foxoftheasterisk's page

I somehow forgot Counteract was a thing despite seeing a meme about it very recently. Thanks y'all!

So one of our party members was mind controlled by an enemy. Said party member uses a living weapon that will mind control anyone not living up to her sense of justice. Of course, once they attacked another party member, the weapon took offense and tried to take control.

So... how does that work? We weren't able to find any rules about contradictory mind control in 2E. The GM ruled that the new one overrode the old one for simplicity, but I'm wondering if there's any actual rules that are relevant.

To be clear—if you're playing these scenarios outside of Society, I would recommend gaining a hero point with each scenario completed, and ignoring deck upgrades entirely.

Alright, looks like it'll just be you for this round of playtests, Whipstitch. Shoot me a discord message (my username's the same as here) and we can talk scheduling.

For anyone who sees this thread later—I'm still open to more playtesters. If you're interested, I'd also recommend you message me on discord. You can reply here, but I can't guarantee I'll see it any time soon. Again, my username there is the same as here.

and hopefully i won't regret publically posting my discord username

Hey Whipstitch, glad to hear it!

Like I said, my schedule's pretty open so I can almost certainly accommodate you (and your group?).

I think I'll wait a couple days and see if anyone else is interested, then we can talk scheduling.

And yeah, I'm aware of those. (Actually, I'm basing the story I'm writing mostly on that, since I don't own nor have played the RPG AP.)

Hi y'all! As some of you may know, I've been working on a remake of the Skull and Shackles AP in a post-Core environment. It's kind of a huge project but the scope crept up on me and now I'm committed.

While the AP is far from complete, Adventure 1 is mostly complete and ready to playtest!

Playtests will be run through the game Tabletop Simulator (Steam page). Ideally, I'd like to have at least two groups of playtesters: one that I host for and play with, and another which plays the adventure on their own and reports back with notes. If you're interested in joining either group, let me know! I have a pretty open schedule, so I should hopefully be able to accommodate most groups.

This post is also partially to make sure this project doesn't creep past the scope of Pathfinder Infinite since some parts are a bit of a gray area. In particular, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write story text that parallels the original AP?

In Curse of the Crimson Throne scenario 4D, the storybook contains the following powers:

When a bane from a location is undefeated, banish a boon from that location's totem pile.

and

At the end of your turn, banish a boon from each unoccupied location's totem pile; if you cannot, you lose.

and it just strikes me that that final clause—"if you cannot, you lose"—seems like it might have been intended to be on both these powers? Especially since there's no other reason to care about totem piles after you can occupy all the locations.

Are the rewards for this scenario meant to include the victory piles? It seems like the type that usually would (given that without that clause, the only available boons for deck upgrades will be the plunder cards) but it doesn't say anything about it.

There is a really good story available on BGG by Byron Campbell ...

Ah! Thank you much! This looks like it will be very helpful!

I do not see separate conversion of cards into Core terminology as worth the time - if it has been done, why do it once again? Though, if you want to check it for possible errors or have some disagreement with what I did in some cards, I am happy for any feedback ;)

Ah, we're actually doing very different projects, even though they sound very similar! What you've done, if I'm not mistaken, is to translate all the cards and rules text into Core terminology without changing the effects. ok i just looked at it more and I see you do have effect changes, but it looks like they're only minimal changes for cards that violate major Core design principles? displaying body armor, etc.

the website does not work correctly in Edge and I couldn't login in any way (Internet Explorer works).

I wonder if you maybe just need to clear the site cookies, I've had that issue before

Hey y'all. So I'm currently working on a full conversion of Skull & Shackles to a 2.0 style AP, but I'm running into an issue.

Namely, I've never played Skull & Shackles in the RPG, so I have little-to-no context for why certain things are designed the way they are. Scenarios, story banes, ships, allies, etc - I don't know which are important to the story and which are filler. So, I'm looking for someone who has played, or better yet GMed, who can help me with that!

Obviously you'd be credited and all. While all I need is someone to help explain the story, if you want more creative input, that's cool too. I reserve the right to make the final decisions though, I do still intend for this to be primarily my project.

Post in the thread or shoot me a PM if you're interested, and we can start chatting logistics ;)

The "Build the Vault" instruction for Adventure 7-3 reads:

Build the Vault: Start with all level 0, 1, 2, 3 cards from the Core Set and the Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path, then remove all Level 0 non-Veteran banes and you may remove any Level 0 non-Veteran boons.

Notably, it does not say "non-Veteran, non-Blessing boons" as most higher-level Build the Vault instructions do.

Is this an oversight or are we intended to be allowed to remove the Level 0 Blessings?

2. The sheets have "CORE CONVERSION" immediately beneath the PACG logo in the top right corner (my template for custom characters has "CUSTOM CHARACTER"), making it clear (hopefully) that this is part of the unofficial core conversion project.

It's probably fine as-is, but you could put "UNOFFICIAL CORE CONVERSION" to make it really clear.

Thanks again for putting in all this time, Brother Tyler!

First of all, I have learned a great deal on most of the aspects of this game by reading the messages on this forum. Thanks to all for your insight! It has helped me understand this game greatly! There is one thing I would like some clarification on. That is playing against a siege deck (found in "Dragon's Demand" & "Fangwood Thieves"). I understand about separating the banes from their locations to form a siege deck, and that you should "explore" the siege deck first each turn. What is confusing me is 1. Do all story banes go into the siege deck and none into the location decks? 2. If that is true, when do you go from the siege deck to the location decks? I understand if all location decks are closed, the game is over and you lose, but if you are only playing against the banes in a siege deck, you would think you would never get to the location decks to acquire any "loot"? Am I missing something or misunderstanding something? Any help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!

Your understanding is mostly correct. All the banes do indeed go into the siege deck, and you never explore the locations (excepting in some older siege scenarios, where you had the option), and therefore never encounter boons (usually). Most siege scenarios (including Fangwood Thieves 1B), however, give as a scenario reward all the cards remaining in the locations, for you to use as "loot".

The Dragon's Demand siege scenario is an exception, probably because the reward is shared between the different versions of the scenario. I believe RAI is that this same reward is given for that scenario, but I don't remember if I've heard developer opinions on that or not. In any case, that's how I would play it outside of Society.

I know villains and henchmen ------if they aren't defeated they are shuffled back in their decks but what about regular monsters-----if they aren't defeated to they get banished or get re-shuffled back into their deck from whence they came?

Henchmen and regular monsters and barriers are shuffled back in (unless something says otherwise). Villains have their own special procedure.

And I have gotten 2 answers on this-----a cohort requires you to discard at the end of your turn to keep to your hand size and then another person told me if you just display your cohort you don't have to have it in your hand at all-------and you can use it when you want to!

Both are true. A cohort will normally be added to your hand at the start of the game, and thus count against your hand size. However, if you display a card (of any type) it is removed from your hand and placed in a special display zone.

Also--------cohorts are support cards----instead of just rolling your strength d6 and your cohort's d8 could you add a blessing to your d6 and get another die IN ADDITION to your cohort's d8?????

You can play as many cards as you want on each check, with only these restrictions:

FOXOFTHEASTERISK-----How do you get more cards in your deck than fifteen?

When you pick up a new card you don't have to discard a card to make it up for your hand size?

You do not have to discard immediately to your hand size on obtaining a new card. You only discard or draw to your hand size at the end of your own turn.

When you gain cards and end up above your hand size, you have until the end of your own turn to use cards from your hand before you're forced to discard any. And if you recharge or reload those cards, your deck will increase above its starting number of cards.

Even if you do have to discard cards, those cards can still be added back to your deck via healing. And even if they're still in your discards at the end of the scenario, they'll be added back into your deck at that point.

I think I am just thinking too much-------making things more complicated than they are.

I think you're right. ;)

In particular, most Core/Curse characters (with a couple of overt exceptions) are weaker than many of their previous printings, presumably in an effort to increase difficulty.

That's debatable; personally, I tend to find they're weaker if you're alone but have stronger assist options, so largely balance out if you tend to explore as a group.

I can't find in the WRATH rule book where using blessings to add a die roll. But it's on the cards.

When blessings say "add a die", that means the same thing as "bless" in Core: add one die of the primary skill you're using.

It does not mean reroll. (Unless the particular blessing you're looking at actually says reroll, of course.)

Thanks so much. That makes a lot of sense-----it IS possible to have 8 cards in a hand meant to be 4 IF it happens during play am I right? You just need to get it all together at the end of that scenario and build your deck back to accurate according to that character!!

Possible, though unlikely - remember that you must reset your hand at the end of each of your turns, which includes discarding down to your hand size as well as drawing up. (Actually, you can discard any cards you don't want as well prior to drawing.)

But because you don't rebuild your deck until the end of the scenario, it's perfectly feasible to add five or ten cards to a fifteen-card deck - I've played characters (Cogsnap) that consistently nearly double their deck size.

(By the way, since I don't think anyone explicitly said it here, prior to rebuilding your deck you re-collect your cards by processing displayed boons and recovery, then gathering up your hand, discards, and bury pile and adding them to your deck. So everything that wasn't banished or given to another character should return to you.)

When I have my decks set with what they should start with can I trade cards before the game even though I may end up with 6 weapons rather than 4 which was supposed to be that characters limit?

You can trade cards, but you still have to start the scenario with the right number of each kind of card for each character.

(You can give away cards during the scenario without concern to card types, though. You'll just have to reset your decks at the end of the scenario.)

I can't speak to the main question, but...

If you encounter a monster, you roll a 1-2 and then another 1-2. Nothing happens on the second 1-2 roll, since cards can't summon copies of themselves.

Actually, RAW I'm not sure that rule applies here, since it's the storybook, and not the Animate Dream card, that's doing the summoning. It may just be able to keep summoning more Dreams.

(I'm not sure the rule doesn't apply either, though, since it could be argued the card is "causing you" to summon even though it's not the source of the text. I don't believe that's how it works, but I don't know for certain.)

Class deck characters are not consistently more or less powerful than base set characters - just different versions that you may like more or less.

If you have downloaded the Core Set character sheets, there should be a Wrath of the Righteous package available in your downloads. (On this site, go to My Account -> Digital Content; the character sheets should be in the Community Use section.) (The Class Deck characters also have a download, which you could use to preview them, or even play with the character sheet and no cards.)

It sounds like you haven't quite understood the rules about cards in character decks. Those go as follows:

*Before the first scenario, build a deck from all starting cards (level 0 cards in Core, B or C with the Basic trait for older base sets)

*(During a scenario, you have the opportunity to acquire new boons while exploring locations.)

*After the scenario, look at the cards you have (both the ones that were already in your deck, and the ones you've acquired during the scenario). For each type of card, you must return to the number of cards of that type listed on your character sheet, but you may choose from any of the cards you have currently - not just the ones that were already in your deck. By finding new cards and keeping them, you will be able to slowly improve your deck.
Characters can also trade cards at this time, so if (for example) the paladin has more weapons than she can use, the fighter can take some of those weapons.

*(If you happen to have fewer cards of a type than you need among the full party (usually because you banished some cards of that type during the scenario) you can take new starting cards of that type (of your choice) from the box. In later adventures, you will be able to take any card sufficiently lower level than the adventure, rather than only starting cards.)

All of the older sets have the same basic rules as Core, with only a few minor differences, as I've said. This includes such things as the deck that is also life, the hourglass timer, the villain rules in their entirety, the many different ways to play cards (except that reload was not a keyword yet, and recovery wasn't formalized), and how characters and character decks work.

The two rules differences that are likely to throw you at all are,
1. Locations don't cease to exist when closed
2. Each character can play one boon of each type, rather than the party as a whole

Other than those things, you can just assume all Core rules apply and while some will never come up, it shouldn't ever steer you wrong. (Unless I'm forgetting something, which I don't guarantee I'm not, but the point is, the rules are almost exactly the same.)

You can probably play Crimson Throne without the Harrowing, yes. It might be just a little harder, since you won't have the use of the Harrow cards, but I wouldn't imagine it'd make a huge difference.

All the cards are the same size and have the same back. However the base sets aren't really designed to mix together, so you would be in homebrew territory if you tried that.

Ultimate Intrigue is not an Adventure Path. It has only boons and no story scenarios. So if you want more story to play through... that's not it.
Of the card sets, only the four base sets (plus the adventure decks), the Core set, and the Curse adventure path have any story scenarios.

However, if you're looking for more story and don't care so much about more cards, you might be interested in the Society adventures for year 6, which are played with the Core and Curse cards and cost much less than the old adventure paths. You could also find out if there's a local Society group in your area.

If you're still looking into the four older Adventure Paths, Rise of the Runelords would be the simplest while the other three each add on unique rules to that base. I haven't played all the sets so I can't speak as to which of three add-on rule sets is most complicated.

(In my opinion, it's too soon to say they're not making more post-Core adventure paths - it's not that long ago that Core came out, in the grand scheme of things.)

The rules are not a whole lot different even between Core and Rise of the Runelords (the first set). There are a few major differences, but mostly they're things that were added to the rules by Core - so you just wouldn't need to worry about them. (The biggest exception probably being "one boon per type per player" in the old sets.)

However, the card design is very different, and this is true across all card types (and even in the most recent pre-Core set, Mummy's Mask). From non-displayable body armor to lack of secondary effects on weapons and spells, no "on this exploration" effects for allies and just plain boring blessings... you'll find a lot of the conveniences you expect won't be there. Don't get me wrong, the old sets are still fun, but you might be disappointed if you're expecting the same experience as Core.

Alchemists are weird and I honestly don't know if RAI has them recover their armor or not, but RAW definitely does and has basically since they came out.

(This is another reason I wish they had used a different keyword for "put into recovery" - then they could just say "alchemical items, weapons and allies with banish costs should instead say deplete; alchemical armors should not." If that's RAI, that is. But, ah well, que cera cera.)

What I'd really like to see - in addition to new class decks - is a high-level (3-6) counterpart to Core.

Building the Adventurer's packs really drove home how few high level boons there are in Curse - especially for characters of certain themes (cough cough nature). And for anyone interested in homebrew, a box containing common high-level banes and locations would be a useful tool. Plus it would be neat to have the option of a high level module to play after Dragon's Demand.

(Unfortunately the Afghanistan Principle means any generic locations or story banes in such a set wouldn't be used in future adventure paths - but they'd still be a nice tool for homebrew and Society writers, I should think.)

"At the end of your turn, banish this card" isn't playing it.

If that were true, then Enhance would be impossible to recover at any point. I don't think anyone would argue that that's the case. And I see no functional difference between these two situations.

(I believe that any text that instructs you to move the card printed within the powers section(as opposed to the recovery section) counts as "playing it" or "[action]ing it for its power", though I'm not 100% sure that applies in all cases.)

I have a power that allows me to do something other than banish it, but only if it's already in recovery... and I can only put it in recovery if I have a power that allows me to do something other than banish it...

This, and the other Alchemists' powers, are exactly what "you have a power on your character card ... that can allow you to do something other than banish that card" applies to, and what that rule was created for. Because of that rule, the character power allows you to put the cards into recovery, even if those cards don't have a During Recovery power of their own.

---

“If a card you banish to play...”

You aren’t banishing Parade Armor to play it so that entire rule doesn’t apply. It doesn’t go into recovery.

Actually, you can choose to.

At the end of your turn, banish this card. If proficient with light armors, you may bury it instead.

Burying is optional, you can choose to banish it instead - although of course, most characters would almost never want to take that choice.

Sounds neat :) a few questions though:

*Can you use multiple copies of the same pack for one character?
*Are there going to be any new boons in these packs? (I'd love to see just two or three new cards per pack.)

Also, a Thought: it seems strange that the odd Blessing situation in Curse is kinda getting canonized in what seems like the "basic" adventurer's packs. Not sure there's a lot to do about this though without making a whole set of new high-level blessings...

I just realized that nowhere does this blog post say that Adventurer's packs will be sold as standalone products. I just assumed that would be the progression, hence these thoughts.

I do think standalone Adventurer's Packs would be a great way to move forward with PACS, FWIW. (Likely with more new boons, though, and perhaps one new character per pack?)

The question about duplicate packs still stands though; is it allowed?

...adventurer's pacs

Ahem. You've got the smash pack description on the support pack as well.

Quick question. Alchemist's Class Deck has Acid Flask. The Alchemist Pack also has Acid Flask. Can I therefore have X2 core versions of Acid Flask in my deck?

RAW says yes and I don't see why you shouldn't be able to. Just as long as you have access to two copies that aren't coming from the vault!

Sounds neat :) a few questions though:
*Can you use multiple copies of the same pack for one character?
*Are there going to be any new boons in these packs? (I'd love to see just two or three new cards per pack.)

Also, a Thought: it seems strange that the odd Blessing situation in Curse is kinda getting canonized in what seems like the "basic" adventurer's packs. Not sure there's a lot to do about this though without making a whole set of new high-level blessings...

Skizzerz, I think you've got the right idea and just overreached a bit. Just make the added rules text "An undefeated villain can always escape to the location it came from (even if that location is considered guarded for some reason)." Fixes it for undefeated, doesn't break it for defeated, and is a fairly understandable language even if you don't understand why it's there.

I stand corrected. This IS a pretty damn decent L0 spell after all.

O_O

PJ is referring to the old version of Acid Flask, which does indeed allow you to "For your... check against a barrier, ... use your Disable or Ranged + 2d6."

So yes, you can use it against Deka, or any other barrier, strange as it seems. Acid can be very persuasive...

(Note, however, that Acid Flask lets you use Disable or Ranged + 2d6, not add that amount -it would be instead of your normal Charisma or Diplomacy check, not in addition.)

(The new version of Acid Flask restricts the barrier use to Lock or Trap barriers, but does allow you to add 2d4 against them. Hence the confusion.)

The problem might be (unless you're just lobbying for a more strict wording, as opposed to being unclear on how it works), you might be conflating two separate notions, that, while very similar sounding, are actually quite distinct.

Little of column A, little of column B. Obviously I know that "doubling up" like that isn't the way it works (or at least, should work), but I've never seen any definition of "your role" anywhere (for good reason, as for almost any other character it's obvious) so I'm not sure which role to follow with the Blackjack - which definitely matters.

It sounds like you're agreed with skizzerz that "your role" is the role you're presently using, which still leaves the questions of:
*Which is it if you used Blackjack for this scenario?
(My interpretation would be, whichever one you "chose" when you gained your roles, as that's what you would start each scenario using except for the text on top that says otherwise.)
*Since it's not consistent which role you're following for Blackjack, how do feat prerequisites work?
(Take two power feats on Ak's character card, let's call them feats A and B. Feat B is right after feat A on the card, so you have to check feat A first. Now you leave both these feats unchecked until after gaining role cards. In one scenario you end up as Survivor and choose a role power, but you check feat A on the Chief role. Then, later, you end a scenario as Chief and check feat B. The Blackjack rules tell you to check feat B on your character card, but you've never checked feat A there.)
Actually, it just now occurred to me that this situation isn't unique to Ak - other characters could get there by checking feat A before gaining the Scenario 3A reward.

the Society rules for Blackjack (btw, where can I find this specifically? Is it in the OP guide??)

It's on the Curse sanctioning document -on the Curse store page - in the reward for scenario 3A.

So, technically, you're not "rewarded" or "gaining" your old Character card feats a second time - you're just marking them on the role card for convenience of visual representation. So, no issue there, far as I can see.

Debatable, although I'll accept it. That does mean that nothing actually tells you to check off those powers on the other role, but that's also a common sense kind of thing - and as there's no actual confusion about how that should work, I'm fine leaving it at that.

So there seems to be something odd going here - it would appear that - where Curse makes you REPLACE your normal Role with Blackjack- the Society rules let you *keep* your role AND double-dip with power feats, gaining feats on BOTH the normal role and Blackjack; am I getting that right, 'because it seems somewhat odd (though, granted, much more satisfactory than the Curse implementation of Blackjack)?!?

The Society rules just have you replace your role with Blackjack on a per-scenario basis, rather than permanently. You don't get to use both at once. (Presumably, this is so they can keep the restrictions of one Blackjack per table, and restrict Blackjack to the Curse AP, without making Blackjack characters unplayable in some situations.)

I think maybe this thread should be moved to the rules questions forum, since it's needing some pretty deep rules knowledge.

So you're saying that whichever side is face up at the end of the scenario is considered "your role" at that time? In this case, I have follow-up questions:
*If you were using Blackjack during the scenario, which side is considered your role?
*What if you marked the "2 or 6" hand size feat on one side while it was not considered your role, then marked "1 or 7" on that side while it was considered your role? Would you mark the "1 or 7" feat on your character card without having marked the "2 or 6"? Would it function normally (aside from not being able to choose 2 or 6)?

Or, the third possible interpretation is that you choose one role at the normal time, and only that role is considered your role. Which probably makes the most sense, but also means you have to keep track of that choice which otherwise doesn't matter.

Thinking about Ak's role cards also has made me realize there's another can of worms here, though. If you choose one role as normal when you gain your third feat or role (which I believe, RAW, you must do regardless of what's considered "your role" later on), then you would mark off the power feats chosen on your character card as usual... and the role's power would allow you to gain the same number of feats on the other side of the card, but with no such restriction. You could go three deep into a power tree immediately, if you wanted, or mark three role-exclusive powers right away. And that actually applies to ALL game modes, not just Society with Blackjack.

me right now

You might find the PACG Wiki's Class Deck pages to be useful references, as each one has at least three characters of the given class. :)

So I’ve been toying with the idea of running a home brew campaign with the new Core Set and was wondering if anyone has any guidelines for allowing people to create their own characters. Specifically if there was a list of “skills” that could be adapted to allow them to pick from for each class. And if there was an editable character sheet that could be printed out to allow them to craft their character. Also, if this idea is too complicated feel free to let me know I’m just reaching for something too complex.

An interesting proposition, to be sure. I think it would be hard to create a full system for powers, but you could probably isolate two or three "standard" powers per class - perhaps enough to have them choose two out of three, as well as minor variations on the powers - then have your players propose power feats and approve or deny them. That ought to be manageable as long as you have a good idea of how the game balance works and your players aren't too much of munchkins.

Favored cards are also highly variable, but most classes get a combat card (weapon, spell, alchemical item). The exceptions are typically support classes:

There are more consistent guidelines for the other aspects of the characters, though, so that part's easy:
*The dice for your six base skills should add up to 42
*Derived skills vary but typically total from +4 to +6. Usually you get more if they're on weaker dice.
*There are fifteen total skill feats to choose from (although that probably makes less difference for single-campaign characters)
*Your starting deck should have 15 cards (excepting the Vigilante)
*There should be 10 card feats to choose from

So, for those unfamiliar, Ak has the unique trait of using both sides of his role card alternately; each side has the text "When you gain or lose a feat on this card, also do so on the other side of this card."

Meanwhile, the Society rules for Blackjack say "Each time they gain a power feat that appears only on their role, they also gain a power feat on their Blackjack role. Each time they gain a power feat on their role that also appears on their character card, they also gain that feat on their character card."

So... Does this mean that Ak can gain two power feats on Blackjack (or his character card) each time he gains a power feat? That's obviously not RAI, but I'm not seeing any way it's not RAW. (Unless only one of the two is considered "your role".)

That depends.

If you're using pre-Core rules: yes! The first ability adds the Fire trait, triggering the third ability. The location closes as part of resolving the encounter, after which you can move, and -presuming you have an ally or blessing to discard - continue exploring.

If using the post-Core rules (including any games in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Society), however, closing your location prevents you from exploring more on your turn. The ability still triggers, and you can in fact move again after closing the location - but this does not allow you to continue exploring.

As is the similar "chain" of powers caused by discarding to play your Harrow card during one of the Curse adventures:

When you play your Harrow, you may heal a blessing.

It could be argued that this is further separated by being the effects of an exploration, allowing that heal, but I would disagree.

So I played Blessing of the Gobs and turned up The Crows, and wasn't quite sure how it worked. I have two questions about this interaction:

1: When I bury Blessing of the Gobs, The Crows is the Hour, so its effect triggers, right?

2: Since Blessing of the Gobs has no check to acquire, is it impossible to succeed? Or does its normal "you may automatically acquire" apply and allow me to succeed in that way? Or... Something else?

it seems to be implying that not only banes with # are adjusted, but all banes' difficulty is adjusted by the # of the previous adventure path... am I correct in that understanding? Other banes that don't normally have # would still get (in my case) a +3 difficulty?

No, it only says to increase their level by that amount - which only effects powers that specifically refer to levels. It has no effect on their difficulty.

The rulebook says the number of feats is limited by the # of the last scenario you've completed; so if you are increasing #, you also increase the number of feats you can acquire.

(However, you may wish to note that the Dragon's Demand Adventure Path Reward gives you an alternative option for proceeding into Curse, or any other Adventure Path, which may be easier; though it would grant you fewer feats to work with.)

Sounds better than my idea, haha. Largely on account of card feats.

(Should I... not post ideas like that? Does it bother you?)

Actually, no. You'd only have to fight it once, due to this rule:

A summoned card cannot summon a copy of itself or the card that summoned it.

If you were somehow encountering the danger without summoning it, then it would work the way you expected. But that's not usually how the danger works. (If you have proxies in the deck representing it, that would be one way.)

No. You still should build character decks using Basic cards first.

(There is discussion about removing this requirement soon, but it has not yet been applied.)

I'm of the thought that the owner rule should be "...you (and only you) may treat it as though it is one level lower."
I haven't investigated if it breaks anything to have access to those higher level owned cards a level earlier, though, it's just an idea at this point.
(It still doesn't do anything on the level 0 cards, but oh well?)