Nymisis's page

Nymisis, Runelords' die vs skill is one exception to the standard of using the current rules and definitions. They aren't going to go through Runelords and errata every single card that needs to have die / skill, that's a single detail that applies to numerous cards, so you just state once that you don't use the current rules for that.

They've done errata for much less. When that one place isn't the rules and is buried in a blog somewhere then I reiterate that its confusing.

As skizzerz says, Sajan has RotR wording while the questions in this thread were site about S&S. See this blog post for info on what changed and why.

And we're always told to refer to the most recent version of the most recent set's rules, not the rules of the set from which the card originates. Cards are not supposed to be set specific. What if you're playing Sajan in S&S? He's pretty much broken under the current rules with his existing wording. Quoting the blog to which you referred...

We've also made a number of less obvious changes to the rulebook—reorganizing things and rewriting things—that make it clearer and easier to use than the Rise of the Runelords rulebook. We recommend that you use it as your main rules reference even if you're still playing Rise of the Runelords—just ignore all that stuff about ships.

I get what the blog is saying, but at the same time it is very confusing when this decision is diametrically opposite to the ruling that was made on Sajan in the first place.

She did cheat (though obviously not intentionally), but not for any of the reasons you mention. The Ruby of Charisma won't give her check the Magic trait. Only cards played to "Determine which skill you're using" give the card's traits to the check. And the Ruby of Charisma doesn't get played then. It get played during "Play cards and use powers that affect the check." "Why?", you may ask. Because the Ruby doesn't determine which skill you are using. Before and after you play the Ruby, you are using Divine. The Ruby lets you change the die, but not the skill.

As for your direct questions:

1. I guess so. There are characters that can have Magic on their Charisma check or Divine check. Kyra and Seelah for example have powers to that add the Magic trait to checks. I look at making a simple Divine check as using your knowledge of the Divine, which isn't itself infused with Magic.

2. I'm not sure. I think it says "instead of the normal die". So is using the normal die instead of the normal die really using something instead of the normal die? But regardless, given the trait thing, the question seems moot. (Or than again, I guess it could be a strategy to prevent taking more damage on a check you know you will fail by recharging the card.)

3. Yes. A skill is a skill. So you can sub a die for your "normal" Divine, Melee, Ranged, Acrobatics, Knowledge, etc. skill. And if you don't have the listed skill, then your normal is a d4.

4. Yes (assuming I'm reading this correct). If you used a Ruby of Charisma for Alahazra's strength check and for some reason she has put a +1 skill feat in Strength, you would get that +1 from her Strength skill feat. You would not get any Charisma skill feats. You change the die during "Play cards..." but you add the skill feats during "Attempt the roll". At that point, all that matters is whether the skill feat applies to your check. And since you attempted that type of check, you...

This is contradictory to what has been ruled regarding Sajan and his power to use his dexterity die for combat. It's been specifically ruled that he not only gets whatever pluses that have been unlocked for Dex but that Erastil not Gorum gives him 2 dice. By this logic, Sajan should have been FAQed to read dexterity skill not dexterity die.

Aazen wrote:

Hoping this has multiplayer. That was the only disappointing thing about Sentinels of the Multiverse.

Nathan Davis wrote:

For those of you studying this screenshot, the page also has toggles for pass-and-play and permanent death.

Looks like they are planning for multiplayer, though not necessarily multi-device. Pass-and-play doesn't mean there won't be an option for multiple devices though.

They have confirmed no online multiplayer, which I feel is a seriously bone-headed move.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Just want to inquire about plans to remove the recharge box and to add ship (and I guess also Fleet) cards to the package. Thanks!

Just checking back to see if there is any word on this yet. Thanks.

Cohort also.

Also, it seems that Kyra is a huge asset in this scenario. Since you have no time limit, she can pretty much infinitely heal characters. This is allowed RAW I believe, so I wonder what Mike and team have to say about it.

As a card is being buried every turn, Kyra isn't nearly the asset you think she is.

They are simply very literal in their wording. If there is some effect later that triggers when cards are buried, they want to make sure that doesn't happen when someone dies. Also, there may be powers later that allow the un-burying (exhuming, perhaps?) of cards...and they want no confusion that that may be able to affect cards placed under the character card after death.

But, yeah, currently there is no way to raise a dead hero. It was nice of Lini to try, though. :)

There is actually a raise dead spell though I'm not sure which adventure in which it is included. I got to see it when playing with Mike at bgg.con.

There are quite a few lock/obstacle barriers that don't have a strength option at all: Falling Bell, Shopkeepers Daughter, Circles of Binding, Collapsed Ceiling.

Hence the reason for the question. I feel as though the intent behind the mattock is to allow strength/melee to be used instead of the normal check on those barriers. If they already have a strength check it doesn't make sense (to me) that you can pick and choose which difficulty you will attempt just because you're using the mattock. The way we've been playing it is that if the barrier already has a strength check then you can use the mattock to add a die to that check otherwise you can recharge it to make the check strength/melee instead. As some of our group also feels like it should be used in the manner which you suggest, I decided to ask for clarification.

I used Ultra Pro clear sleeves on mine.

My game store helped me chose the correct sleeve size. They cost $5.00 per hundred.
They are just slightly wider and taller than the cards, by maybe a milimeter, and still fit into the slots in the box.
They do not cause cards to bend and fold like I saw some of NOG's doing.

UltraPro's penny sleeves work just as well and only cost $.99 per hundred.

This came up in a recent play through.

The mattock lets you recharge to use Strength or Melee in place of the normal skill in a check to defeat a barrier with the lock or obstacle trait. What is the "normal check" in this instance? I ask because many lock/obstacle type barriers have a strength/melee option already. Take locked passage as an example: Dexterity/Disable 8 OR Strength/Melee 16. Would recharging the mattock allow you to attempt to defeat the barrier using strength/melee with a difficulty of 8 or since it already as a strength/melee difficulty would it merely be good for the reveal power?

They're different. See the first word of each armor's power.

Oh wow... huge difference. Can't believe I never noticed that.

Is it intentional that elven chain and magic leather armor are identical? Especially considering that elven chain is more rare and more difficult to acquire I would expect it to be better than(or at least in some way different from) magic leather armor.

If I'm duplicating, I apologize but nothing came up in the search.

What is the point in the finesse trait? Is this just something that's there for future use? I would have guessed that with finesse weapons you could use Dex instead of Str for your combat check, but I can't find any mention of finesse in the rules and none of the weapons with the trait address it.

hfm wrote:

I suppose if you wanted a challenge you could randomly pick your initial deck build too, sort of like rolling it.

Ooh... I like this... :)

Would probably need *some* parameters on it, though (e.g. Lini needs animals, characters without proficiency probably want weapons they can wield without penalty) but it should stop people complaining about the game being too easy!

I have to disagree. It's funny that Jaunt specifically refers to it as " rifling through it like a storefront." Where do you think the item(s) come from? The whole reason that there are basic, non-basic, and elite items is so you have specific items you can readily pick up from a local store. If you start pulling items at random then yes you could end up with something completely useless, or you could pull an elite magic item. Pulling a random boon is often a scenario reward. It certainly shouldn't be used to flesh out a deck that has been depleted. That makes the game easier not harder.

I just got started on my scans and I'm finding that I either have to scan one card at a time (which will take forever) or they end up askew more often than not. How is everyone else dealing with the actual scanning as to keep the cards square?

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gk#v5748eaic9ral

Ah, I see it finally. " Players may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps." Thanks.

I do agree that it seems odd that Pharasma should count with Guidance or Strength though.

You cannot play cure during an encounter. When you encounter a card, only cards and powers that affect each step or check of the encounter may be played.

Where is that specified? I have yet to be able to find anything that says when a cure can be played other than it can't be played to prevent damage because that isn't what it does.

While the explanation in the FAQ leaves little room for doubt:

"No—the spell must be played as part of the current check for Blessing of Pharasma to add 2 dice."

The resolution leaves room for abuse in my opinion:

On the blessing Blessing of Pharasma, in the second power, replace "to add 2 dice to a check when playing a spell" with "to add 2 dice to a check if a spell was played during that check." (Note: This card also appears in the Character Add-On Deck.)

So character A encounters a monster that threatens to stomp him into oblivion and his draw pile is woefully short. Character B at his location decides to toss a cure his way to bolster up his deck. (The timing on this has always seemed a little odd to me but I've found nothing to indicate it isn't legal). Character A then plays a Blessing of Pharasma to add 2 dice to the check since a spell was played during the check. Obviously this isn't the intent as the explanation specifies that a spell must be played as a part of the current check and this certainly wouldn't apply but using the suggested wording it could certainly be argued could it not?