Proto Persona's page

30 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Fenris235 wrote:

That´s a realy great idea, haven´t thought in that direction yet.

Hm...what would be the right wording?

[] Aura of Life: Instead of your first exploration in a turn, you can activate your Aura to choose any amount of characters in your auras range. Shuffle a total amount of 3 ([] 4) random cards from their discard piles into their decks.

Is that right?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I like "4 ([]5)". Sure it would generally tie Kyra in single target heals, but not that great when being split up into the party.

Also, might want to reword it as "Shuffle a total amount of 3 ([] 4) random cards divided up as you choose from the characters discard piles into their decks."

What about having it heal a flat amount. For instance the aura could always heal four cards, divided any way you choose among all heroes in aura range.

Fenris235 wrote:

My thought was, that in a 6 Player game, where everyone groups up, this would be a healing of 6, with is pretty good.

Expecialy because you don´t have to have all 6 Character in one location.
If i put it up to 2, that would be 12, and a better healer than anyone else.

Atleast like it is now, don´t know if Mass Cure is changing that.

My experience with a 5 player game was people spread out as far as possible. At one point in our game the power would have hit a max of 4 characters.

The idea of the party stacking up in a few locations is a new one on me. Care to elaborate on why?

Healing 1 card on Aura of life feels really low to cost an explore. Maybe at least 2 cards? There will be the odd chance here or there to help more than 3 characters, but it doesn't sound broken to me that way. Heck I think you could make it 3 cards and still be about right.

I like the ideas but what's the difference between special 2 and just taking 1 damage? I can't see a difference. Maybe "discard 1 card to reduce combat damage by 2". Not too overpowered, but actually has a benefit.

atmakitsu wrote:

I don't have my card right in front of me, but the problem with the Spectre's Wisdom check is the text says "If your check to defeat does not include the Magic trait, the Spectre is undefeated." Problem is, there's no way to add Magic to the Wisdom check.

I think it should probably read "If your Combat check to defeat does not include the Magic trait, the Spectre is undefeated." Otherwise the inclusion of the Wisdom check would make little sense -- you could never defeat it with Wisdom, only dodge it.


I think Kyra can with her power, but that's about it.

Shisumo wrote:
So, to clarify (this actually happened in a game last night): if I begin my turn at the General Store and (before I take my first exploration) use Detect Magic, find a spell and choose to encounter it, I either cannot take advantage of the General Store's ability to "explore again" if I didn't encounter a weapon, armor or item because I haven't already explored once and thus the "again" clause isn't met, or I can use it but if I do then I have forfeited my free exploration because it is no longer my "first exploration of the turn" - is that correct?

I think the reason general store doesn't trigger on Detect Magic is because DM doesn't actually say explore on it. It's in the FAQ actually. It's in "I'm just generally unclear about a lot of things. Can you help?" under "If It Isn’t Called Something, It Isn’t That Thing.".

Vic Wertz wrote:
(We don't put typo corrections in the FAQ.)

I was just poking fun, didn't mean anything by it. I just figured the "it's worth doing right" motto carried over into everything. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

Heh, guess it's time for a FAQ entry.

Robert Little wrote:
My question is whether the characters from either set be usable in the other - I'm assuming so, but not certain.

That's my biggest question too. :-)

Wow, the right explanation is way more complicated than I would have thought it needed to be. Crazy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rockgi wrote:
Proto Persona wrote:
You've been confused I'm afraid. In your example your "melee die" equals your strength die + 3, so you do get the +3 on melee every time.

On the card says DIE and not check.

It 'the same thing?

A check is the target you are rolling against. A die is not the same as a skill, but a skill can be a die plus a bonus.

When a weapon says to roll your melee die, you use what is defined by your melee skill, the die for melee here being defined as strength + 3. Basically the melee skill on Valeros always grants at least a d10+3 when used for a check.

If a check required your strength die, and you had strength+1, you don't lose the +1 just because it said die and not skill. If you used melee in that case the pluses stack, so it would be d10+4.

As far as I know the cards usually reference rolling dice and not skills, which by this interpretation would make every bonus useless.

You've been confused I'm afraid. In your example your "melee die" equals your strength die + 3, so you do get the +3 on melee every time.

Oh I see. Extra dice was the second thing I bought to supplement this game. Keep forgetting it only came with one of each.

You throw dice one at a time? Are you playing cards to affect the roll after rolling the dice, cause that's against the rules officially.

Charles Scholz wrote:

Question about bannished basic cards.

When I use Caltrops, they are bannished to the box becsause they are one time use cards. At the end of the game can I put them in my hand again, or am I only allowed to do that if there are no Item cards that were collected during the scenario?

Under the official rules your second statement is the correct one, you can't just raid the box anytime you want. You're free to fish it back out of the box no matter what, but it's a house rule at that point.

I think the promo blessing should have a recharge check. It would be the only blessing that has one, but it is also the only blessing of it's kind you're expected to have.

Nojh wrote:

So I've been wandering the boards trying to figure out if I cheated when I used caltrops to help another player defeat a monster that was summoned for them to encounter on a third players turn.

The answers I have put together is yes, because I can't use a power (via card playing or not) which allows another player to defeat a monster (or evade, etc) according to the meta rules.

I believe I will have a difficult time convincing some of my fellow players of this given how the card (and others like it) is written without a "you/your" when compared to other cards which explicitly uses the word "you". I think the meta rules added to the FAQ do alleviate the problem but only if the meta rules are explicitly excepted from the "Golden Rule" where cards over right rules.

Additionally I do not feel that the meta rules are explicit enough to help new players see the distinction between powers that can't aid another character but don't use the word "you" in their description effect. Perhaps with the inclusion of the following sentence in the No One Else Can Take Your Turn for You section. I welcome criticism regarding if it is worded correctly or is even needed:

"Other players may not play cards or use powers to aid you in evading, defeating, acquiring, failing, or deciding what to do with an encounter or closing locations, unless the card explicitly says it can."

Or alternatively

"You may not play cards or use powers to aid another character in evading, defeating, acquiring, failing, or deciding what to do with an encounter or closing locations, unless the card explicitly says it can."

My biggest worry is that someone might construe this to mean you can't aid a check (to defeat an encounter for example). But I feel this wording is clearer and will help someone new to the game looking at caltrops realize they can only play it to aid themselves.

I also suggest adding a explicit example of not being able to use the card/power in this context. This alone might preclude the need to include one of the...

I agree with this rewording. I've been playing these cards wrong as well. The implied context that another player could not benefit from these cards was not clear at all.

I was actually contemplating only adding the strong cards from the second pack, such as the amulet, and leaving the weaker cards out. I don't still plan on doing that, but the idea wasn't to dilute the cards as much as add 2nd copies of cards that other members of the party could find useful.

I sleeve, so there's no difference for me if the POD cards are slightly off. ^_^

Nope, you played that wrong. Only the cards with "then" checks can be attempted by multiple characters. It sucks too, getting hit with a trapped passageway while the wizard is exploring, for instance.

Now the card in question can be attempted by another player, but not on your turn. They have to wait for their turn to take a crack at it.

Also yes to the blessing question, but usually you can't re-encounter a failed bane that way.

Edit: I should really consolidate my thoughts before hitting submit.

Captain Bulldozer wrote:

Part of the reason I'm asking is in anticipation of one of the new villains in AP2... (see This thread.)

In that particular situation, the crown of charisma (which has the magic trait) might very well be a useful item to have, assuming it confers its traits to the check.

Vic just replied to that thread clearly ruling that no, the crown does not add it's traits since it can't be played until the "Play cards and use powers that affect the check" step. I'd assume the cards your thinking of would fall under the same ruling.

Good points,thanks for the responses. I was thinking about selectively adding only the useful stuff, but I guess I'll just find someone to take my extra copy instead.

agraham2410 wrote:
If you are going to do that then I would suggest you make up 8 charators with cards instead of the normal max of 6 charators to make the balance of cards left in the box closer to normal.

Thing is with the 1st copy of the deck I already don't leave any characters built between sessions. At most we've built three characters at one time, so this isn't really going to have an impact in the way you're thinking.

TClifford wrote:
I would not recommend that because you are going to have an abnormal amount of Basic cards in the decks. Limiting you from getting better cards.

This is the kinda thing I was worried about. Still aren't some of the cards in there worth having more of? Especially the amulets for instance?

1. Sajan's power converts your normally Strength-based melee combat check to a Dexterity one. Other than that it's still a normal melee combat check.

So Blessing of Erastil is the one you want, Mike confirmed it.

2. I should think so, since in order to roll the d6, you have to have used the weapon's power, right?

3. Dunno here, haven't cracked open the adventure deck yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jamie Page wrote:
Proto: Which app do you use?

I use this one.

I found it by way of this thread.

There's also a spreadsheet on BGG (though it doesn't work well for me) here.

Browser based alternative here.

Doesn't seem to be an iOS option just yet.

So I bought the Add-On Deck from my FLGS before I knew about the subcription. I signed up for it in time to get the promos, but now I'm going to have a 2nd copy of the deck. Then I thought, why not just add in the banes and boons? I'm not talking about running with 2 copies of a hero though.

Are there and reasons from a balance or gameplay perspective that I shouldn't have the extra copies in the mix? I know they won't fit properly in the tray, but I sleeved so that bridge has been crossed.

h4ppy wrote:
The trade off of this is that my PACG box is full of sheafs of paper recording the state for all the characters of the 4 different groups I play with!

I sleeved my cards, and as a byproduct I discovered that dry erase will mark on the card sleeve and erase cleanly when done. So now I use an app to track the progress of the characters between games and check the card boxes on the sleeve as part of setup when we play.

Same system I guess, but no reams of paper. ^_^

Karui Kage wrote:
h4ppy wrote:
Time is really short with 6 characters, but you have somebody who can do everything. Plus only 2 out of six of you need to close a location before you can corner the villain with temp-closes.
I'm not sure why this keeps getting mentioned as a benefit. Again, the number of locations adjusts with the number of players. No matter your group size, you will *always* have to close 2 locations before you can seal off the villain. :)

Yes but isn't that task easier to do with more players to increase the odds that someone will be able to cover the gaps that some characters have?

"If you have something" sounds good to me. ^_^