Orbis Orboros's page

Organized Play Member. 1,157 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Reading Talitha I thought I finally found a use for Consecration. Then I saw she doesn't have Divine. Then I saw that Consecration doesn't care about divine. Finally, I realized that, because it always banishes itself, I'll probably never find a satisfactory use for it.*

It was quite the roller-coaster.

*This is probably good given the alternative, a playable and reusable Consecration, would be absurdly strong

PS Several of the picture links are broken, either leading to the wrong one or an error

isaic16 wrote:
I'm curious, is Surgeon in the same position as the Staff? And if not, what's the difference that makes it more acceptable?

My guess is that the surgeon's opportunity cost is higher. There aren't many twitch tonic equivalents out there, but pretty much every ally can explore. By taking the surgeon, you're playing slower / less aggressively and having the surgeon replace one of its ideal targets.

Unless you use it to explore. Which sends it to the discard. I think I have literally never explored with it.

All that being said, the surgeon shuffles (the staff doesn't), which can be a huge benefit.

Longshot11 wrote:
We're always super-amazed reading how some players are ecstatic about a card that we find next to useless (yes, SoMH is one; the other that comes to mind is Restoration).

I'm surprised you don't like either; from what I've seen, most people who don't like restoration dislike it for reasons that cause the staff to have extra appeal to them. They are honestly opposites in a lot of ways.

The staff is so good I can't help but wonder what circumstances could cause you to see it as bad. Particularly if you're not a fan of drawing cards.

Frencois wrote:

Hi Orbis. Actually I wouldn't IMHO (since doing that would actually just be just deleting the staff requirement altogether).

What staff requirement? That's how I see it. There's nothing that says you have to put a staff in the deck. You just would rule that it would mean you can't draw a starting hand where I would rule differently, but there's no "staff requirement"

I personally would rule it like a character with favorite card type: none.

Doppelschwert wrote:


Besides, the golem can easily be banished, there is no need to screw up. Imagine the golem is displayed while you don't have mythic charges, and you defeat a mythic henchman / villain.
If you close the location after the fight, you are left at an empty location, have a mythic charge on you and the golem is unavoidable banished, since there is no way to play him (unless you are somehow able to move or generate damage on yourself).
I don't think the intent is to give you the decision between closing the location or losing your golem permanently and make the manuals useless?

I disagree. Aside from the normal screw up ways to banish boons, this is exactly the screw up I envision. The way you should use the golem if you never want to banish it is to wait until you're ready to explore, then display and discard it.

However, should you desire to use its armor ability, you can display it early and gamble that you'll use it by the end of the turn, but if you're wrong, you lose the golem.

The Golem only gets banished if you screw up. Making a card useless for the campaign because you screwed up seems fine to me.

isaic16 wrote:


you can just state in the rule book that 'the villain's location is never temporarily closed'.

This creates problems with locations like the Abyssal Rift (can only be temp closed) and doesn't fix the problem of the Middle of Nowhere (always permanently closed)

Any updates or new thoughts on this?

Odd indeed.

I don't know that I'd play an AP 5 ally that let me recharge any number of cards at all, even during an encounter, in most builds. Seems more like an AP 1-2 to me.

Actually I saw Tup, but he has a pattern of skipping. Reta, however, only skips once between all card faces. Considering there was also once a character with a typo on their number of some card (Ezren I think?) I felt the need to ask.

Rita's hand size feats on her Runaway Bride role go directly from [ ]7 to []9, skipping 8. Is this a typo?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it helps, look at the cards literally. Both the average attack spell and the average weapon say "for your combat check, you can use your..." which is providing you with an extra option in addition to the default strength or melee. Even if you could play both, it would not matter - playing them only adds to the list of skills you can roll in combat and you can only choose one.

In order for them to be able to be played simultaneously, at least one of them needs to add to the check instead of just provide an alternative.

If Lini has a dagger and an Inflict in her hand, then her options for combat are
-Her d4 strength
-Her d4 melee
-Her d6 dex & d4
-Her d10+2 Divine & d6
These are the only things that can be used for her combat check. It's also the only thing those cards do (relevant to the discussion), nothing more: they provide more choices for the combat check.

Again, in order to play something else as well, you're looking for the word "add." Check out the second power on the dagger for an example of this.

I hope that helps. If not, you can just fall back on the rule, "only one power that determines the combat check," but I find that understanding the why helps with future questions, which is why I went so long-winded.

TL;DR no, like those above said

What is going on thematically with them losing the outsider trait? They're in their home realm, so they can't be banished?

Mark Gonzalez wrote:
"When a character plays a blessing on your combat strength check, that character may recharge ([] that blessing or) a random card from her discard pile." Dose this count for the player playing oloch as well or not?

If they wanted to exclude the Oloch player, they would have said "another character."

I have the Witch Class Deck, and can offer you a tidbit I'm sure you'll appreciate:

Every single cohort in the Witch Class Deck grants the Arcane skill, and one of them also grants the Divine skill. Also, there are like 8 of them.

I saw this the other day and was surprised, since every other card (I've seen) that draws 2 cards does this.

Like the Mastiff, shouldn't the Imp follow Restoration's example and display until the end of turn to draw 2 cards? At least one character* in the game can recharge Imps instead of discarding them, creating potential infinites.

*Reta (Runaway Bride)

elcoderdude wrote:

I think this exploit is serious, and I'm surprised not to see more concern about it. Especially since the cards required are so low-level.

The examples given of Lini and Ezren don't seem to address the point. Lini is slowed down by combats, and Ezren relies on the location decks having magic boons he can acquire. This Alahazra exploit is fully under the control of the player and can be used in every scenario, starting in early scenarios.

One correction - not early scenarios; the exploitable power is on a role card, so not until AP4

Calthaer wrote:


It is optional, but acquiring boons is just so fun, why wouldn't you do it whenever you can?

I've been known to pass even on discard-to-explore allies if they didn't fit my strategy in some of my more streamlined decks. XD

But seriously, if you're likely to be healed a lot, it stinks to acquire something that you have a hard time playing (like something that helps acrobatics checks) when it will eventually be something that you draw instead of a card you want.

ryric wrote:

I'm not sure this build is actually a problem...yes, in an ideal circumstance you sweep through a location in one turn. But until you get a method of shuffling, you could be stymied by a bane that you can't defeat sitting on top. Even if you use this to sort to the henchman/villain, you may not be able to close the location either.

Remember you will have dumped your own blessings to set up the engine, and the other players have limited cards to help on your "superturn."

Basically, I think this is a strong build but I'm not sure it's broken in actual play.

The build is based on the premise that you have some way to shuffle, just like the Radillo exploit. Even if we narrow this down to just Augury, that still leaves any game with Augury as a problem. I don't think it's right to say, "not every adventure path has Augury, so this isn't a problem."

With the ability to auto recharge Augury, the "super turn" easily becomes "examine your location deck, and encounter all blessings and boons with the magic trait. You can then enter your move step, move to another location, and do the same thing."

Healing aside, your deck will naturally approach this stage over the course of a scenario if your deck is built to capitalize on Alahazra's extra scouting power. I discovered it while considering roles because my deck was already built in such a way that it would reach this build naturally (I was already cramming it with recharge to examine cards). I think it's completely plausible that a player could accidentally fall into the infinite loop, or near to it, before they realize it; then they have to decide whether to handicap themselves or not. "Hmm, I'll only play TEN spells this turn. Any more is too much."

I honestly think this is worse than the Restoration exploit, not because it's more powerful, but because I think it will happen at some point for half the CD Alahazra players.

So after spending some time thinking hard on the matter, I still don't have any good ideas. Things I've considered:

([ ] Then you may discard a card to draw 2 cards)

This keeps the power functionally the same; if you play a card to examine a deck, you don't net a loss in hand cards, and if you examine without playing a card, you net a +1 to hand. However, provided there's never a card that heals and examines or let's you draw a card, Alahazra can only activate this power so many times before it kills her. This makes her substantially more fragile however, and gives her unprecedented levels of digging through a character deck. It's very aggressive but very powerful, even without the infinite loop.

([ ] And you may draw a card at the end of the turn) {Or similar}

This is a huge nerf to her, and is pretty much just +1 hand size

([ ] Then you may draw a random card from your discard pile)

This seems like it would work except that it just makes it so you go infinite not when your deck is low, but when your discard is empty. For example, infinite Augury's and Detect Magics by declining the recharge when your discard is empty. Also you heal yourself by playing lots of recharge examines. This is actually worse the more I think about it.

([ ] Then you may {do something other than draw, like heal a card} )

This seems like the least broken fix, but it's a completely different power, so...

skizzerz wrote:

Indeed, welcome back Orbis!

I was going to hold off on commenting until I got home so I can check out how doable this is with only Oracle CD cards, but my opinion is that if a CD character would be broken in a home game (aka where you aren't limited to just cards in the CD), then that's bad too. If they're broken in a way that requires cooperation between multiple players though, that's more fine -- if the group does exploit it, then it means the group as a whole likely finds that kind of activity fun so there's less of a reason to block it. It's when a solo character can apply an amount of cheese that makes other players not like it very much that I take issue with it.

Cooperation is not necessary.

zeroth_hour2 wrote:


Tanis' blog for the Oracle class deck talked about the lack of Augury.

I too agree with Hawkmoon - you're a valuable member of the community :)

I'll have to read that.

You guys sure know how to make a guy feel appreciated :D

Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

Relevant to this discussion: Oracle class deck does have Wolf and Lookout, both of which allow scouts. It's entirely possible for CD Alahazra to get half her deck as scouts.

That said, I've had very few opportunities where things like clockwork butterfly and detect magic have really worked in my favor in SotRu. Most of these scouts don't actually give an explore.

It's very easy. I'm about to start a game with her in S&S, and all my allies and items recharge to examine, and I have 3 detect magics, for a starting deck of 8/15 recharge to examines (not for this exploit, I anticipate that getting fixed, but because it sounds fun as I can still combat with her power).

But Detect Magic and CW Butterfly will let you encounter if you do it right - like by examining the deck to determine when to play them. It's perfectly acceptable before the exploit, but once that gets going it's infinite potential encounters at a location.

zeroth_hour2 wrote:

That's not going to work in Mummy's Mask. You may be in for a surprise if you try it.

Also, the Oracle class deck doesn't have an Augury in it.

Why, banes that do something when you examine them? And it not being a problem in MM doesn't make it okay.

No it doesn't, which really surprised me. It does have a scrying. And it's not like it's hard to find some way to shuffle a location deck.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Listen. You can't disappear from the forums for a while, pop back in because of how cool the Goblin Class Decks are, then go all "Restoration" on a character. It just isn't proper.


But for real, glad to see you posting again. Don't disappear for so long again.

You're going to make me blush

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alahazra (Wandering Prophet) has a power that lets you draw a card whenever you examine a character or location deck. Given the high number of cards that recharge to allow a peek at a deck and cards like the detect spells, this allows for easy cycling through Alahazra's deck multiple times in one turn to remove all of x card type from a location deck.

Take, for instance, the following Alahazra deck:
-5 blessings (any type, but particularly nasty if they're Nethys)
-Clockwork Butterfly*
-Any third ally, potentially another recharge to examine
-Seer's Headdress*
-Scrying Mirror*
-Detect Magic*
-Detect Demon*
-2 other spells, potentially also examining location decks and recharging

The cards marked with an asterisk all recharge and allow you to examine a location deck. Most are basic. With this deck, once you can auto recharge Augury (divine 8, and you could use a cat or mythic path or something), then playing any asterisk card immediately replaces itself. Potentially, and without undo difficulty, you're deck consists of nothing but asterisk cards and blessings. You then have to play out all your non examine cards, which you will draw a full hand of immediately by playing examine cards, at once you're clear of the cards that don't examine you can infinitely loop through your deck. As you do, Detect Magic and Clockwork Butterfly allow you to encounter all Blessings, Allies, and magic trait boons at your location, and Detect Demon lets you encounter demons, if you want. Augury provides any shuffling needed.

As to those who think this setup is unlikely, remember that most of the cards are basic, and a lot of them are even in the Oracle Class Deck. Furthermore, Alahazra's ability to examine extra cards encourages building this exact type of deck.

I'm seeing the Radillo problem here, although slightly less powerful because you can't throw in a Teleport. I don't have any pretty solutions yet, though.


I should have guessed seeing as Orbis is Latin XD

Lol, WTH is "urbis?"

Also, if the villain (or any bane) has more than one check to defeat (usually denoted by two numbers separated by the word "then," not "or") characters at the same location can attempt any number of these checks as long as the encounter-er performs at least one of them.

For example, Ezren and Harsk are both at the Collapsing Bridge when Ezren encounters the villain, who has the checks to defeat [combat 45] then [combat 55] then [combat 65]. Unfortunately, Ezren only has one combat spell in hand. So Harsk agrees to handle two of the checks with his weapon while Ezren performs the third.

Frencois wrote:
WotR page 10 wrote:
A deck is a deck, a hand is a hand, and a pile is a pile whether or not it has cards.
So there is always a location deck whether or not the location is open/closed and whether or not there are cards in that "deck".

Ah, thanks. I missed that one way or another, probably because I tend to just read the new mechanics sections of each new rulebook.

elcoderdude wrote:
Orbis! Holy cow, where have you been? Good to see you on the boards.

Well, I had no play group for the longest time, and that took most of the fun and interest out of posting here. I still stop by from time to time. Glad to hear I was missed :)

Zibini has a power on her The Great role that lets you shuffle a revealed card into another deck of the same type. My question: what qualifies as a deck?

I'm specifically concerned with the interaction between her and closed/empty locations.

Can she "shuffle" the card into:
-An open location with no remaining cards
-A closed location with no remaining cards
-A closed location that still has cards

(The third option seems pretty clear that she can, but if she can't do the other 2 then she gets a weird power boost during scenarios with locations like the General Store so I wanted to ask)

"Return to the box" or any other replacement for banish would cause problems for characters that say "when you play or would banish... You gain [arcane/divine]." Mogmurch for example.

Andrew L Klein wrote:

I definitely wouldn't take it before Adventure 2, maybe even 3. The "or bury" and "1d6" feats are much better early game in my opinion.

Maybe my third feat instead of armor proficicency, but I know you'll disagree with me on that with your deep, deep love for armor ;)

What? Armor proficiency? On a character that can evade her encounters? you've lost me... XD

That's what I figured. :/

I just wanted to make sure others arrived at the same conclusion.

Hijacking the thread:
Anyone know about when she has a power feat to include the bit about the adventure deck number and trying to apply that to weapons?

Say she took that feat, and uses a, say, (non-basic) Heavy Crossbow from the B set to fight a monster (that doesn't trigger her ability by itself) during an AP 1 scenario. Does she get the d4?

Weapons used to determine your combat check add their traits (like Basic), but would they also add their adventure deck number?

As far as I can tell, she doesn't get the d4, but I feel like she should. Otherwise she's incentivized to use Basic weapons for a very long time, even when she takes feats that make her d4 power apply more often.

EDIT: the rule text:
"For your check that has or is against a card that has the animal or basic trait ([]or has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario), add 1d4 to your check."

Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
I would only play it if I planned to operate in a support role. Recharging (best case scenario) two cards to draw one is a terrible reason to include a card in your deck. Allowing a friend to recharge a card to draw a card is worth considering for some builds, however.

Apologies for misconstruing your views, I just had to do something to conjure you.

And I would agree that the card works better in a supporting role.

No, you weren't too far off the mark, anything that lets you draw catches my eye. I actually like the post.

I haven't been able to get a game in for months, though. So I just stop by every now and then.

Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Thinking of Fruit of Life as a support spell, where you help someone else cycle their deck, makes me like it a lot. Especially on someone like Manzar or Alahazra or CD Kyra (I know---druids only) who can use cards with the divine trait for another purpose. But, then, I've been liking support lately.

I would be tempted to play it on a bard or similar; traditionally supporty to begin with, and with a way to recharge it for something else if desired. Alahazra was a good idea.

I would only play it if I planned to operate in a support role. Recharging (best case scenario) two cards to draw one is a terrible reason to include a card in your deck. Allowing a friend to recharge a card to draw a card is worth considering for some builds, however.

Joshua Birk 898 wrote:
skizzerz wrote:
Keith Richmond wrote:
Thinking of it from the RPG side instead of card side for a second - let's say that it heals you for _1_ hp, and also makes you feel healthy and full like you ate a full day's worth of food. That definitely makes you feel better, but in card terms that 1 hp is so small it's rounded down in terms of the discard pile. That said, your hand likely improved, so that's feeling a bit healthier :)
So it's basically a sucky goodberry? The card seems mediocre at best to me, and I can't see why it merits a slot in AD2 given that. The best use for it I can think of is a case where you both need the top card of your deck and have a crap card in hand you want to get rid of. The card to me seems like a very situational pick, not applicable in the majority of situations. If I did pick it, I'd likely use it almost immediately just to get it out of my hand so I can hopefully draw something more useful.
Deck cycling is incredibly useful. If Orbis still haunted these forums he would be drooling about this card.

"Drooling" is a little strong. I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, though.

Now, excuse me.


zeroth_hour wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "support". WotR Kyra's deck has few enough attack spells that she gets very annoyed - after Holy Light (admittedly closer to a 2 in power level than a B) her next Attack spell is a 5! Her Strength is so low (and unenhanceable) that it's fairly unreliable in terms of Fighting capability.

The Sorcerer class deck doesn't have any Acid spells, so Elemental Master Seoni is sad that she only gets to play with 3 of the 4 elements (although she does have a Power Feat to take care of that).

The Bard deck doesn't have Blessing of Shelyn in them, so RotR Lem can't use that power without bumping into those Blessings during a game.

Yeah, but being one of the characters in the class deck puts you no better off. look at poor Zarlova.

Dave Riley wrote:
RIP Red Lettuce.

This is the first step to making coleslaw

Personally, I don't really care about who they are, I care about what they do. The crunch is what's important to me, not the fluff.

...Well, I say that, but I think that Razz and the Goblins are just awesome, so there's that. Which I guess means I'm slightly in favor of newer characters so I can see more cool stuff like Razz. But it still takes a backseat to the skills, powers, and decklists on the cards (and Cohorts! I LOVE character-specific Cohorts).

My number of sets grow with each adventure path...

Andrew L Klein wrote:
Orbis, the power your using has to affect the check. Cure's power doesn't affect the check in any way. Merchant or Merchant Lord, on the other hand, does, because the power is specifically to modify the contents of a player's hand. Your example power wouldn't be a concern.

Which post are you responding to?

Assuming it's my last one: where in the sidebar does it say that the card's power has to affect the check, as opposed to the playing of the card affecting the check?

"In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards ... that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation."

Vic Wertz wrote:

We're considering this new rules sidebar (so it also applies to other cases where restrictions apply, such as damage prevention):

Rules: Affecting the Situation
In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the check. For example, let's say that a character is attempting a check using a power that adds 1 to her check for each blessing in her hand, and a second character has a power allowing him to give the first character a card. He could give her a blessing, because that doesn't require any other action to affect the check. But he could not give her a card that allows her to draw a blessing from the box, because she would have to do something else—in this case, play that card—to affect the check.

So, Vic, a thing occurs to me about this proposed sidebar.

You can't really ever create a character that adds to checks based on the number of cards in their hand if you implement it.

If a character got +6 to checks with no cards in their hand, and one less for each other card in their hand, they can now play any card during an encounter provided it leaves their hand.

Therefore I would suggest that a character that adds 1 to their checks for each card in their hand can play any card that leaves their hand because it affects the check (makes the check harder). There are some checks you want to fail, after all; having minuses to your checks can be beneficial once in a while.

Therefore a character that gets +1 to their checks for each spell in their hand can play any spell during a check, provided it leaves their hand.

I don't know how big a deal this is to you, if its one at all, but I thought I'd mention it.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Balazar sort of has that same risk/reward that Cure does (assuming he now can't use his power to get a monster during the check). You've got a spell you like, but you are also sort of wishing you had another monster in hand for Padrig. Do you ditch the spell for a monster for a "safer" exploration or do you hold on to the spell for the utility it offers?

Though, I wouldn't say Balazar is quite at the level of playing during a check. And if it was tweaked to let you due it, I wouldn't call it earth shattering.

As a fun exercise, can anyone think of a short phrase that could go on powers to indicate that, even though they don't affect the check, they can be played during a check? I've thought of:

Even during a check, ...
During a check or not, ...
At any time, ...

So, for instance, Balazar could hypothetically become:

You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box, even during a check.


At any time, you may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box.

Something like that.

Perhaps the inverse of Resto cards? "You can play this ability during an encounter?" "At any time" is more elegant, though.

Mogloth wrote:

I realize I misread rules a lot of times. But, why is it bad letting Balazar discard a spell during an encounter to grab a monster? And let me add the other options that people are talking about. The Merchant and Cure and whatnot.

WHY are they all bad? And don't just throw the rules at me. What some may call a slippery slope, others may call incredible teamwork.

The classic example, to me, of why you can't do this is Cure.

Hypothetical, but common situation: you have cure in your hand, which can heal up to 5 cards, but only 3 or 4 cards in your discard pile. You're about to discard a blessing to explore. Do you play Cure now, wasting some of it's potential healing, or discard the blessing and then play Cure? If you explore and encounter something that wipes your hand, then you don't get to play Cure at all - you gambled and, in your greed, lost. If you could play anything during an encounter, then there would be no risk here. You always explore, and then play Cure when you're about to get hand wiped.

Balazar's situation is just an unfortunate, but logical, extension of that rule.


Although I will voice that I am going to be implementing a house rule (something that I typically abhor) to allow him to do so, because that's how we've played him thus far.


EDIT: Oh, and the merchant is a card you play that lets you give one of the cards in your hand to another player at your location outside of the "Give a Card" step.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shia LeBouf

Display this card at the start of your turn (this is not optional).

While this card is displayed, you automatically fail checks to acquire cards with the nostalgia trait.

You MUST explore every turn.

"Just DO it!"

Vic Wertz wrote:
Melemkor wrote:

Ah, I was trying to sort this out myself... I would have guessed that a card like that (assuming it doesn't exist already, and I'm just forgetting) would have text like the recharge checks: "If you do not have the Divine skill, banish this card."

But, I obviously have far less insight into what all possibilities have to be watched out for :)

But what if we have a power we want to apply to you?

Test of Faith
Intelligence Divine 16

Illustration: A panoply of bejeweled golden drinking cups, with one ordinary-looking wooden cup barely noticeable among them.

Before you act, succeed at a Divine 20 check or you may not play Blessings on the check to defeat. If you do not have the Divine skill, you automatically fail this check.

If defeated, recharge all the blessings in your discard pile. If undefeated, you die.

This example, though.

You have chosen... wisely.

Yeah, that sounds unwise unless you're using class decks & OP rules, which are specifically balanced with that in mind.

Frencois wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Keith Richmond wrote:

The question you should really be asking yourself:

Why aren't we worried about you guys gaming the system to maximize out your skill bonuses?

The question I'm actually asking myself is:

Should I be worried since I don't farm and they're not worried about farming?

The question I'm actually asking myself is:

Should I be worried since I usually play exactly like Orbis?

I honestly can't tell if this is facetious or not.

Keith Richmond wrote:

The question you should really be asking yourself:

Why aren't we worried about you guys gaming the system to maximize out your skill bonuses?

The question I'm actually asking myself is:

Should I be worried since I don't farm and they're not worried about farming?

MightyJim wrote:

Sample character with hand size of N+1, where N is the number of cards in your deck.

At the end start of your turn the game, you die.


1 to 50 of 1,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>