| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I searched the forums here for 'lini shapeshifter' and 'ezren evoker' but came up with no relevant results to this.
Over on BGG, there was a question concerning the left to right thing for adjacent choices for feats and the cumulative effect.
The rules say when the choices are immediately adjacent, they must be chosen from left to right. That's a given for the value bonuses (+1) then (+2), etc.
But is that also the case when the left to right isn't numerical bonuses, such as for Lini's Shapeshifter role card that has the following ability:
You may discard a card to roll 1d10 ([]+1) ([]+2) ([] with the Fire trait) instead of your Strength or Dexterity die for any check.
Do you have to do the order as +1, +2, with the fire trait, or can you choose the 'with the fire trait' before doing the +1,+2 ?
Ezren's Evoker role has the following ability:
Add 2 to your Arcane check with the Force ([] or Acid and Cold) ([] or Electricity and Fire) trait(s).
Do you have to do them in order from left to right as well, meaning you must first pick the Acid and Cold before you could pick the Electricity and Fire?
I'm under the assumption that both of the above is that you must do them from left to right, since they are in adjacent sets, so it'd be:
1) +1, then +2, then with the fire trait
2) or acid and cold, then or electricity and fire
Also, as a side question concerning this, numerical values aren't cumulative, but what about the other abilities beyond it? In the first example, do you lose the +2 once you take the 'with the fire trait' option? In the second one, do you lose the chance of 'or acid and cold' once you take the 'or electricity and fire' option?
Also, for the first one, once you take 'with the fire trait,' do you HAVE to use it if it wouldn't be beneficial to you, such as a monster being immune to fire. Can you choose to ignore that part and just get the 1d10+2 without the fire trait?
I'm under the assumption that, since they're not numerical values, you can choose them as they're beneficial to you in any certain situation, but I want to make sure that's correct, because my assumptions have been proven wrong before, and it's better to be safe than sorry later.
I'm 99.9% positive that this has come up with Sajan's base abilities. Vic's ruling was that the numbers have to go in order, but the extra things that aren't linked together can be chosen no matter what order. So you should be able to add the traits on both of those before putting anything into the +1's.
Any chance you can throw me a link to this post somewhere.
I can't find it in the FAQ/Errata that I've seen, and as such, the 'official' answer still seems to be that if it's in an adjacent set, it has to be taken from left to right. So a link to Vic's ruling would be a great help.
The adjacency ruling is not limited to numbers; these are intended to be taken in order. (If the designers *hadn't* intended them to be taken in order, they'd have split them up.)
Well, there we go concerning the adjacency. Any clue about the 'they're not cumulative' for non-value-based spots or the 'pick and choose' thought?
The non-cumulative rule only applies to numbers. I'll site Sajan's card as an example. So from the FAQ errata to his card:
For your combat check, you may roll your Dexterity die (▢ and add the Magic trait) (▢ and the Fire trait); you may not play a weapon on the check.
If the second check box replaced the first, the sentence would be lacking the keyword "add". It would read:
"For your combat check, you may roll your Dexterity die and the Fire trait; you may not play a weapon on the check."
That makes no sense. Therefore the feat boxes must stack in this case. I'd therefore assume that other non-numeric adjacent feat boxes also stack.
The same thing exits on Lem's Charlatan role card. I don't believe he looses the 2 bonus to his check to defeat a henchmen if he checks the box for "or villain."
Alrighty, thank you muchly on verifying that the cumulativity is only limited to numbers.
So, lastly, what about the optionality?
Once you take the 'and fire' option, is it always on or can it be turned off temporarily if it's desired?
@Firedale - I had the same question about the "and fire" checkbox... if Sajan takes this does it mean that he cannot use this unarmed combat skill against banes which are immune to fire?
I would think you would be able to deactivate any part of the power that you added on with a subsequent power feat.
I don't think it was intended that your power feat could make your character's power weaker, which is in essence what would happen if Sajan found a monster that was immune to fire.
It is possible this will not even come up. Have we yet seen a monster immune to fire? None springs to mind. So maybe all the power feats that add traits to existing powers only add traits no one is immune to anyway.
Magic immunity is the only thing that has been guaranteed to not exist by policy. I wouldn't create an adventuring party that always does fire damage (but all magical weapons is a good idea). Red dragons, fire elementals and so forth would be immune.
One of my gaming friends playing Sentinels of the Multiverse had the option to choose any type of damage for his attacks ... he picked 'broccoli damage', since nothing would be immune to it.
An FAQ entry on Sajan's power.
Does Sajan have to add the Magic trait and the Fire trait to his combat checks when he uses his Dexterity die (assuming he has the appropriate feats)?
No—he can choose to add both, either, or neither.
Resolution: On Sajan’s character card and both sides of his role card, change the first power under his hand size to the following:
"For your combat check, you may roll your Dexterity die (▢ and you may add the Magic trait) (▢ and/or the Fire trait); you may not play a weapon on the check."
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It is possible this will not even come up. Have we yet seen a monster immune to fire? None springs to mind. So maybe all the power feats that add traits to existing powers only add traits no one is immune to anyway.
Having both played the tabletop AP and run it, I strongly suspect there will be a Fire immune critter in adventure 4.
A more interesting question is, are there monsters so far where doing Fire damage (instead of just Magic damage) is helpful? I can't recall any, but I don't have my cards right here.
Monsters no. (The cold trait has been more helpful against some monsters who are dealt more damage by it). But the fire trait is beneficial at the Old Light, where Sajan could get a bonus to his combat check.
The ogrekin-turned-into-plant Muck Graul and all the Trolls would prefer you didn't have the Fire trait.
Ah... I've only gotten to encounter Muck Graul once so far. Didn't realize that was his story. And are there trolls by deck 3? I can't remember.
I knew it would be useful eventually. I figured it wasn't just there to make his fists look cooler.
Ohhhh. So -that's- why that card is an Ogrekin... :/
Grazuul is a troll.
There are more trolls.
Grazuul is a troll.
There are more trolls.
Excellent, than Sajan's fists will definitely be doing more than looking cool.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Ohhhh. So -that's- why that card is an Ogrekin... :/
Muck Graul is now a massive carnivorous plant—a tendriculos. He barely remembers his life before, and although he recognizes the Grauls as allies, he attacks anyone else who enters this room.
I... see...
Finally we had our first encounter with Muck Graul on the last scenario of our second characters' run through AP3. Lem engaged him and we thought all hope was lost, since Lem had no way to inflict fire. Fortunately, I had Poog in my Seoni hand. The capricious cleric burned the hell out of everything, and the day was saved!
Thank you all (the devs and the forumers) for your assistance in answering and clarifying things for me and the community and helping to figure things out. I appreciate your help and all the work you do to help others enjoy the game as it's meant to be enjoyed.
So, a summary of all this is:
Adjacent checkbox items must be taken from left to right, regardless of whether it's numerical or not
Example
([]+1)([]+2)([]with the cold trait) must be taken in the following order: +1, +2, with the cold trait.
Numerical values replace previous lower numerical values, but other checkbox additions do not replace previous numerical values or other checkbox additions.
Example
([]+1)([]+2]([]with the fire trait)([]or the cold trait) must be taken from left to right (previous note). The "+2" option will overwrite the "+1" option, but the "with the fire trait" does not overwrite the "+2" choice, and the "or the cold trait" (aside from being worded the way it is) does not overwrite the "with the fire trait" or the "+2."
* Marked checkboxes in powers can be ignored if so desired
Example
([]+1)([]+2]([]with the fire trait)([]or the cold trait) can still work if you have taken the "with the fire trait" option and come upon a bane that is immune to fire by just choosing not to use the 'full strength' of your ability and holding back certain parts of it, in this case, simply deciding not to use the "with the fire trait" option.
(I'd assume based on the ruling that one could, even if it doesn't make sense, choose to not use the +2 as well, but ignore that assumption as that might end up opening a whole other can of worms and I can't think of any instance yet where a player would desire to do something that would actually reduce their roll values on purpose)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Marked checkboxes cannot be ignored. (But please note the recent update to Sajan.)
Should Lini´s Shapeshifter role card get a FAQ too?
Should her power read:
You may discard a card to roll 1d10([]+1)([]+2)([]and may add the Fire trait) instead of your Strength or Dexterity die for any check.
Or is it intentional that she can´t put out her fire because she has the option to not wildshape at all?
Shapeshifter Lini should change too.
Marked checkboxes cannot be ignored. (But please note the recent update to Sajan.)
Ah... okay... then in that case, I see lots of errata coming in the future. Keep up the good work!
What other things of this type do you think need errata?
What other things of this type do you think need errata?
Actually, I was thinking about something else that's kind of related but it's not fully related to the trait-type adding to powers thing, so my apologies for the confusion. I'll mention them here, though, as I don't know how related or unrelated it is.
Healer Kyra can end up making herself die at the start of her turn by using her first power if she's taken the ([] and draw a card) box of her healing power, which would then encourage players to not use that power in a pinch when someone else needs healed but Kyra is on the brink of death herself.
While taking the box is nifty because it can let you draw a card, if you know you're going to come upon a monster, that'd also be just one more card that could get discarded from damage that wouldn't have been otherwise and would have possibly let her live longer.
So, it's just my opinion that that draw a card should be optional ([] and you may draw a card).
I'm also of the same opinion for Sniper Harsk's []When you start your turn with no cards in your hand, you may draw 1 ([]2) card(s).
If the player has taken that ([]2) box and they have only 1 card in his/her deck at the start of his/her turn, then he/she cannot use the ability at all, since it'd kill Harsk outright at the start of his turn instead of giving him a chance to do something during his turn and possibly dying at the end. I think it should be ([] or 2), that way, it's an option for 1 or 2.
And yes, I know, using those abilities are in and of themselves optional, but I'm of the opinion that those abilities shouldn't have effects within them that end up causing adverse reactions (ie, death) directly, thus making them undesirable additions to the abilities.
Also, I apologize for my exaggeration by using 'lots,' my brain was also thinking about the next AP, but then I remembered you all are working on those now, so you won't have to errata them, as you can just have them printed with the corrections since they're not actually printed yet.
I agree that Healer Kyra should say "and may draw a card".
The Sniper Harsk change might be more difficult to make happen, since we don't want all the "+1 ([]+2) ([]+3)" occurrences to be perceived as "+1 ([] or +2) ([] or +3)". We'll look into that.
Couldn´t this be prevented by turning it into:
[]When you start your turn with no cards in your hand, you may draw 1 card. ([]you may draw 1 or 2 cards)
Than it wouldn´t get mixed up with any +1([]+2)(etc.).
Like I said, we'll look into it.
Not that I have any strong interest in Harsk or his card (don't think I've ever read that power), but you could also say "you may draw up to 1(2)(3) card(s)," if you cared to change it (not that you need my advice :D).
Just to close the loop on Kyra. She was FAQ'd this week.