I don't think this is the correct interpretation...
The "Xyz-based combat check" is a wording that is used for combat checks since there's no COMBAT skill as such.
When you are testing KNOWLEDGE and your character's KNOWLEDGE is defined as INT + 2 then you can play any boons that boost EITHER Knowledge or Intelligence checks. In this circumstance I'm pretty sure the Blessing of Irori would add 2 dice for your Intelligence-based Knowledge check
On the other hand, if your character does not have KNOWLEDGE on their character sheet (so they roll 1d4) or their KNOWLEDGE is defined as something odd like STR + 2 then you would not be able to play INT based boons and Irori would only add 1 die.
We're going to be putting a rule in the book that says something like "If you're using a skill's die, it counts as a use of that skill." Still getting the wording right on that.
Just to be clear, I am not saying a Knowledge check is an Intelligence check. I am saying that if you specifically roll your Intelligence die for a check, it's an Intelligence-based check.
Like I said, complicated wording.
@Nathaniel - perhaps think of it like this: if your KNOWLEDGE is defined as "INT + 2" it means that things that boost your INT also boost your KNOWLEDGE.
A Knowledge check is still a Knowledge check, it's just that in some circumstances you can play things that boost either the sub-skill or the parent skill.
I think the only place the game seems to use "xyz-based" is for combat checks. Which I presumed was because there's no COMBAT skill per se. It's never been a problem for us.
I don't think there's much reason to add the 'based' bit to ALL the powers, and similarly I don't think you can remove it from the combat ones since "add two dice to a strength combat check" doesn't read right.
If you have a cards/power which boosts a "STR-based combat check" then you WOULD be able to use it when using MELEE.
Similarly, if it happened to say a "Strength combat check" then yes, you WOULD still able to use it with MELEE, since MELEE is built on STR.
Perhaps a note in the FAQ that cards/powers which boost a skill can be used when testing a derived skill would be helpful, but imho that's all that might be needed.
I do intend to.
@Nathaniel, what's the difference between a "Skill-based check" and a "pure skill check"? I'm not sure what you mean.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Nathaniel,
The blessings already say what they mean.
When Blessing of Calistria says "noncombat Dexterity check," it means exactly that—a noncombat Dexterity check, like the kind you can use to defeat an Ambush or a Battered Chest, or to acquire a Dagger or Burglar. It does not say "Dexterity-based check" because it does not *mean* a Dexterity-based check. It does not apply to a check that you're using Ranged for, or to an Acrobatics check that's Dexterity-based.
Blessing of Erastil, though, *does* say "Dexterity-based combat check" because it actually *means* a Dexterity-based combat check.
From my understanding of Nathaniel's wording
Pure skill check: Base skill (Dexterity)
Skill based check: Skill that modifies a base skill (e.g. Ranged)
Here I had also assumed that Calistria would affect Dexterity based checks, apparently along with everyone posting but Nathaniel and the Paizo guys. I actually misunderstood Mike's post; I thought he was saying that cards that affect base skills also affect sub skills. It would make this aspect of the game simpler. Not to mention if you make skills useless in certain circumstances, it removes some satisfaction of having them.
I know it's not the RPG so not everything will really make sense, but... Would allowing for the extra 1-3 from a sub skill break some semblance of balance? I see it as being perfectly reasonable that a thief with a +2 Disable skill could make use of extra Dexterity to be better at it. I assume it's to ensure that barriers continue to be a challenge. In the end, I don't know how much it'll really matter.
On the other hand, making it so that any card affecting a base skill also affect sub skills would go a long ways to making the game easier to learn and remember. Not only is it not intuitive, it's (in my mind) a finnicky set of rules based on slight word differences. Cards which restrict usage, i.e. Calistria not affecting combat, is clear and easy to understand. Whether something affecting a Dexterity check or Dexterity based check... is not so much. They're both at their root using your Dexterity, right?
First post on the forums! Sorry it's a longer one.
Is everyone as confused as I am now? Mike and Vic seem to be at opposites...
Mike says "if you roll your XYZ die then it counts as using that skill" which I (and others) took to mean that you could, for example, use Calistra when doing a DEX-based Acrobatics check.
And Vic says "it's only an XYZ check if you're not testing a sub-skill of XYZ".
Perhaps the nuance is that, when testing DEX-based Acrobatics, you are using the DEX SKILL but you are not facing a Dex check? So maybe cards/powers that trigger of the use of the DEX skill would work but not ones that require you to face a DEX check (like Calistra)?
IIRC, there are no references anywhere to any "XYZ-based non-combat check". So does that mean that there are no blessings that you can use to add two dice to an Acrobatics check?
I thought that, because there are no references to this that the wording "non-combat XYZ check" on things like blessings was short-hand for "XYZ-based non-combat check".
To paraphrase Mike's example from Pharasma - I thought that Calistra smiled on you if you demonstrated your dexterity to her outside of a combat situation. So if you expressed your dexterity through Acrobatics (which is a type of dexterity that you're really good at) you would get the bonus.
If this is not the case then it seems odd to me, but if that's the way it is, that's the way it is! Who can fathom the mysteries of the gods? Not I!
|
Nathaniel,
The blessings already say what they mean.
When Blessing of Calistria says "noncombat Dexterity check," it means exactly that—a noncombat Dexterity check, like the kind you can use to defeat an Ambush or a Battered Chest, or to acquire a Dagger or Burglar. It does not say "Dexterity-based check" because it does not *mean* a Dexterity-based check. It does not apply to a check that you're using Ranged for, or to an Acrobatics check that's Dexterity-based.
Blessing of Erastil, though, *does* say "Dexterity-based combat check" because it actually *means* a Dexterity-based combat check.
Wait, is this really the case? Based on what Mike said, and what our own interpretation was, we've used Blessings of Calistria (for example) on both Dexterity checks (noncombat) *and* Acrobatics checks with Sajan (noncombat). I was under the impression that was how they worked.
Had a think about this today and it's really weird... you basically end up with a choice along the lines of: "Should I use ACROBATICS for the check and get something like "2d8 + 2" or use DEX for the same check and get something like 3d8 with the same blessing?"
Pretty much. Looks like you'd balance the extra minimum roll you get from the sub skill against the increased maximum roll. From what I can tell, in the case of the blessings at least, the only unbalancing situation would be a d6 base skill with a +3 (maybe +2) sub skill, like Lini's Knowledge skill. The 2d6+3 to 3d6+3 rolls would noticeably change the difficulty over the base skill 3d6 roll for certain encounters (in the 9-15ish check range, probably). Sub skills on a d8 seem like a very slight bonus, and anything above that is just a drop in a bucket.
We've house-ruled it that anything that can affect a base skill in the context will also affect the sub skills. This doesn't seem to be an issue that really comes up enough to worry about it. So if it is unbalancing in certain situations, then more power power to the skilled characters. While I'd like the gameplay to be mostly balanced, I'm more worried about teaching new players than a slight balance issue. I don't have a dedicated group, so having the game too complicated and unintuitive might turn off prospective players instead of hooking them.
@tech_biscuit - I think I'm with you. Not had a chance to play PACG again since this ruling was clarified but I think I'm going to have to house-rule it. The official line is just too weird to deal with on this one!
Thanks for the update, Vic.
As I said above, I really...
(a) don't think that it makes any sense and
(b) don't think that it would adversely affect the gameplay (of any cards I've seen so far) if sub-skill checks could be boosted by boons which boost the parent skill.
We're talking about a different of something like +1/+2/+3 here against the 'cost' of complicating the rules and making the game more opaque (especially to newcomers).
Why on earth should you lose that bonus and have to drop down to the parent skill if you want to play a boon on a check that you're meant to be really good at?
Also, as noted above, I think the wording is consistent already... combat checks use the "Xyz-based combat check" wording but non-combat checks just say "Xyz check". Do any cards say "Xyz-based check" or "Xyz-based non-combat check"?
I'm out of town at the moment otherwise I'd dig through my box to double check!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
There are two cards that say "-based": Blessing of Erastil and Blessing of Gorum. The current thought is that they probably shouldn't.
And that if you're making a combat check, and using Melee (and your character card says that your Melee is Strength +2), then your check is considered a combat check, a Melee check, and a Strength check, and no other kind of check. If you're making an Acrobatics check, and your character card says that Acrobatics is Dexterity +2, you're making an Acrobatics check and a Dexterity check, and no other kind of check.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
It is perfectly reasonable that I would want an effect that only improves dexterity without also improving Ranged, Acrobatics, Disable, and Stealth. Why is this not believable?
That is what I believed, but I appear to have been wrong. Mike doesn't want that design space, and he does want anything that boosts your Dexterity to boost your Ranged, Acrobatics, Disable, and Stealth, which is more in keeping with the flavor of the Pathfinder RPG than my interpretation was.
|
|
If it helps, my group has played with Mike's interpretation the entire time (that a card which boosts Charisma also boosts any skill based off of Charisma). We didn't even realize there was a dispute for a while, truth be told. It seemed like if you have:
Charisma: 1d12
Arcana: Charisma+2
Then by adding an extra two dice to Charisma, you'd also be improving things based off of it.
Charisma: 3d12
Arcana: Charisma (3d12)+2
The game is still plenty challenging playing this way, I assure you. We've gone through the "Intro" Scenario and Burnt Offerings twice now, and done part of Skinsaw. We've had plenty of close calls, had to restart a scenario more than once, and really have to plan our moves out to have a good chance at survival. This game is *not* lacking in challenge.
Also, most of the Blessings *do* say 'non-combat' check. The main one that boosts Charisma says 'non-combat Charisma check'. So that one wouldn't work on Seoni's spells, when used for combat (I believe, I don't have the cards in front of me).
Wow... 14 posts since I last logged in. This has been a hot topic!
From Vic's posts it seems like this has now been clarified to mean that anything which boosts a base skill also boosts derived skills (e.g. if you add 1d6 to a non-combat DEX check then that also boosts ACROBATICS, for example).
To me, this is great news. It makes thematic sense, makes the game simpler to understand and simpler to teach and is all around a Great And Wonderful Things.
Thanks to Vic, Mike and the team for following up on this and clarifying!
---
@bidmaron - I don't have an issue with any of the cards you mentioned... if the Troubador helps you with DEX checks then why shouldn't it also help with ACROBATICS checks (if you have ACROBATICS = DEX + x)? For unskilled Acrobats it will be of no use (since their ACROBATICS = 1d4 and it's not a Dex check for them). If Seoni uses her Charisma to cast spells, why shouldn't the Troubador's musical accompaniment help boost her spell-weaving?
@Nathaniel - I have no background or experience with the Pathfinder RPGs, yet my understanding and interpretation of what 'made sense' and the rules in this instance was very different to yours. This is mainly because the 'sub-skills' (as we call them) say things like "ACROBATICS = DEX + 2". So it is dexterity plus a bonus. In other words, when you're being acrobatic you're using your dexterity (thematically) and your Dexterity die (mechanically) so, to me, I figured that was effectively a type of Dexterity check.