" is defined as solely making checks against that card? I don't think so.


For your question, Longshot, I fear that this line of Mike's statement already made clear that the trait is intended:
"Toxic Cloud is one of a very few cards with the Attack trait that are not played in response to being required to do not determine which skill you can use when you make a combat check. So they break the rules a bit."

It does also look like the FAQ contradicts what Mike said (back in the day) about other players being able to play spells with the Attack trait on such a check.
On the other hand it is possible that I never understood that rule in the first place since skizzers makes some sort of differentiation here


Since the difference is still not clear I would like to add:

When you try to decide what skill(s) you use for a check (because the card lists various options or tells you to make a combat check) you can play exactly one card/power that defines the skill you use. These either start off with "For your combat check..." or otherwise tell you in which circumstances you can use a certain skill (most times instead of another and therefore completely replacing that skill for the later step of determining traits).

By the book this power/card adds the traits (of the card it is written on) to the check additionally to the skills you use (not add!).

But in the current rules discussion it was revealed that character cards should never be considered played at all and therefore should not add their traits to the check even if your character had such a power.
And here I sat and thought it was nice to have a Female Dwarf Knowledge check.


KennedyHawk wrote:


Does this mean when Damiel uses a spell like Cure he can recharge it at the end even without a Divine trait?

I think what you meant was even without the Divine skill.

There is another thread right now confusing skills and traits so I wanted to make sure that you don't.

The alchemist is neither a divine or an arcane spellcaster and the Skull & Shackles Damiel had a power that gave him the skill so he could make a recharge check and only for spells that do not have the Attack spell.

CD Damiel indeed recharges all spells that would require him to have such a skill, whether they might be Arcane or Divine, Attack spells or not.
Of course additionally to potions and all the other useful Alchemicals.
As if the S&S Damiel was not powerful enough.


Vic Wertz wrote:

The functional change here is the bolded bit:

"Playing a card means using a power on that card by performing an action with that card that is specified by the card itself."

So if you're not doing something with the card itself, you're not playing it.

Which directly addresses the question of whether activating a character power counts as playing a card: it doesn't... unless, of course, it instructs you otherwise, like Seoni's power that says it counts as playing a spell.

Vic. Maybe it't the engineer talking here but the "functional change" should not mean the factual linguistic change but the purpose you want to achieve.

I see that such a change would affect displayed cards that affect multiple checks. which is a good thing. So a functional change would be a better explanation for the intended interaction of two cards of the same type.


Um I am sorry. But who told you that you never play your character card?

The rules, p.9 wrote:

Playing a card

means using a power on that card by revealing, displaying, discarding,
recharging, burying, or banishing that card or by performing another
action specified by that card.

So when you use a power on the character card by performing any kind of action you are actually playing your character card. Even though that action is clearly none of the "examples" but normally involves doing one of those actions with another card or a trigger.


I am confused. Robes are mostly Magic ITEMS which do not have that trait while all Magic Armor normally has that trait.
Are those two actually Armor cards?


The link works fine for me. Myabe they blocked it just for you? Maybe they blocked all the links related to Promos just for you? :D


And here I was thinking you could do either one or the other. You can either move but are not at the location anymore and therefore cannot attempt to close it or attempt to close it but did not move when you defeated the monster... unless the When closing condition told you to fight another monster then you could do both, obviously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


skizzerz wrote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Most of the times these other can be found in powers which also state more than one skill to attempt the check and I believe that nobody would argue whether these are therefore listed skills. But with this argumentation in mind you have to ask yourself if the rulebook does not list Strength and Melee as skills you can use for any combat check. So instead of the implied limititation that only skills listed on cards can be replaced. Wouldn't it make more sense to write "non-combat" on the character card?


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?


Well I seems your player wants to circumvent the need to hit his/her enemy with the flask to gain the benefit.

I think if you could do throw it at yourself to act as if the area around is darker you could not benefit from the effect when you actually throw it at an opponent. But it was explicitely written as a splash weapon for the fetchling (see here).
The intent seems to be that you can use it (against multiple enemies) on yourself if you did not loose your darklight lamp and if you did you could only throw it to affect a single enemy.

The problem is that some rules like slashing grace tell you to treat(!) one thing as another to apply another rule to yourself and here it seems that another person treats light different and you can then apply a rule to your character.
Note that they did the same to the enveloping void hex of the Heavens shaman.

Advanced Class Guide wrote:
Enveloping Void (Su): The shaman curses one creature with the dark void. As a standard action, the shaman can cause one enemy within 30 feet to treat the light level as two steps lower: bright light becomes dim light, normal light becomes darkness, and areas of dim light and darkness become supernaturally dark (like darkness, but even creatures with darkvision cannot see). This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to the shaman's level. A successful Will saving throw negates this effect. Whether or not the save is successful, the creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 24 hours.

I assume a fetchling shaman could use that to make use of her shadow abilities but then she has to throw shadowcloy at her enemies not herself.


So you do realize that this was about Lirianne and that other thread about the Society rules is still active?
I just think you might want to discuss this together or at least not have to say everything twice.


Spherewalker's Staff allows you to ignore the traits of a location.


Well on one hand, all the blessings got overruled with the "You can't explore outside of the explore step" (back in the day you could close an empty location, be instructed to put cards in the location and then play a blessing to explore those) on the other hand most cards that also allow you to explore are mostly limited by an "and then if it is your turn". This would be the best option for Droogami although it still only functions under the "You can't explore outside of the explore step" and "Your free exploration must be the first exploration of the turn" rulings.


Frencois wrote:

You can reuse the same armor (including shields of course) (providing you just revealed it and kept it in your hand of course) at each step of an encounter.

So yes the same armor can be use ONCE in the before you act part of the encounter, ONCE for the damage resulting from the check itself and ONCE for the after you act step.

But within a step you can use it only ONCE.

So if the before you act is "1d4 then 1d4 then 1d4" then you must decide immediately after each roll if you use you armor to reduce the roll you just made, and if you do you won't be able to reuse for the next rolls.

Which may be fun if for example you have:
"1d4 poison damage then 1d4 fire then 1d4 combat damage" and an armor saying "reveal to reduce combat damage by 1 or banish to reduce all damage to 0", and you roll 3 on the poison damage. What do you do? Take the damage knowing the armor may save you from 4 fire damage or can stay and reduce 1 combat?

Oh I am pretty clear on the SAME armor thing. I am wondering if I could play a shield that reduced (some) of the poison damage and then another armor card to reduce the fire or combat damage.

As the shield power is worded now it does not allow you to use a shield and any other armor outside of a check that results directly in damage.


jduteau wrote:
The idea is that you should cast Brilliance, Eloquence, Sagacity, etc. before your encounter, if you feel you are going to need them. You can also use them on other people's checks, but just not your own, unless you do the above.

Thank you for stating the obvious, but my queation stands: Why Should you do that before an encounter and why can you cast Strength, Speed and Agility on your combat check? How do you "feel" you might need them? Just cast them whenever you start your turn with the proper spell's in hand in case you turn over a card? WOTR does not hold as many examination powers as S&S did.


skizzerz wrote:
The fatal flaw in your thought process is that there is a difference between a power that determines the type of check and a power that affects a check. You can only do the latter if it is not your check. Most weapons only do the former.

What? This sounds wrong. Very wrong. Like you could not use powers that affect your own check. And instead of type you meant skill since a few powers that affect a check add traits to a check and therefore influence the type.


I am sorry to bring this one back, but I have to ask:
The shield power specifies that I can play another on the check.
What about damage that does not com from a check to defeat against a monster?
Did I miss something in the rules about all the damage roll from barriers, before you act powers and after you act powers or is this not supposed to work on them and I am limited to one armor, helm or shield during that step?
If it is supposed to work, how about powers that give me different types or different instances of damage? Like "1d4 then 1d4 then 1d4" or "1d4 combat damage and(!) 1d4 poison damage"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slacker2010 wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
this still doesn't explain why I would be able to attack with a sword (Standard action) and then cast a Strength spell on myself (also Standard action).
Strength is a lower level spell and can be quickened much easier!

Well obviously you're referring to metamagic feats which would manifest in powers that allowed you to play these spells while doing other things. But not in non-casters and partial-casters being able to cast them at the same time as they engage in martial combat.

Slacker2010 wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, but I agree with Michael that it creates inconsistency between Martials and Spellcasters. Granted, this may even be desirable (if, for example, the versatility of Spellcasters is considered great enough that they have an additional limitation to balance it off), but if it's just an overlooked disbalance, maybe it's worth addressing.
I'm not sure why this is an issue. Caster can get Mirror Image, or Cloud spells, both are spells you can play in addition to your combat spell. I think this was a cool buff MENT for casters that are still fighting with a weapon.

Mirror image should be compared to armor, which casters either do not have or less than martial characters. Cloud spells are not restrictive to full casters or are you talking about the recharge checks?

We never really took the time to crunch some numbers but overall we observe that in our games martial characters are more capable in combat checks which is of course intended but unless you have examining powers for the casters, more or less all characters have to be capable of fighting their own battles regularly. WOTR has an awful lot of barriers that summon monsters, for example. Overall Casters have to at least recharge their spells and start with 3 dice (1 skill, 2 from the spell) and their inherent static bonus for a combat check. Martials have fewer dice, but generally have higher static bonusses. They could discard the weapon or a Knife for an extra die (actually they could discard any number of Knives for extra dice) and they could play one of the aforementioned spells all after they encountered a monster. A partial-caster also has a small chance at recharging the spell.
A full-caster can play... nothing that the martial could not have played AND he is limited to Buff spells that were in place before he made his combat check.
Since I still have not figured out the intent behind the mechanic, we are houseruling the buff spells as the magical equivalent of Knives. You can play the buff spell, if you played a spell with the Attack trait on the check. Maybe we break the game when we allow our casters to give themselves an extra d6 or +3 on a combat check?

The most ridiculous thing in WOTR the Knowledge checks against monsters allow Enora, Shardra and Imrijka to play Brilliance and Sagacity after they started the encounter but before the combat check.
Although you can use all of these spells perfectly on all characters during non-combat checks on other characters during their combat checks or on yourself while playing a weapon for your combat check, Brilliance, Eloquence and Sagacity are slightly less useful.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:
Balazar wrote:
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand (□ and you may draw a card) instead. You may banish a monster from your hand to draw a card (□ or add 1d4 to any check to defeat a barrier) (□ or to any check to acquire a weapon, an armor, or an item) (□ or move after an encounter) (□ or reroll your failed combat check).
This power you can use the 2nd sentence without having to defeat a monster right before. Bothers me there is no consistency in the wording.

The rules say "Each power on a card is presented as a complete paragraph. When a card has multiple powers, you must choose one of them, and you must do everything that power says when possible." So within a single power, you can't just pick and choose sentences to skip and sentences to execute.

There *is* an issue here, but it's not on Amiri, it's on Balazar: those two sentences should be separate powers.

Then Darago's 3rd power should also be 2 powers I assume? Wasn't that the power all -mancers have?


I still think it is odd that a caster cannot play this spell, Glibness and the like and the one from S&S that gave a character 1d6 for her checks and an attack spell but a weapon.
I think the weirdest situations ensue if you have to make a check or cannot play spells that have the attack trait. Those checks are basically in the same step as the check you want to play the spell for but apparently then you have the time to cramp incantations into the same step, since you are allowed to play a spell on each of those checks IIRC.
And I still don't see the mechanical reason when Adowyn can boost her Corrosive Dagger +1 with Agility but not Frigid Blast with Wisdom Sagacity.


Cheez wrote:
So after you display Leryn, then he stays displayed until you recharge another card. Even after your turn ends.

But you can't leave a cohort card displayed AFTER your turn ends, can you?! I swear I read in the rule book that you can't...otherwise your hand size practically went up one.

Ben

Actually you might find a very woderful spell that stays displayed for the rest of the scenario... or a barrier.

And Leryn never ever goes from being displayed to the discard pile. Leryn is not a spell that gets discarded at the end of your turn unless you manage to recharge him. He is a majestic wolf and he stays displayed unless you call him back to your hand or command him to support your Ranged check.
For the first few scenarios I was always afraid that something might interfere with my displayed cards but so far nothing did...


Fayries wrote:
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Yes but there's also been other discussions where I'm 99.9999% sure Mike or Vic said it's not as strict as your implying it is. It's poorly worded.

As far as I know:

Vic Wertz on Nov 13, 2014 wrote:

There are currently a number of things in discussion about summoning. They're pretty complicates, but I'd expect that rules entry to get an adjustment soonish.

In the meantime, yes, go ahead and let that summoned barrier summon a ship.

Which was resolved a month later with this FAQ.

Not sure where that discussion led to other than you're still advised to not let summoned cards summon cards.


jones314 wrote:
Calthaer wrote:
So really the only question is whether "you" is plural or singular. Man...we need different words for that in English.
You and y'all :)

I would like to tell you what the guys and girls at Ulisses Spiele made of it in German, but AFAIK they discontinued the Pathfinder Aberteuerkartenspiel after Unter Piraten and I guess they used the singular version in those powers.

I thought since there are powers (IIRC) that state "to allow a character to reduce damage before he acts". Would that mean anything different?


nondeskript wrote:

Look at it this way, though. Balazar has a power that says:

Quote:
When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may add it to your hand instead.

If the monster has a power that prevents it from being banished, it doesn't still go into Balazar's hand, because you would not banish it. It can only replace the "banish" with "add it to your hand" if the banish was going to happen in the first place. In the case of Rez, if something prevents burying, you don't get to activate her power because you would not bury it. You can not replace "bury" with "discard"/"recharge" unless you could have buried it in the first place.

What makes this read as a trigger is you would, but "when". In order for "When you would do something" to apply, it has to be legal to do the something and in this case doing the something is not legal, so this is not a time when you would do it.

Ok, ok, ok.

Let's rewind that.
Balazars power has two conditions or as you would like to call them triggers, which both have to be met:
1. He has to defeat the monster
2. It has to be banished afterwards... but that is not true

1. He has to actually defeat the monster
2. The monster is about to be banished afterwards

This is the logical differentiation which has to be made in these cases.
For example his power does not work on a monster that get's banished although he did not defeat it and does not work on monsters that would not be banished after he did defeat them, for example: Instead of banishing you might want to remove the basic/elite monster from the game then you have two conflicting "when you would banish" effects. But in the end only one can actually happen since the AP overruled his character card. Let's fo a second assume a similar power for a boon card (I think Ranzak had one) you would clearly see that there is a moment to decide if the card is removed or added to the hand. Let's call it a "would me moment" after which on thing or the other actually happens to the card.

Devastator's power forbids to actually bury the card and since you can't complete the requirement for it's power cou cannot benefit from the power.
At the table you might find that somebody says: "I would banish that armor, but that power tells me I can't" That is the moment when Raz' power kicks in. You would either decide to actually banish it and realize you can't or you would decide to recharge it for that power what you can do. Although Devastator's power seems to be proactively forbidding most of us deny the existance of such that possibility.

Another example is immunites: You would apparently assume an immunity would deny appropiate spells/items proactively... but then the Mythic Archmage would be far less effetive: It allows you to ignore a monsters immunity on an Intelligence or Charisma check (if you spend 1 or more mythic charges on the check).
If your argument would be correct, you could only use it to allow other cards with the trait or to add the trait to your check, but all cards that determine the skill you use would have to be played before the archmage power could overrule the monster's immmunity.

Maybe my group is playing that archmage wrong but we handle it as
"I would play that spell and since it would be an Arcane Intelligence check I could spend a charge to ignore the immunity against the spell."
and not "I cannot ignore the immunity since I cannot spend my mythic charge since I cannot make an Intelligence check since I cannot play the spell since the monster is immune to it."


Vic Wertz wrote:
Michael Klaus wrote:
Actually the Improvised Dinosaur is pretty close. Should it have the Animal trait like the Baby Triceratops, the Pterodactyl and the Veloceraptor had? On the other hand it has the Dinosaur trait which is completely new.
It should have the Animal trait, not the Dinosaur trait. Added to FAQ.

So yep, that Improved Dinosaur is Ekkie's Weapon of choice.

But now I am wondering is ther a Pathfinder module that has dinosaur riding barbarians?


Yes you are right that you have been wrong :P
I just wanted to add that these work on all powers that have you discarding the blessing; I think there is one with a power that requires you to bury the blessing instead


James McKendrew wrote:
So, if the Perm Close effect is "End your turn." and you put yourself in a position where resetting your hand will kill your character, you die, I guess.

That's a good question. I think I remember that normally after meeting the victory conditions you would not end your turn, right? But with this WPC effect it seems you have to.


Frencois wrote:
Vic said once in April 2014 and then we all understood the meaning of life wrote:
"Encounters happen where the characters are"
This means if somehow a character could encounter a monster at another location (Alahazra can do it for boons, maybe someone will be able to do it for banes one day), Confusion would allow someone else at the charcater's location (not at the monster's location) to encounter that monster (I predict fun collateral effects the day we will be able to have that).

As you already noted what Vic said, I would like to point out that Alahazra encounter card from another location deck, but at her location. I always think of it like she learns to not only look at the stuff but basically rips a whole in the fabric of reality and pulls it through.

For the Confusion:

The first power is limited to the character who plays the spell. Other evasion powers have wordings like "a character" or "a character at your location" which include you but do not exclude others.
Then the second power would most probably not list "your location" but "her location" or possibly say something like "you may encounter the monster instead". And for the thematic explanation part I would assume that the spell has some sort of divination, teleportation component.
(Now I wonder if there are divination items in the Oracle Deck that let you use "at your location" spells even if you are not at the location of the target.)


skizzerz wrote:
1. You do not need the paragraph on non-combat checks. A check is a non-combat check if it doesn't have Combat in the list of types. Or should we also add that all of the checks listed in the examples are non-Fortitude checks and non-Diplomacy checks, too? Combat isn't given any special treatment compared to other skills when determining the type of check.

Please say that again after you counted how any threads and individual posts in other threads hold the ralization that not all checks to defeat monsters are combat checks. The terminology of combat checks and non-combat checks suddenly(!) appears in a later step of the rules but it is very much appropiate to clear this even for the least intelligent customer up front before he/she decided to play a "For your combat check card".

I think this is one of the uttermost problems whose resolution is handed down orally.
skizzerz wrote:
2. Striking out "the check to defeat or check to acquire entry" is wrong. That choice is added as a check type. That is why you can have both a Dexterity and Wisdom check (e.g. if WotR Kyra is using her power against an Undead bane with a Dexterity check). Removing that sentence changes the game mechanics.

I did that purposefully since I realized that the upfront wording included not only check to acquire and checks to defeat but all checks, like checks to recharge a card or checks before an encounter. The listed skills there should also determine the type of the check, right? For example if Kyra was asked to make a Knowledge check to see if she can add 5 to her check to defeat the Demon, she can make a Knowledge, Divine, Wisdom check.

skizzerz wrote:
3. The rulebook is space-constrained. There is no room to add a page of explanatory text to further clear things up. Indeed, adding more text will probably just muddy the waters further -- it should be expressed in as few words as possible to keep the rules clear.

This is uttermost stupid. Space should be constrained based on necessity; not vice versa. Basically you could put a leaflet in the box that read "The rulebook is accessible at paizo.com"; the rulebook and the core mechanics need to be self-explanatory from the box without further consultation; a conscious decision against this is really bad customer service


Parody wrote:

I like S&S Alahazra so I was looking forward to the Oracle deck. After getting to mess with it last month at Con of the North, though, I was a bit disappointed. The two new characters just don't do anything for me, so I may end up passing on it.

The new term "invokes" got a mixed reaction after one of the other members of our regular group and I guessed its meaning. (In our minds "invoke" doesn't evoke its definition.) Something new to get used to.

Yeah I was wondering why you started to used invoking in the terminology on the cards while it is not used in any ruleset. It seems to be different from the typical "your check that has the X trait". Or will "invoking traits" rid us from "adding traits" which was really confusing ever since the rules differentiated used and added skills. That might be nice.


Mike Selinker wrote:

Well, in

rulebook, p. 11 wrote:
Each bane card has a section called Check to Defeat. This section indicates the skills that can be used in checks against the bane and the difficulty of the checks.

I guess we could change "indicates" to "defines," but it sure seems pretty clearly defined to me.

Mike

Whenever you say, Mike, it looks good to you I suspect that you are victim to something we call Systemblindheit. I'm alleging that it is harder for you, as the original designer, than anybody else to emphasize the POV of a person who is new to the game.

Of course everyone who was introduced to the game by somebody else, at a convention for example, or looks into the forums for help get's the game quickly, but the sheer number of threads concerning "can I play card X on check Y?" indicate that it is hard to grasp the concept if one simply grabs the game off the shelf and learned to play by the rulebook. But I think with a few tweaks the rulebook could deliver that.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Also, I want to caution you about quoting from the RotR rulebook, especially on this point. We've made a lot of clarifications regarding skills since then: the most current text would be the Wrath rulebook plus the Wrath FAQ.

Oh. I am really sorry. I wrote ROTR but actually all those quotes stem from the freshly downloaded Wrath rulebook.

I am not looking this up right now, but either you could notice in the part from page 12 (the part about skills should be new) or you did not change the quoted parts since ROTR which could explain why they do not properly engage with changed parts.

Vic Wertz wrote:
I don't know what you're referring to here. Can you be specific?

The whole paragraph on Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check beats around the bush of what the type of the check might be. I put differnt parts of the definition in italics:

Spoiler:
WOTR p.12f wrote:

Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check(Optional).

Players may now play cards or use powers that affect your check.
Players may not do things that modify a skill unless you’re using that
skill, and players may not do things that affect combat unless you’re
attempting a combat check.
Do not add traits from these cards to the
check; for example, playing the spell Aid on a check does not give
the check the Divine trait.
Some cards and powers affect only specific types of checks, such as
Dexterity checks, Acrobatics checks, or non-combat checks. If, on your
character card, the skill you’re using refers to another skill, both skills
count for the purpose of determining the type of check.
For example,
if you’re using the Arcane skill on a combat check, and your character
card says that your Arcane skill is Intelligence +2, the check counts as
both a combat Arcane check and a combat Intelligence check. Traits
also determine the type of check;
for example, if you’re attempting a
combat check and you played a weapon that added the Ranged trait,
it counts as a Ranged combat check.
Some cards may allow you to replace a specific die with a different
one. For example, the location Sacristy allows you to roll your Divine
die in place of the normal die for a check to acquire a boon—this
means you’ll replace the die (not the skill) you would normally use
with your Divine die (not your Divine skill).

While actually you already needed the definition in the preceding paragraph:
"WOTR p.12f wrote:

Some cards allow you to use a particular skill for a specific type of

check, or to use one skill instead of another.

My propostition would sound like:

Spoiler:
Quote:

Determine Which Skill You’re Using.

Cards that require a check either specify the skill or skills you can
use to attempt the check or list "combat" as an option. 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
listed skills to attempt your check. Even if your character doesn’t
have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the
check, but your die is a d4.
While all of these are considered non-combat checks (even if it listed
as the check to defeat on a monster card), you can attempt a combat
check by either using your Melee or Strength skill, or playing a card
or power that says "For your combat check."
Other cards and powers you might play at this point can allow you to
use a different skill. These generally say things like “Use your Strength
skill instead of your Diplomacy skill.” or "When you attempt a check
against a bane with the Undead trait you may use your Divine skill."
Few cards that can be used on checks don’t use any of your skills; they
instead specify the exact dice you need to roll or the result of your
die roll.
You may play only 1 such card or use only 1 such power to determine
which skill (or dice) you’re using and these gereally refer to certain
types of checks.
The type of the check is determined by the option you chose from the
check to defeat or check to acquire entry
the card or power that
required you to make the check and the traits of the check. The skill
you’re using for the check, and any skill referenced by that skill, are
added as traits to the check and if you play a card that determines
which skill you’re using, you also add it's traits to the check.
For example, if you attempt a non-combat Stealth check and your
character has the skill Stealth: Dexterity +2, you can use your Stealth
skill, you add both the Stealth and the Dexterity trait to your check
and your check is a non-combat Dexterity and Stealth check.
Or when you attempt a combat check and you reveal the weapon Heavy
Pick for your combat check, it allows you to use your Melee skill, it
adds the Pick, Melee, Piercing, and Basic traits to the check. Since
this leaves you with a really long type of the check, most of the
traits will mostly be listed as such: A combat Melee check with the
Basic, Pick and Piercing traits.
[If you replace a listed skill/WOTR Kyra power example]
Adding a trait that shares the name with a skill does not give you the
skill for example, playing the spell Dazzle adds the Arcane trait to
your check, but it does not give you the Arcane skill.)
If a power does not allow you to use a skill but adds a skill to the
check you that skill is not added as a trait to the check. For example,
a card that adds your Craft skill to your combat check does not add the
Craft trait to your check.

Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check (Optional).
Like cards and powers that dertermine the skill you use for your check
other cards and powers that can be played on your check often refer to
specific traits that your check has to have or it's type, others refer
to traits the card has to have that you are making the check against
and still others refer to certain types of cards that you or others
have already played on the check e.g. a weapon.
You add traits to your check if a power says so but do not add the
traits of the cards that are played in this step.
Remember that each player may not play more than 1 card of each type or
use any 1 power more than once during each check, other than cards that
can be used each time something particular happens.
Some cards may allow you to replace a specific die with a different
one. For example, the location Sacristy allows you to roll your Divine
die in place of the normal die for a check to acquire a boon—this means
you’ll replace the die (not the skill) you would normally use with your
Divine die (not your Divine skill).

Of course this is but a quick draft but it should put the different aspects into order instead of the current disorder of those two paragraphs.

To come back to Kyra's power in question: I am still lost why we now have combinations a like Dexterity, Divine, Wisdom check and apparently
Disable, Melee, Strength checks (combining an Obstacle/Lock with Mattock*) but Bombs were nerfed so we would not have combat Craft, Ranged checks; or the Canesword Pistol, I believe, that would have created combat Stealth checks?
Is it just because there are cards that let you automatically succeed at Craft and Stealth? Or is it because there should be a limit on what cards could be played on a single check?

Spoiler:
*First Barrier with the Obstacle trait that fell in my hands was Shopkeeper's Daughter; SD+Mattock=Wisdom, Strength check...


I could actually think of some characters who could have special powers that rely on the (additional) Dinosaur trait but I guess the card in question should still have the Animal trait unless it was a conscious decision for mechanical reasons... like a check should not have the Animal trait.

Oh I think I wrote Velociraptor wrong.


Actually the Improvised Dinosaur is pretty close. Should it have the Animal trait like the Baby Triceratops, the Pterodactyl and the Veloceraptor had? On the other hand it has the Dinosaur trait which is completely new.


I had a lot of Deja Vue moments in the last week so this must have been one of them.


Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Moloch1066 wrote:
But when does a check HAVE the Basic, Animal, or has a deck number less than the scenario?
Checks to acquire can HAVE those traits.

I was so confused how they should do that and then I read that you assumed that cards one plays add their trait to the check.

Only cards that determine the skill you use for a check add their traits to it. All others do not unless they specifically say otherwise.

That's why I do not remember a single card that adds the Animal trait to one's check.

Even Padrig is carefully written to not do that.

Oh and Bard and Frencois... are you too making up scenarios that summon other, "lower" scenarios?


Oh yeah thank you. That puts stuff into persperctive again.


Is Time Stop new in WOTR? I fell like I saw it before.


James McKendrew wrote:

This is why I rabidly grab <Gem> of <Skill> items. d4 Acrobatics? Kyra can have a d10 with her Pearl of Wisdom... Aowyn with her Emerald of Dexterity is doing even better...

But then, you need a way to get it off of the bottom of your deck for the OTHER six armies...

But Adowyn only needs a single combat check to reshuffle her deck. So you're playing with the CDs?

Hmm. Actually our group of Alain, Adowyn, Enora and Shardra made it through AD2 pretty fine.


Maybe the thread can be renamed "The PACG Rules and FAQ buttons / hyperlinks in the left hand side menu column" and moved to website feedback


Longshot11 wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

I don't shuffle the banished cards back in. I just put them at the bottom of the pile. And when I need to choose a random card, I just pick the one off the top. This is not perfectly according to rules, and it upsets my OCD less to not add a complicated step of repeated shuffling.

Same here. Everything else is absurd, considering the already considerable time sink for setup.

Bard's option is more 'correct', of course, but with the already pre-shuffled box deck I consider that things even out in the long run. So maybe I banish a Combat 12 monster and put it on the bottom - yeah, it won't come back for sure, but I can either draw a Combat 8 or Combat 18 monster next time. On the flip side, I could banish my Sword +1 to close a location, and I don't get a chance to draw it back from scenario reward or a chest barrier, but then I don't know if I'll pull out a Quarterstaff or Longsword +2... Time saving notwithstanding, this option gives more cards the opportunity to see the light of day (maybe 20% of AD6 cards never have the chance to turn up, in my experience) and overall keeps the things more exciting and unpredictable.

The sole exception to the above are Ships - due to their numbers, I always shuffle before drawing a random Ship.

They do not even out in the long run. The probability to redraw the same card in your system is not low. It is always zero. But it never should be. Of course you can houserule it as you like, but I wanted to point out that it can never "even out".


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
No, it is both.

Thank you for bringing that up. I wrote my sentiment over there. I hope you give it a whirl.

Well...
Rules As Written the type of check is either non-combat or combat + the skill you use + the referenced skill + all traits from the card that determined the skill you use + (again) + the skill you use + the referenced skill (this time as traits). Therefore you do not end up with two different "basic" skills. Perio-... or you play that version of Kyra which according to Vic breaks the rule.


I'm sorry if I'm coming off rude right now, but the trait/type problem is something I keep talking about since the middle of S&S and that is still completely unelegant in the rulebook. Please read this contribution until the end and take into account that I am not a native speaker.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
The rules intentionally don't require the phrase "for your combat check" to make their magic happen. Kyra's power is definitely doing what's described above.

Are you saying that we should take Kyra's power as "instead of"? I think since it is missing that phrase, I didn't take it that way. I assumed it would still count as the kind of check specified on the bane.

When a card says "For your combat check..." the check remains a combat check, while also becoming the skill specified by the card you played or power you used. Likewise, I'd read Kyra's power to be such that it still remained the check specified by the bane, but also became a Divine check.

What I'm saying is that her power is doing exactly the same thing that the phrase "for your combat check" does on weapons. It's not changing the type of check, but it is adding the skill you’re using for the check, and any skill referenced by that skill, as traits to the check. The text in the rulebook under "Determine Which Skill You’re Using" applies here.

So if it's a combat check, it's still a combat check—and it now also has the Divine, Wisdom, Attack, and Magic traits.

And if it's a Dexterity check, it's still a Dexterity check—and it now also has the Divine, Wisdom, Attack, and Magic traits.

You got to be kidding me Vic.

ROTR Rules p.12 wrote:

Some cards and powers affect only specific types of checks, such as

Dexterity checks, Acrobatics checks, or non-combat checks. If, on your
character card, the skill you’re using refers to another skill, both skills
count for the purpose of determining the type of check[...] Traits
also determine the type of check;

Therefore it is a Dexterity check and a Wisdom check at the very same time. I really thought that you tried to circumvent that with the whole "skills that are added to the check are not added as traits to the check" nonesense.

And for Irgy's question: By Vic's definition above you could not since both blessings refer to the type of the check not the traits of the check. But as the rules state that all traits influence the type, it is wrong to assume you could not play both (by 2 different characters of course) on the same check for 4 additional dice.

And of course you're all making an assumption here that is not in the rules (even Vic): The rules never say that the skill written on the card you encounter defines the type of the check. It only says which skill you can use when you attempt the check.

ROTR Rules p.11 wrote:

Each boon card has a section called Check to Acquire. This section

indicates the skills that can be used in checks to acquire the boon and
the difficulty of the checks.[...]
Each bane card has a section called Check to Defeat. This section
indicates the skills that can be used in checks against the bane and the
difficulty of the checks.

Only if you use it it then determines the type of the check. Of course if the card does not give you a skill but the type combat, it is dertermined as combat instead of the default non-combat type.

I know that Mike says that the "type" is not a mechanical term and therefore does not need definition but as cards refer to different types it clearly is a term and you accidentally gave the most awful definition inside a paragraph you labeled optional.

So a proper introduction of the TYPE OF A CHECK in the rulebook needs
1. to say clearly and not through the process of elimination that all checks using listed skills are non-combat checks.
2. say that the listed skill automatically becomes it's type if it should be after all.
3. to possibly drop the used skill, as the definition of the type respectively.
4. include referenced skills from your character card (if you followed step 2 and 3).
5. reevalutaion on whether or not skills need to be added as traits at all, since all cards that refer to that always speak of the skill as the type not the trait; or did you ever read of "your check that has the Strength trait?"

I think I will still "houserule" that you can only end up with one of the "basic" skills and one of the "secondary" skills in the type and which allow you to play cards on the check.
Therefore:

So if it lists a combat check, it's still a combat Divine, Wisdom check—and it now also has the Divine, (Wisdom,) Attack, and Magic traits.

And if it lists a (non-combat) Dexterity check, it's still a Dexterity non-combat Divine, Wisdom check—and it now also has the Divine, (Wisdom,) Attack, and Magic traits.


What Bard said. Just put the banished cards back in the box and shuffle whenever you draw a random. Well when I'm lazy I'm like "Did we even banish a monster since I last shuffled those?" Because then it is still shuffled...
Why would anybody shuffle in every single card?

Oh put it back unless it is Basic or Elite and you started to remove those.

I remember that in the VERY early days of ROTRL somebody wrote he had several scenarios prebuild in his box. Vic got kind of angry about that. It was part of the discussion about sleeving.
I played the base scenario of ROTRL like 8 to 9 times and the full AP thrice so I can tell you a bit about sleeving and shuffling.
But I think it was in a run of S&S that we drew the same random monster 5 or 6 times in a scenario and finally realized that the third copy was at the bottom of the last location. But that's the way it's intended.


elcoderdude wrote:
Michael Klaus wrote:
Basically a check can only have one of the six basic skills as a trait/type.
That's almost always true, but it's not a rule. Say WotR Kyra is facing a barrier with the Demon trait that has a Dexterity check to defeat. She can use her Divine skill for this check by recharging a card. This is both a Dexterity check and a Wisdom check.

Only the skill she uses is added as a trait to the check. It is only a Wisdom check but no Dexterity check.

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>