Vic Wertz wrote:
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.
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.*
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.
So the FAQ/hotfix says:
*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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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:
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.
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.
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?
I believe that you are referring to the following excerpts from p.12 of the rules:
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
This is the logical differentiation which has to be made in these cases.
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.
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).
Maybe my group is playing that archmage wrong but we handle it as
Vic Wertz wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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:While actually you already needed the definition in the preceding paragraph:
WOTR p.12f wrote:
"WOTR p.12f wrote:
My propostition would sound like:
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
*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.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
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?
James McKendrew wrote:
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.
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".
No, it is both.
Thank you for bringing that up. I wrote my sentiment over there. I hope you give it a whirl.
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:
You got to be kidding me Vic.
ROTR Rules p.12 wrote:
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:
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
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.
So if it lists a combat check, it's
And if it lists a (non-combat) Dexterity check, it's
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...
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.
Only the skill she uses is added as a trait to the check. It is only a Wisdom check but no Dexterity check.