| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say I am capable of succeeding at a check, but want to fail. Can I just choose to fail?
You can't fail, but in certain cases, you can choose not to attempt it. If the check is a check to acquire a boon, you do not have to attempt it.
If it is a check to defeat a bane, you must attempt it. You can't just take a 0. But there are often ways to choose to do very poorly. Anyone without the Melee skill listed on their card can choose to use Melee for a Combat check and roll 1d4. The same applies to any check where you can choose a skill you don't have. (The only situation I can think of where it would be at all helpful to fail to defeat a bane would maybe when you could temp close all locations, but didn't want the scenario to end yet, so you wanted to fail to defeat the villain. That would essentially be a costly evade against the villain. And you might be better off instead just keeping one location open and letting the villain flee there.)
Recharge checks are also optional, but you aren't really "failing" if you choose not to attempt it. You just aren't attempting it. Look for the word "may" to indicate it is optional, like on this spell. Some recharge checks might not have the word "may", but they should.
If it’s a boon, you may attempt to acquire it; if you don’t, banish it. If it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it.
Attempt the Check. If the card is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it (see Attempting a Check, below). If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.
Follow-up question:
If I succeed at a check to acquire a boon, must I acquire it? Can I choose to banish it instead?
You must add it to your hand. The rules tell you to add it to your hand. There is no mechanism for banishing cards you just don't want in your hand. You can voluntarily discard it as part of resetting your hand though.
Resolve the Encounter. If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don’t succeed, it is undefeated—shuffle the card back into its location deck. If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it.
Each boon card has a section called Check to Acquire. This section indicates the skills that can be used in checks to acquire the boon and the difficulty of the checks. If you succeed in acquiring the card, put it into your hand. If you fail, banish it.
Aside from what csouth and Hawkmoon said, the answer is no. I actually asked this a while ago.
I'm sure the thread is around somewhere...
EDIT: Here it is.
The game devs never chimed in, so we can only assume that the conclusions were correct (you can't choose to fail just any check).
|
Aside from what csouth and Hawkmoon said, the answer is no. I actually asked this a while ago.
I'm sure the thread is around somewhere...
EDIT: Here it is.
The game devs never chimed in, so we can only assume that the conclusions were correct (you can't choose to fail just any check).
While you can't choose to fail a check, you can choose to not attempt the check and that's how you get around it.
Wooden Armor comes up as you explore a location ... instead of attempting the check to acquire, you decide not to acquire it at all. It is banished.
But once you decide to attempt to acquire it, you are not allowed to voluntarily fail. I know my group needs to implement this. We automatically attempt to acquire things too many times. Especially when our skills would automatically allow us to acquire said card.
Hold on... Hawkmoon's post implies that temp closures MUST be attempted if a character is in a position to do so. Is that correct? We always played as you may choose to attempt a temp closure or you may choose not to attempt it. For example if it requires banishing a card and a player doesn't have any cards she is willing to part with in her hand, she doesn't have to do anything and her location remains open.
Hold on... Hawkmoon's post implies that temp closures MUST be attempted if a character is in a position to do so. Is that correct? We always played as you may choose to attempt a temp closure or you may choose not to attempt it. For example if it requires banishing a card and a player doesn't have any cards she is willing to part with in her hand, she doesn't have to do anything and her location remains open.
No. I wasn't trying to imply that. Sorry. Temp closing is always optional. I edited my post a bit to make sure no one else gets confused.
I just meant, "When would you want to fail to defeat a Bane?" Well, maybe you encounter the villain but there is lots of shiny goods out there to be acquired still. So you want to make sure you don't end the game. Your two options would be:
1. Temp close all locations but do you worst to defeat the villain. The villain will flee back into the location you encountered him from. Thus it is sort of a "let the villain beat you up to evade him."
2. Temp close all locations except one, then defeat the villain (or at least try to) and force the villain to flee to the one open location. Then loot the other locations, then go find the villain.
I was just trying to say, option 2 sounds better to me, so I can't really think of ever wanting to fail to defeat a card.
Aside from what csouth and Hawkmoon said, the answer is no. I actually asked this a while ago.
I'm sure the thread is around somewhere...
EDIT: Here it is.
The game devs never chimed in, so we can only assume that the conclusions were correct (you can't choose to fail just any check).
While you can't choose to fail a check, you can choose to not attempt the check and that's how you get around it.
Wooden Armor comes up as you explore a location ... instead of attempting the check to acquire, you decide not to acquire it at all. It is banished.
But once you decide to attempt to acquire it, you are not allowed to voluntarily fail. I know my group needs to implement this. We automatically attempt to acquire things too many times. Especially when our skills would automatically allow us to acquire said card.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm referring to checks other than recharge and attempts to acquire boons. Combat checks primarily.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just meant, "When would you want to fail to defeat a Bane?" Well, maybe you encounter the villain but there is lots of shiny goods out there to be acquired still. So you want to make sure you don't end the game. Your two options would be:1. Temp close all locations but do you worst to defeat the villain. The villain will flee back into the location you encountered him from. Thus it is sort of a "let the villain beat you up to evade him."
2. Temp close all locations except one, then defeat the villain (or at least try to) and force the villain to flee to the one open location. Then loot the other locations, then go find the villain.
I was just trying to say, option 2 sounds better to me, so I can't really think of ever wanting to fail to defeat a card.
In Skull&Shackles there is a villain who requires a Con/Fort 7 check or he is evaded - he also can't be defeated until certain scenario conditions are met. It is worthwhile to just flub the initial check in order to evade him until those conditions happen, as there is literally no benefit to actually fighting him until then.
In Skull&Shackles there is a villain who requires a Con/Fort 7 check or he is evaded - he also can't be defeated until certain scenario conditions are met. It is worthwhile to just flub the initial check in order to evade him until those conditions happen, as there is literally no benefit to actually fighting him until then.
So the best idea there is to take a straight Con check or Fort check, especially if the character doesn't have Fortitude, as that'd just be a d4, an autofail.
This makes me think of a funny card to make:
"Recharge this card to make a willing player fail a check. That player suffers no damage as a result of the check."
...Depending on other details such as card type, I might actually run that if they made it.
In my experience, that was basically what Summon Monster did for combat checks with Ezren.
Haha, that's pretty close, isn't it?
XD
I was just trying to say, option 2 sounds better to me, so I can't really think of ever wanting to fail to defeat a card.
One reason: You might just want the location deck to shuffle.
Aside from what csouth and Hawkmoon said, the answer is no. I actually asked this a while ago.
I'm sure the thread is around somewhere...
EDIT: Here it is.
The game devs never chimed in, so we can only assume that the conclusions were correct (you can't choose to fail just any check).
The conclusions were correct.
|
|
I was just trying to say, option 2 sounds better to me, so I can't really think of ever wanting to fail to defeat a card.One reason: You might just want the location deck to shuffle.
I've had this with my group on so many occasions. Typically when we have just a few turns left, know which deck the Villain is in, but also know he's lower than we can get too in time.
I'm running Oloch, so I look forward to getting my Shield of Gorum role, and being able to discard (and then recharge! Holy crap!) any chest armor to prevent all damage dealt to me. I'll be the one shuffling up the decks by failing combat checks, and I know I'll be trying to max out my armor and blessing card feats for the display power.