New Characters!!!


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Checking out the character sheets for S&S and the Class Decks. So, couple of observations/interpretations I'm going to throw out there.

1. Notice how some of the powers say "for its power" and some don't? For example, Vika's Blacksmith role says both...

When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

When you would bury an armor or weapon, you may discard it instead.

The second one doesn't mention burying it for its power or playing it, so you can use that if you bury for any reason. Similarly, Damiel's "When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead." means he can banish a card with the Alchemical trait for something like fulling a closing requirement and recharge it instead.

2. Flenta's "For your combat check that has the Attack trait, you may use the skill Arcane: Intelligence +2" power seems to let her roll well on Attack trait spells, but still requires her to banish them (and use her other power to grab a different spell from the box).

3. One of my favorite character powers: S&S Valeros' Tactician role's "When another character encounters a villain, you may immediately move."


Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game Subscriber

These are super interesting. i swear, Paizo doesn't want me to sleep this week. I'll be staying up way later than I should reading all of these!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

How about Lini: Rolling a d12, shuffling her animal allies, and adding monsters to her hand.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, on Vika's Blacksmith role...

Vika wrote:
When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

That reads to me like if she does the "another card of the same type in your discard pile" she still keeps the weapon or armor she played in her hand. i.e. instead of discarding this weapon, she can recharge that weapon from her discard pile.

That is awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game Subscriber

Damiel. Like Sajan's Drunken Master roll, but with even heavier focus on potions. And it seems like he can use any non-attack spell as well as a wizard or cleric. Wow, I might have my first character picked out :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Actually, on Vika's Blacksmith role...

Vika wrote:
When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

That reads to me like if she does the "another card of the same type in your discard pile" she still keeps the weapon or armor she played in her hand. i.e. instead of discarding this weapon, she can recharge that weapon from her discard pile.

That is awesome.

Wow, I love the idea of a blacksmith hero!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
eddiephlash wrote:
Damiel. Like Sajan's Drunken Master roll, but with even heavier focus on potions. And it seems like he can use any non-attack spell as well as a wizard or cleric. Wow, I might have my first character picked out :)

Yes, I absolutely LOVED playing Damiel during the playtest, and the final version is even better! (Vic, Mike, slap me if you still don't want us to talk about things from the playtest, but....)

Dameil Playtest Ver.:
During the playtest, you had to succeed in a check to acquire the alchemical items to recharge instead of banishing them. You also had to make a check to acquire the spells to recharge instead of banishing them, using Craft instead of the normal skill. You didn't get to use Craft as a pseudo Arcane/Divine skill before. It actually made it easier for him to recharge spells (including spells that might be meant to not be rechargeable), but at the risk of losing them forever. This is so, so much better. I mainly like it because during the playtest I put skill feats into nothing but Intelligence until it was maxed out because I was worried about losing my beloved alchemical items and spells forever! Now I might actually think of taking increases in other skills before Intelligence is maxed out, maybe. I do like being really smart. The only thing I see that I'm a little sad about is that he lost the ([ ] or reveal) feat for his "to add 1d4 to your check" in the Chirurgeon role, but I'm still super excited about playing him!

As for the Class Deck characters, as I'm planning on using the Bard Deck in OP, I'm really liking Siwar. I do have a question about a power in her Manipulator role, though:

"When you attempt ([ ] or another character at your location attempts) to defeat a barrier that has the Skirmish or the Task trait, that character may use her Diplomacy skill in place of any listed skill on the check."

When it says "her Diplomacy skill" does that mean the Diplomacy skill of whichever character is making the check, or do you use Siwar's Diplomacy skill even if it's a different character making the check?

I'll probably be using Siwar or one of the three versions of Lem in OP.

Anyway, thanks for getting this up! I like the new design! I'll be reading them over and over and may have more questions later, although I also need to do some reading of the other ACG (Advanced Class Guide).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think it means the character attempting the check's Diplomacy skill. It says "that character may use her Diplomacy skill..", and the immediate antecedent to her is "that character" so it would mean "that character may use that character's Diplomacy skill."


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Actually, on Vika's Blacksmith role...

Vika wrote:
When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

That reads to me like if she does the "another card of the same type in your discard pile" she still keeps the weapon or armor she played in her hand. i.e. instead of discarding this weapon, she can recharge that weapon from her discard pile.

That is awesome.

Part of me really wants to argue that this is probably not how it's intended. I think it's meant that you still discard one and recharge something else (potentially better); but... the wording as is definitely matches your expectation. I'm trying to think on how it could be worded better, either way. That "instead" is what's working against me here, though.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Actually, on Vika's Blacksmith role...

Vika wrote:
When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

That reads to me like if she does the "another card of the same type in your discard pile" she still keeps the weapon or armor she played in her hand. i.e. instead of discarding this weapon, she can recharge that weapon from her discard pile.

That is awesome.

Um. I read it as if you choose to recharge another card of same type from discard pile, then you still have to discard the card you used the power from because you chose to recharge another card than the one you used. I would play it like that if you did not make me uncertain just now. ..


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
2. Flenta's "For your combat check that has the Attack trait, you may use the skill Arcane: Intelligence +2" power seems to let her roll well on Attack trait spells, but still requires her to banish them (and use her other power to grab a different spell from the box).

I took this as she could roll well for Attack spells and -not- banish them, but maybe not be able to recharge them (isn't there a rule that you can't attempt a check to recharge a card if you don't have the exact skill required?).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Okay, a few questions:

For Olenjack, once you have revealed the allies for a check, do you gain the bonus for each ally on all future checks as long as they are revealed, or only on the check you revealed them? Also, I believe this is correct, but you do not discard them for displayed, as was the case with Valeros, correct?

For Tontelizi, not really a question, but why does the legbreaker recharge ability specify that the allies must be from an adventure below the current scenario? That seems like an awful lot of text for a very minor change, and I'm curious why it was felt necessary (power level? theme?)

How does Lesath work with summoned monsters (multiple parts):
1. If a monster is summoned on another person's turn and you defeat it (zombie horde e.g.) does it stay displayed until the end of your turn (seems so, but want to be sure).
2. If you encounter but evade or fail to defeat a summoned monster, it is still banished. Would you get to display them anyway? (Seems, so, but not sure of intent)


Well I think Lesath's ability only works if he kills a monster, uses a boon to explore again and draws another monster. But I'm not sure though. It seems like he needs to keep exploring so his turn won't end.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Another not-really-a-rules-question question:

Am I completely underestimating 'return to top of deck' evasion? I always found Enfeeble to be awful, since I thought evade-to-top was worse than evade. However, I noticed a lot of characters have evade-to-top effects, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. It always felt to me that, if I was going to put something on top of the deck, I'd rather just have a card that killed it straight-away.


isaic16 wrote:
Am I completely underestimating 'return to top of deck' evasion? I always found Enfeeble to be awful, since I thought evade-to-top was worse than evade. However, I noticed a lot of characters have evade-to-top effects, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. It always felt to me that, if I was going to put something on top of the deck, I'd rather just have a card that killed it straight-away.

This is for villains and henchmen.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Evade a boon, put it on top so a character with better possibility to get it can go get it.
Also if you see the Villain you can evade him put him on top and either hunt for more loot other places. Sometimes you just have a bad hand and don't feel ready to take him on, but your buddy has a mean villain defeating hand for his turn.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

1. Notice how some of the powers say "for its power" and some don't? For example, Vika's Blacksmith role says both...

When you would discard a weapon (□ or armor) for its power, you may recharge it (□ or another card of the same type in your discard pile) instead.

When you would bury an armor or weapon, you may discard it instead.

The second one doesn't mention burying it for its power or playing it, so you can use that if you bury for any reason. Similarly, Damiel's "When you would banish a card that has the Alchemical trait, recharge it instead." means he can banish a card with the Alchemical trait for something like fulling a closing requirement and recharge it instead.

It seems like Damiel auto-acquires cards with the Alchemical trait to the bottom of his deck (successful roll to hand) -- even if he doesn't want them (unless he evades them). Bug?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

The question here is a card you don't aquire, by failure or on purpose, does it count as an actively "you would banish" it or is it simply bansihed by the game and not you as an active choice? Interesting if it works as autoaquire, though I didn't see it as that when I first read through it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think it means the character attempting the check's Diplomacy skill. It says "that character may use her Diplomacy skill..", and the immediate antecedent to her is "that character" so it would mean "that character may use that character's Diplomacy skill."

Yeah, that's what I'm leaning towards based on the wording, but I'm hoping for the other case. The feat is otherwise kind of bad. Diplomacy isn't a very common skill so it wouldn't help a lot of characters, leaving them with a flat 1d4 for the check. With the main intent of these characters being for OP in which you would be using the same character with many different other players, it seems like something that would be a pretty bad choice. If you were playing with the same set of characters, like in an Adventure Path, you can look at your teammates and say, "okay, the party has 2 other characters with Diplomacy, it might be worth taking," or, "no one else in the party has Diplomacy, I'll stay far away from that." But in OP, you have no way of knowing what your party composition will be at, say, a convention game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
pluvia33 wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think it means the character attempting the check's Diplomacy skill. It says "that character may use her Diplomacy skill..", and the immediate antecedent to her is "that character" so it would mean "that character may use that character's Diplomacy skill."
Yeah, that's what I'm leaning towards based on the wording, but I'm hoping for the other case. The feat is otherwise kind of bad. Diplomacy isn't a very common skill so it wouldn't help a lot of characters, leaving them with a flat 1d4 for the check. With the main intent of these characters being for OP in which you would be using the same character with many different other players, it seems like something that would be a pretty bad choice. If you were playing with the same set of characters, like in an Adventure Path, you can look at your teammates and say, "okay, the party has 2 other characters with Diplomacy, it might be worth taking," or, "no one else in the party has Diplomacy, I'll stay far away from that." But in OP, you have no way of knowing what your party composition will be at, say, a convention game.

I think that makes no sense. It makes it a in many cases useless power. And now that I read it again I feel it's a typo, since the original base character has "your", not her, and they seldom rewrite powers on roles that way. Just adds stuff.

Sovereign Court

cosined wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
2. Flenta's "For your combat check that has the Attack trait, you may use the skill Arcane: Intelligence +2" power seems to let her roll well on Attack trait spells, but still requires her to banish them (and use her other power to grab a different spell from the box).

I took this as she could roll well for Attack spells and -not- banish them, but maybe not be able to recharge them (isn't there a rule that you can't attempt a check to recharge a card if you don't have the exact skill required?).

If you don't have Arcane (which she doesn't outside the check itself, meaning she doesn't for purposes of recharge vs banish) then you banish. She only gets Arcane for the actual combat check, the step after rolling your check is to complete the next check if necessary (in this case, a recharge if available). She no longer has Arcane, and must banish the spell. She is a warrior that failed as a caster. She still can't successfully cast spells and keep them, but she is still better than your average fighter.


Andrew K wrote:
cosined wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
2. Flenta's "For your combat check that has the Attack trait, you may use the skill Arcane: Intelligence +2" power seems to let her roll well on Attack trait spells, but still requires her to banish them (and use her other power to grab a different spell from the box).

I took this as she could roll well for Attack spells and -not- banish them, but maybe not be able to recharge them (isn't there a rule that you can't attempt a check to recharge a card if you don't have the exact skill required?).

If you don't have Arcane (which she doesn't outside the check itself, meaning she doesn't for purposes of recharge vs banish) then you banish. She only gets Arcane for the actual combat check, the step after rolling your check is to complete the next check if necessary (in this case, a recharge if available). She no longer has Arcane, and must banish the spell. She is a warrior that failed as a caster. She still can't successfully cast spells and keep them, but she is still better than your average fighter.

::Shrug:: It just seems odd that Paizo would devote 13 cards in the Fighter Class Deck so 1 of the 4 (2 of the others can never carry spells) can Banish them upon use. I follow the reasoning with regards to her story, but I'm not as convinced with regards to practicality and mechanics.


The Blacksmith Character can also get a spell but only one.

A very interesting thing on the guild play rules is that banishing cards from your deck during play does not really affect your deck after you rebuild it. After a scenario you can rebuild you deck using any card you have unlocked from rewards since banishing does not also require you to erase that reward from your tracking sheets.

So while you do have to banish that cool spell when you use it... at the end of the scenario you can just put it back in your deck for the next scenario. (I am not talking about spells you picked up in play from the game box... but cards such as Spell 3 that you may have selected as a reward during previous scenarios.)


Thazar wrote:
A very interesting thing on the guild play rules is that banishing cards from your deck during play does not really affect your deck after you rebuild it. After a scenario you can rebuild you deck using any card you have unlocked from rewards since banishing does not also require you to erase that reward from your tracking sheets.

So you interpret a character to be a collection of feats and card upgrades ('Weapon 2'), and that any time you field the character you can use any matching cards from your class deck? I assumed that you weren't supposed to change your cards and anything banished needs to be replaced with B cards.

Erratum:
Ezren Hedge Wizard sample deck: Masterwork Tools


For guild play yes. The characters deck is limited and built differently than in normal home play. You are limited to cards in the class deck that are Basic (or B if out of basic) plus any upgrades available that you have earned. And since no sign off on a full deck is needed I have to believe the intent is to have a flexibly deck for guild play. That is one of the advantages of NOT getting to keep more than one card or anything else gained during play from the main game box.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Jorsalheim wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I think it means the character attempting the check's Diplomacy skill. It says "that character may use her Diplomacy skill..", and the immediate antecedent to her is "that character" so it would mean "that character may use that character's Diplomacy skill."
Yeah, that's what I'm leaning towards based on the wording, but I'm hoping for the other case. The feat is otherwise kind of bad. Diplomacy isn't a very common skill so it wouldn't help a lot of characters, leaving them with a flat 1d4 for the check. With the main intent of these characters being for OP in which you would be using the same character with many different other players, it seems like something that would be a pretty bad choice. If you were playing with the same set of characters, like in an Adventure Path, you can look at your teammates and say, "okay, the party has 2 other characters with Diplomacy, it might be worth taking," or, "no one else in the party has Diplomacy, I'll stay far away from that." But in OP, you have no way of knowing what your party composition will be at, say, a convention game.
I think that makes no sense. It makes it a in many cases useless power. And now that I read it again I feel it's a typo, since the original base character has "your", not her, and they seldom rewrite powers on roles that way. Just adds stuff.

I keep rereading, and rereading, and I guess I'm wrong in my last post. It's an incredible powerfull power if every character in her location gets to roll a d12 +3 on every barrierer with those traits. I was just wishing it worked like that :)


Thazar wrote:
A very interesting thing on the guild play rules is that banishing cards from your deck during play does not really affect your deck after you rebuild it. After a scenario you can rebuild you deck using any card you have unlocked from rewards since banishing does not also require you to erase that reward from your tracking sheets.

That's not actually true, you're still limited with rebuilding to only using B set cards, so if you banish a set 2 card, you replace it with B.

From the OP manual:

Quote:

After upgrading your deck, when rebuilding the rest of

your character deck, choose extra cards, if needed, from
your Class Deck. First, choose cards with the Basic trait
and B set indicator; then choose cards without the Basic
trait with the B set indicator, if you don’t have enough
Basic cards.

Grand Lodge

I'm not sure that's entirely true. As you unlock cards in your deck (and record them on your sheet), you don't record the card but the deck number and card type. So if you happen to banish a Item 2, I'd think you still have the ability to pick an Item 2 to replace it.

The rules you quoted seemed to be more for building the initial decks and how to pick deck upgrades and rewards. But just because it says to use Basic first, doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that you've unlocked higher level cards to pull from.

So I guess the question is, if you've had to banish a boon you've unlocked at a level higher than Basic, do you lose the higher level and need to revert to Basic boons of that type or do you still retain the higher level boon?


I don't think you 'unlock' cards, as you're putting it. You are actually building the deck and marking the changes on the card list, including those you lost. There's nothing I can find in the rules that indicates that it works any other way than the base game in that regard (banishing cards) or that indicates it's just making cards more available. It indicates actually adding the cards to the deck, not "is available for building forever more", etc. Just as in regular play, if you have a Super-Duper Crossbow of Awesome +4, and you happen to banish it for whatever reason, you do actually lose it from your deck. In the listed rules changes, there nothing explicitly stating that works differently for organized play than regular rules.

The only thing I think may be left out (but, perhaps intentionally) is being able to add higher set numbers during the upgrade step for higher adventures. I would think that if you're in a set 4 adventure, you'd be able to pick a set 2 or lower adventure to replace a missing card after, based on other rules in similar events.


I'm with Deekow. It seems to be pretty clearly spelled out to me. If you need extra cards to rebuild your deck (due to banishing them), you have to choose from the Basic B-set cards first. I'm not sure if that's their intent, but it's definitely how it's written, and is a strong deterrent from playing any characters with powers based around banishing cards.

Grand Lodge

As you get rewards and deck upgrades after the scenario is done, you are unlocking that in your class deck. While you are playing, you are using boons from location decks or from the box if you draw from there. After the scenario is done, you gather the booty from the ship, any reward boons and any boons gained while playing. Since these don't actually go into your deck, you record the boon type and deck number (B/C/P = B, 1 = 1, etc.) And then you may go get a boon of that type and level to add to your deck (while following the appropriate card counts).

That's what I mean by unlocking boons in your deck. Since you don't actually get the cards from the play set, you get cards from your class deck after the scenario. But the question still is whether if you banish that boon for whatever reason, can you replace it with a boon of that type and level afterwards.

And I guess my reasoning is that in PFS, if you purchase an item on your list of what's available after the scenario is over and that item gets destroyed somehow, you may purchase it again if you have enough gold.


The rules being played are based on PACG, not PFS. Clarifications of rules that differ are in contrast to PACG, not PFS. Nobody has given any indication that any default rules states come from PFS, but they have indicated they come from PACG. This is all pretty clearly laid out, and there are explicit instructions for deck building that contradict your interpretation.

At this point, it seems you have your own idea that you're unwilling to let go unless someone from development team clarifies it, so we'll all have to wait for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless the guide specifically says "you permanently have access to unlocked cards" or "you may rebuild your deck with cards previously unlocked" (which I it doesn't) I would tend to believe that you upgrade your deck with only the 1 card you just gained, then follow the "basic first" rule to rebuild your deck to your card limit.

I don't buy the PFS RPG analogy because, as Deekow mentioned, this is not the RPG. In the card game, if you drink (banish) a Potion of Healing, you don't get to go to the store (box) and buy (draw) another to replace it; it's gone until you find another.

Theryon Stormrune wrote:
The rules you quoted seemed to be more for building the initial decks and how to pick deck upgrades and rewards.

The first line of Deekow's quote...

Quote:
After upgrading your deck, when rebuilding the rest of your character deck...

...would seem to imply this is not when initially building the deck. You can't upgrade your deck if you haven't played yet. You don't upgrade your deck after you upgrade your deck.

Theryon Stormrune wrote:
But just because it says to use Basic first, doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that you've unlocked higher level cards to pull from.

Actually, I think that's exactly what it's saying; it's pretty explicit.

Even if you assume that you can choose from your previously unlocked cards, how are you going to access them before the Basic and B-set cards?

Grand Lodge

Yes, I'm waiting for an official clarification about banishing unlocked cards and rebuilding for the next scenario. (And I was using a "for instance" with the PFS RPG, not as a clarification of the PFSACG. I do realize they are different.)

The rules for PFSACG are going to be tweaked after seeing some of the questions that popped up during play.

And at this point since we can't play any of this yet, it is kind of moot until it is clarified.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Flat the Impaler wrote:
Unless the guide specifically says "you permanently have access to unlocked cards" or "you may rebuild your deck with cards previously unlocked" (which I it doesn't) I would tend to believe that you upgrade your deck with only the 1 card you just gained, then follow the "basic first" rule to rebuild your deck to your card limit.

This is correct.


OK and thanks for the clarification, but now I am very confused on the fighter deck.

They have a lot of spells (11 unique names) that have adventure deck 1 or higher. And as written the two fighters who can carry spells cannot ever recharge them with the powers as listed so will always banish them after one casting of the spell. So any drafted card of spell 1 or higher is a one use spell for that character until they get another reward of that level? Depending on the number of "B" spell cards in the fighter deck I do not know how Flenta will be able to carry and use 5 spell cards that she can unlock.

My only thought at this point is that some of the other characters from S&S may be "unlocked" for play such as Seltyiel who are then instructed to use the Fighter Class deck for guild play. This would then explain why so many spells are in the fighter deck that realistically cannot be used by the base characters in the deck.

Sovereign Court

Organized Play will likely have a rule like the base game. After a certain adventure (or month, in this case), you would be allowed to pull cards that don't have the basic trait, but specific adventure numbers.

I really don't expect them to ever let a class use another class's deck, there's no reason to. Having more spells than are possible to have just means you have more choices and more ways to differ from other Flentas


Andrew K wrote:
I really don't expect them to ever let a class use another class's deck, there's no reason to. Having more spells than are possible to have just means you have more choices and more ways to differ from other Flentas

One of the rewards some players have unlocked is the ability to play Jirelle (Swashbuckler) using the Rogue Class Deck, so Seltiel is possible; precedent exists.

Also, notice that Flenta (Arcane Pretender role) can use spells for their adventure number without playing them, so there's reason for her to keep high-level spells around.


isaic16 wrote:

Okay, a few questions:

For Olenjack, once you have revealed the allies for a check, do you gain the bonus for each ally on all future checks as long as they are revealed, or only on the check you revealed them? Also, I believe this is correct, but you do not discard them for displayed, as was the case with Valeros, correct?

For Tontelizi, not really a question, but why does the legbreaker recharge ability specify that the allies must be from an adventure below the current scenario? That seems like an awful lot of text for a very minor change, and I'm curious why it was felt necessary (power level? theme?)

How does Lesath work with summoned monsters (multiple parts):
1. If a monster is summoned on another person's turn and you defeat it (zombie horde e.g.) does it stay displayed until the end of your turn (seems so, but want to be sure).
2. If you encounter but evade or fail to defeat a summoned monster, it is still banished. Would you get to display them anyway? (Seems, so, but not sure of intent)

So is there a ruling on how Olenjack's display allies power feat works? Does the bonus apply for multiple checks?

On page 10 of the rulebook it says, "Display: Place it faceup in front of your character, unless stated otherwise; the card's powers function until it's discarded."

On Olenjack it says, "When you attempt a check, you may display any number of allies; for each ally displayed, add 1 (□ 2) to the check. Return the displayed allies to your hand before you reset it."

So, the questions are:
1. Do you get the bonus on any and all checks after the allies are displayed?

2. Can you return the allies to your hand anytime before you reset it, or just right before you reset it, after the explore phase of your turn?


Smokedgoalie wrote:
isaic16 wrote:

Okay, a few questions:

For Olenjack, once you have revealed the allies for a check, do you gain the bonus for each ally on all future checks as long as they are revealed, or only on the check you revealed them? Also, I believe this is correct, but you do not discard them for displayed, as was the case with Valeros, correct?

For Tontelizi, not really a question, but why does the legbreaker recharge ability specify that the allies must be from an adventure below the current scenario? That seems like an awful lot of text for a very minor change, and I'm curious why it was felt necessary (power level? theme?)

How does Lesath work with summoned monsters (multiple parts):
1. If a monster is summoned on another person's turn and you defeat it (zombie horde e.g.) does it stay displayed until the end of your turn (seems so, but want to be sure).
2. If you encounter but evade or fail to defeat a summoned monster, it is still banished. Would you get to display them anyway? (Seems, so, but not sure of intent)

So is there a ruling on how Olenjack's display allies power feat works? Does the bonus apply for multiple checks?

On page 10 of the rulebook it says, "Display: Place it faceup in front of your character, unless stated otherwise; the card's powers function until it's discarded."

On Olenjack it says, "When you attempt a check, you may display any number of allies; for each ally displayed, add 1 (□ 2) to the check. Return the displayed allies to your hand before you reset it."

So, the questions are:
1. Do you get the bonus on any and all checks after the allies are displayed?

2. Can you return the allies to your hand anytime before you reset it, or just right before you reset it, after the explore phase of your turn?

Saying that the card's powers function until it's discarded is primarily to refer to cards that stay out and provide support on their own, rather than cards that display other cards. It does still apply here, but it can be confusing.

Olenjack adds to "the check." This is singular. As long as the card is revealed (which can be a while), he technically benefits from it, but only when making that one check. Realistically, this means that he is using an ally to help with one check, and removing it from his hand until later. So the fact that they stay out is a downside to keep his power balanced, rather than an upside that helps other checks.

His power should be interpreted as "immediately before you reset your hand." You can't just reveal the cards for one check and then get them back immediately after the encounter because it's technically "before you reset your hand." He's worded that way (I believe) to explain that you get them in your hand before determining what to discard and draw, and the word "immediately" was left off probably due to space.

It should be noted that, should something allow you to reset your hand without ending your turn, you can return the allies to your hand in time to use them again on explorations.

Sovereign Court

Also, the rules say the card is displayed until the card is discarded. Well, the card has no active powers while displayed, your character had the power. So there is no power to keep going while displayed.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

And to add to all that, there are cards that say "While displayed do..." such as Strength. That gives an example of what the wording would be like if Olenjack's power (or Oloch's) was supposed to work for more than 1 check.

And also, there might be allies that get displayed when you play them. Letting Olenjack's power work for more than 1 check would mean requiring you to distinguish between allies you displayed for Olenjack's power and allies you displayed when you played the ally. That is the kind of thing that, while not entirely excluded, the game design seems to avoid.


Ok, thanks for the clarification. That's the way we've been playing him, but I wanted to make sure.

One side benefit in using this ability is that the ally cards are not in your hand when damage is dealt from a failed combat check or other sources of damage and cannot be discarded, which has been useful.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Smokedgoalie wrote:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. That's the way we've been playing him, but I wanted to make sure.

One side benefit in using this ability is that the ally cards are not in your hand when damage is dealt from a failed combat check or other sources of damage and cannot be discarded, which has been useful.

Yes indeed. I'm playing Oloch in S&S and I've displayed all my weapons and blessings on checks I knew wouldn't be successful even with all those bonuses, but that would deal me damage and cost me those cards if they weren't displayed.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / New Characters!!! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion