csouth154's page

Not sure if this has come up:

If undefeated, you are instructed to examine the location until you find a monster, then encounter it, subtracting 1from each die rolled in "your check".

My question is: Does "your check" mean ANY check required by that card, or just the check to defeat?

Intuitively, it seems that "your check" is referring solely to the check to defeat, since it seems to imply a singular check, Ambush doesn't know what monster is going to be encountered, and the one check guaranteed to be required by any monster is the check to defeat. If it wanted you to subtract from any check required by the monster, I feel it would say "any checks" or "all checks". Has there been a clarification on this?

I feel like I may have missed a memo, here, but it's entirely too early to do a search so I'm just going to ask:

Is it intentional that I'm seeing different recharge instructions on spell cards? Some seem to imply that the recharge check is not optional. Some use the word "may" to suggest that it is optional. By my count so far, we have seen three different ways that these instructions are worded, depending on the spell. Are we really supposed to be forced to read these sentences super carefully every time to make sure that we are doing the right thing for any given spell? Is it only optional when the word "may" is used?

So, some may find this amusing: the combination of the sap weapon and the Smuggler monster really threw me for a loop. My brain almost came out of my ear. Here's why:

Lirriane encounters the smuggler. The two weapons in her hand were a pistol and a sap. The random card from my hand that got displayed "before you act", and was therefore not available during the check to defeat, was my pistol. Ouch. So...I happily said "Ah hah, Smuggler! You think your special power is sooo clever? Well I'm going to evade you with my sap!" This is where the brain melting started. My pistol would have to either be discarded if the Smuggle was defeated, or buried if undefeated...but evading accomplishes neither of those...so what happens to my pistol??

Now before I go further, I already realize where I went wrong,here...but the realization only came after wracking my brain over this dilemma for a solid twenty minutes. The answer is that the sap should have been played during the evade step of the encounter...because that's what it does. The "before you act" step should never have even happened. It's just that the sap is a weapon. The first weapon whose sole ability is to evade a monster...so never before has it even occurred to me that any weapon should be played during the evade step as opposed to during the check to defeat.

The end result is that I ruled against going back to the evade step, because I had already moved past it when I rolled to see which card from my hand got displayed. I had to punch the Smuggler...with my d4 strength die. This resulted in a hand wipe, but the scenario was still a success, so...hooray. ;)

It says to check to see if he comes into the game every time you encounter a card in Pinnacle Atoll. It's a "when you encounter" effect, and you're instructed to shuffle him in to the deck if he is summoned. What happens to the encounter? It hasn't been resolved yet. Does the card get shuffled with everything else and the encounter ends? Or do you keep that card out and resolve the encounter as normal?

Should her power to add defeated monsters to her hand if they would be banished be limited to monsters from location decks only? The way it is currently worded would allow her to do it with summoned monsters, since cards overrule the book in all situations. This would be a first, so I just thought some clarification would be nice.

Perhaps this is a bit "derp"-y, but I can't figure this out. It's clearly a filter...I just can't figure out exactly what is being filtered.

It's clear now that we will not be able to receive the add-on deck with our S&S base sets. I'm just wondering, since all the character sheets are available for download, if there are any cards in the add-on deck that are essential for the characters that are included in that deck, or if we can play those characters using the downloadable character sheets without worrying that they will be gimped from not having the add-on boons mixed in.

I don't know if such a monster exists, but here's the question:

Let's say a monster requires multiple checks to defeat and has a power that could render it undefeated even if all checks are successful. Does the power of Disintegrate to banish a monster on a successful check, even if it would otherwise be undefeated, apply if Disintegrate is used on ANY check to defeat, or just the final check?

I mean...this thing is crazy. I'm referring specifically to the power that let's you reveal it and discard a spell to decrease the difficulty of another character's combat check at your location by a roll of your Arcane die.

In Ezren's hands with maxed feats, that's d12 +6...and you can do it even if you can't cast spells for some reason because it's an item. In the ultimate encounter of the adventure path, Ezren gave Amiri a strength spell and used the staff on both checks. "30 then 40" became "15 then 24". The second check ended up being impossible to fail because...why not? Yes, the arcane die rolls were both above average, but even average rolls would have reduced the checks by 11or 12.

I dunno. I think this thing might be a bit out of control.

The scenario rule says attempting to close a location triggers his power. I assume that this applies to attempts to temporarily close, as well? So, when you encounter him, it triggers on any attempt to temp close and then also before the actual encounter with him? Also assume that we can choose whether or not his power triggers before or after attempts to close, since no order is specified?

"If you attempted this check against a monster and did not defeat it, you may evade the monster"

I assume that you take no damage from failing the check, you ignore "after the encounter" effects, and the monster is considered neither defeated nor undefeated, correct? Also assume that "before the encounter" effects still stand, as they will have already happened?

Reduction Feild says that if it's undefeated, it stays face-up NEXT TO the location deck.

My question is: does that mean it isn't technically IN the location deck anymore? If all other cards are gone, can you attempt to close the loc during the closing phase?

We played that it did not count as being IN the deck anymore because we were instructed to place it NEXT TO the location deck; as opposed to an undefeated Collapsed Ceiling, for instance, which instructs you to leave it face-up ON TOP of the location deck, where it is obviously still part of the deck. When all other cards were gone, we closed it. We also banished the Feild, at that point.

Was this correct? Were we allowed to close the location with the Feild still face-up next to it? If so, did we do the correct thing by banishing the Feild when we closed it, or should it have stayed there and continued to affect anyone in the closed location?

Subject line pretty much says it all. This question was raised in regards to the Sloth location rule. We know it counts as playing a spell, but does that mean it counts as playing a card?

For the record...I'd think the answer would be yes, but official confirmation would be awesome. Thanks in advance!

Does the rule kick in when you close a loc because you defeated the villain there, or does it only apply when you perma-close by fulfilling the "when closing" requirement?

So...don't you think we should be able to choose not to attempt to defeat friendly barriers? Sometimes we have very specific reasons for choosing not to attempt to acquire certain boons, which is allowed, and being forced to attempt to defeat these "friendly" barriers (the ones that add boons to your hand if defeated and that you can banish if undefeated) could seriously derail such a plan, for what I consider to be no good reason. If we can banish it if undefeated, and suffer no ill effects from such a result, why can't we choose not to attempt to defeat them at all? Why are we compelled to unlock a chest or decipher a mystic inscription?

I'm not seriously suggesting that the rule be changed, because that won't happen, but I definitely think I'm going to house rule this.

Does the scenario you just completed make a difference when it comes to what you are allowed to draw from the box, if you need to?

For instance: The basic trait restriction gets removed when you start deck 3, but is it still removed if you go back and do a scenario from before deck 3 and have to draw from the box afterwards?

Did I just come up with an original question? If so...is that because it's a stupid question? lol

So, another thread gave me an idea for a house rule that would add more thematic flavor to certain "wearable" items. I have not tested this yet. Basically, it's like this:

Certain items (rings, amulets, etc.) have the 'accessory' trait. In pen and paper RPGs, if you are wearing something, it's always "on". This rule variant would attempt to mimic that. The rule is that you can play any number of items with the 'accessory' trait that makes sense (one robe, one belt, one headpiece, etc), along with one other type of item, per step or check. Also, I think it would make sense to ignore any powers that allow an additional item to be used while implementing this rule.

It seems like the fact that you'd gimp yourself pretty badly by keeping too many in your hand would provide balance...but like I said, I haven't tested this.

I mean...it seems like we are sure...but should we be? Has there been a ruling on it? I only ask because the rule is that only cards played to "affect the check" can be played during a check. Now, Strength might have an effect ON the check...but what it actually affects is a character. There is nothing about "a check" or "the check" on the card. Basically, I guess my question is: should "you are only allowed to play cards that affect the check" be read as "you are only allowed to play cards that affect ONLY THIS check"? I believe it could be interpreted both ways, and the distinction is an important one.

Thoughts?

Just played her for the first time and, I gotta say, she's surprisingly fun to play! I didn't really understand how awesome her powers were until now. Being able to reveal an animal to add d4 to ANY check is really freaking cool. It makes her decent at virtually everything and really good in a few areas that matter a lot. At first I was only focused on how it would help the skills she has...but then it hit me that she can basically role 2d4 for any skill she doesn't have, too, just by having an animal in hand. That's pretty huge.

Being able to recharge animals instead of discarding them is incredibly nice, too. Recharge to explore? Yes, please!

Lastly, the price (discarding a card) of her incredibly useful ability to roll d10 for strength and dex checks is more than compensated for by having a couple cures in her deck.

She is truly a beast in a small package.

So...Malagus says that if he's undefeated, each character at the location gets moved to a random location.

The Dam says that you may not move or be moved from the Dam unless another character is present.

Here's my question: If Malagus is undefeated at the Dam...can his power move someone if no one else is there? The Golden Rule clearly says "no". Thoughts?

Another question: What if two or more people are at the Dam when Malagus is undefeated? Does everyone get moved to a random location simultaneously? Or does it happen one character at a time? If it happens one character at a time, then once you get down to the last person, the location rule (If I'm correct about how the Golden Rule decides the situation) would kick in and keep them from being moved.

What does everyone think?

From a thread on the BBG forums: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14511615#14511615

I think I understand what is tripping you up. You keep bringing up this misconception that DAMAGE possesses traits. It does not. Damage has a (single) type. CHECKS possess traits. Certain monsters require that the CHECK to defeat it possesses a certain trait. Players do not deal damage. They either succeed or fail at a check. BANES deal damage, and each instance of damage dealt is of ONE SPECIFIC TYPE.

Does that help to clear things up for you?

YOUR assumption is that I'm under a misconception. I believe that you are just as likely to be under the misconception that damage does NOT possess traits (or that types are exclusive, I suppose: same point). If someone clarifies that from the rules or from Paizo, sure, no problem. Until then, you're making as big an assumption as anyone else.

Which one of us is correct?

Under the current rules, if you use this armor for its dex bonus, you cannot also use it to mitigated any damage recieved from failing that check. Is this really what you intended. I have a suggestion for a change to the card:

"If you use this card for the dex bonus, you may also use it to reduce damage received during the same check. You may not use any other armor, except for a shield."