Absolutely. The belt doesn't care what specifically the additional item is. As long as it is an item, it can be played. And a second belt is an item, so you can play it.
Yeah I agree it seems odd to be able to "wear" multiple belts but Hawkmoon is right you can absolutely do it.
I'm kind of surprised that they didn't give belts the "belt" keyword and changed the wording such that you can use another item that's not a belt. Or have keywords in the rules like belt/ring/amulet/etc and specify that only 1 of each type can be played on a check. But that's not the way that they wanted to go, apparently.
Maybe you wear one as a collar?
My guess is Mike didn't want to add any more complexity to the rules. Seems to be a theme on many of his posts.
I think multiple belts were fashionable at one point in the 1980s. Maybe the same is true in the Pathfinder universe. And besides, if a belt increased your strength you probably aren't going to not wear it just because you don't need it to hold up your pants. So who is to say if you found a second one you wouldn't say "Well, I've already got a belt, but this does make me stronger, so even though I'll look silly, I'll be able to punch whoever laughs at me a bit harder for laughing at me."
I'm fairly sure that was indeed the thought process.
Very nice :)
I'm kind of surprised that they didn't give belts the "belt" keyword and changed the wording such that you can use another item that's not a belt. Or have keywords in the rules like belt/ring/amulet/etc and specify that only 1 of each type can be played on a check.
We tried it; It was one more extra thing to remember and put on each card, and it made parts of the game less fun. Beyond that, you can totally wear multiple belts, and at least two rings, and we didn't have the time or inclination to make a paper-doll with item slots (although I do kid Mike about it now and then).
I've played too many RPGs for it to not bother me but I completely understand not wanting to overcomplicate your game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that you mention it...
We're actually working a very small rules patch that addresses an interesting exploit: Can you play multiple Belts of Giant Strength, each referring to the other over and over, to get +infinity Strength on a check? The answer is for-God-sakes-no, obviously, but we're taking a look at the wording of "reveal" to make sure that doesn't ever happen.
There was a point where I said, "Man, I hope to never have to write a set of comp rules for this game," and right about then I realized I'd have to write a set of comp rules for this game.
Mike
Now that you mention it...
We're actually working a very small rules patch that addresses an interesting exploit: Can you play multiple Belts of Giant Strength, each referring to the other over and over, to get +infinity Strength on a check? The answer is for-God-sakes-no, obviously, but we're taking a look at the wording of "reveal" to make sure that doesn't ever happen.
There was a point where I said, "Man, I hope to never have to write a set of comp rules for this game," and right about then I realized I'd have to write a set of comp rules for this game.
Mike
A-HA! So, I better hurry up and find that 2nd Ring of Protection so that I can have total-invulnerability to damage (except for non-preventable a-la Shrine of Lamashtu, etc) before the errata comes out!
Common-sense... the last superpower!
Motrax
For some reason I thought I remembered seeing something like 'You cannot play two cards with the same name on a single check.' Maybe that was just a community member post on the issue.
Along the same lines, I believe shields say 'You may play another armor on this check'. Last night we ran into the first time we could actually make use of two shields in a hand, and we didn't recall anything in the rules that would not allow us to use an infinite number of shields, and I didn't find anything with a quick search of the faq/forums. Is this correct as well?
Yes. You can play lots of shields, and another armor as well, as long as you play the shields first. See this thread for some discussion about the order of playing armor during a check.
Now that you mention it...
We're actually working a very small rules patch that addresses an interesting exploit: Can you play multiple Belts of Giant Strength, each referring to the other over and over, to get +infinity Strength on a check? The answer is for-God-sakes-no, obviously, but we're taking a look at the wording of "reveal" to make sure that doesn't ever happen.
There was a point where I said, "Man, I hope to never have to write a set of comp rules for this game," and right about then I realized I'd have to write a set of comp rules for this game.
Mike
Valeros actually had the two belts on and I didn't think of that exploit. I wouldn't have used it, but I'm a bit miffed I didn't think of it! My rules mongering days are obviously behind me
I should be clear that I think you can play as many Belts of Giant Strength as you have in your hand. Just not all of them an infinite number of times.
Right. But when we opened the door on "You may play another (X) on the check," we at least theoretically opened the door to bouncing back and forth between two of the same item forever. So we're going to close that theoretically open door.
For now: You can't because I said so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should be clear that I think you can play as many Belts of Giant Strength as you have in your hand. Just not all of them an infinite number of times.
:
For now: You can't because I said so.
I've reached Stage 3, bargaining. How about just some of them an infinite number of times?
I always just assumed there was a "you can't use the same card more than once on the same check," that would naturally prohibit "I play my ring of protection, and then my ring of protection, and then my first ring of protection, and the my SECOND ring of..." just like you can't repeat powers over and over to, say, reveal every animal ally in your hand for a +6d4 to a Lini check. I guess that's not the case?
I understand that, I'm saying there's, at the very least, a rule you can derive by inference, if it's not actually stated (again, not sure if it is or not) that says "you can only use X thing once per check," just like there's no converse rule for powers that says "you may activate more than one power on the same check, barring conflicts," but we all understand you're allowed to do that without being explicitly told.
Besides the obvious that it's blatantly game-breaking, and you're just denying yourself the experience of playing the game if you use this weird exploit that never even occurred to me as possible, given how ridiculous it is, and how this stretched interpretation of the text conflicts with every other mechanic in the game.
For now: You can't because I said so.I've reached Stage 3, bargaining. How about just some of them an infinite number of times?
You can use an infinite number of them some number of times.
|
Well, there's already a rule that says you can't activate a power more than once per event. If you add a rule that says (or clarifies) a card stays revealed until the end of the event, then the card can remember that its power has already been used, even though it's still in your hand and could be revealed for other powers.
For example, you reveal a Belt for its power. It stays revealed and you can use another item on the check. You could then reveal a second Belt for its power and be allowed to use a third item. You couldn't use the first Belt a second time, because it remembers that its power has already been used. Same thing with Rings of Protection: if they stay revealed until damage has been dealt, they can remember having been used.
Doesn't the following rule already prevent the kind of infinite loops we're talking about here?
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.
Let's say you have two Belts of Giant Strength in your hand. Let's say you're attempting a Strength check and you use Belt #1. You could argue that right then and there, you can't play Belt #2, because it's still the same power as the first belt (even though it's coming from a different card).
But supposing Belt #2's power is considered to be distinct from Belt #1's power, I'm pretty sure the rule above would explicitly prevent you from playing Belt #1 again. You've already activated that power once, so you can't activate it again.
What I want to know is whether the powers on Belt #1 and Belt #2 are considered to be the same or distinct for the purposes of the above rule. In other words, does the rule actually prevent you from playing both belts?
I've always read that as referring to the character powers, since it is usually used in conjunction with playing cards, as in the sentence after that:
Players may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps.
If activating powers covered the activation of powers on boons when they are played, then the "play any cards" part of the sentence is redundant.
But that is just how I read it, not how it is meant to be read.
Concerning all of this, actually, by the rules as written, you could even reveal the same belt multiple times (no need for multiple copies of it in your hand), as after you reveal it and put it back into your hand, it forgets that it's been played. There is no card memory. Once it goes back into your hand, it's 'just another card in your hand' that can then be played again since the previous item that was played says you can play another item.
So I can understand Mike is having an issue.
Sounds like "Display this card until after the roll to ...." in conjunction with "return this card to your hand after the roll." would have worked better for the intent.
That way, you can only play each copy of the card once, and it's returned to your hand after you roll the dice so it's viable for removal by damage. However, cards like it that have other effects that can be done after the reveal would then be affected, because you could not do the display thing and then the discard thing, since it is no longer in your hand available to discard until after the roll is made.
Edit: My apologies, csouth mentioned something to this effect earlier (the multiple play of the same exact card) and I somehow missed it when I was reading.
That sounds like it might mess with Lini's ability to discard that card to use a d10 for her strength.
Sorry if it sounds like I an just pointing out problems. I don't seem to be creative enough to suggest any solutions myself.
I've always read that as referring to the character powers, since it is usually used in conjunction with playing cards, as in the sentence after that:
Players may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps.If activating powers covered the activation of powers on boons when they are played, then the "play any cards" part of the sentence is redundant.
But that is just how I read it, not how it is meant to be read.
In regards to the sentence you mentioned, I think they could have just as easily said "Players may not activate any powers between these steps." Playing a card activates it powers, so that sentence you quoted is already redundant, as written.
Actually, the phrase "play a card or activate a power" shows up quite a few times in the rulebook. Personally, I think it's redundant in most of those cases. For example, the step "Play cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check (Optional)" in attempting a check could just as easily been called "Use Powers that Affect the Check (Optional)." But I can see why they might have worded it the way they did to emphasize the ability to play cards at that point.
But returning to the quote in question:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.
The sentence doesn't specifically mention "character" powers, so I would argue that it should be read in the most general sense (i.e. it refers to ALL powers).
This may be off-topic a bit, but consider this weird case.
'At this Location' effects are referred to in the rulebook as powers:
At This Location: These are special powers that are in effect while the location is open. Some of these remain in effect when the location is permanently closed; in that case, they also appear on the back of the location card.
So if I'm at The Old Light location ("Add 1d6 to checks using the Fire trait.") and I make a check with the Fire Trait, am I "activating a power" when I use the location's effect? If I am, and the rule...
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.
... is meant to refer to ALL powers, then it's a good thing that this rule prevents me from using the power repeatedly to add 157d6 to my check. But strangely enough, the way the card is worded, it almost sounds like all characters at my location could add 1d6 to my check, because it doesn't say "your check".
This discussion also applies to Fort Rannick ("When you attempt a combat check, you may discard an ally to add 1d4 to the check.") Can I discard 3 allies from my hand to add 3d4 to my combat check? I would argue that the rule I quoted prevents you from doing this.
Yeah. It probably is redundant. And the two terms appear next to each other enough that I've just treated them as being under the same rules.
|
If there are really players out there that think infinite bouncing is an intended design of the rules, then I'm sure there are already plenty of other PACG rules they're abusing/misusing anyways. The "you can only use a power once per step" bit from above is fairly clear, and besides that... it's just common game sense here. :)
it's just common game sense here. :)I agree. I kinda feel the same way about the question of whether you can explore outside of the explore phase. The very existence of a phase with that name answers the question, in my mind.
Agreed.
Right. But when we opened the door on "You may play another (X) on the check," we at least theoretically opened the door to bouncing back and forth between two of the same item forever. So we're going to close that theoretically open door.
For now: You can't because I said so.
You don't necessarily have time to adjust your belts of strength off in battle to put them back on for a stat boost. (lol)
Limi: Why is Val messing with his belts in combat?
Lem : Don't ask...
I love that mental picture. The thought of Valeros just standing in front of a Hill Giant switching belts until the Hill Giant spontaneously combusts...
I love that mental picture. The thought of Valeros just standing in front of a Hill Giant switching belts until the Hill Giant spontaneously combusts...
Could we make that a promo card?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love that mental picture. The thought of Valeros just standing in front of a Hill Giant switching belts until the Hill Giant spontaneously combusts...Could we make that a promo card?
Perhaps we could call it: Giant Belts of (L)ength.
Item. Reveal this card to add 1 to your pants size. You may play another (or even the same) item with this check.
Flavor text: "Insert loop A into Buckle B, insert loop B into Buckle C, insert loop C into buckle D... " -- Valeros reading the assembly instructions for his birthday present from Shayliss. Tee-hee!
Now that you mention it...
We're actually working a very small rules patch that addresses an interesting exploit: Can you play multiple Belts of Giant Strength, each referring to the other over and over, to get +infinity Strength on a check? The answer is for-God-sakes-no, obviously, but we're taking a look at the wording of "reveal" to make sure that doesn't ever happen.
There was a point where I said, "Man, I hope to never have to write a set of comp rules for this game," and right about then I realized I'd have to write a set of comp rules for this game.
Mike
As a mathematician, I'm appalled at the very existence of the question ;) Infinity, after all, is not a number and as such adding it to an actual number is every bit as mathematically nonsensical as "belt plus 5". More than that, even if it were permissible to reveal the belts over and over again, no one in their life-time would be able to add anything more than a relatively modest finite value to the check.
Check to acquire: Knowledge: Aleph-One