Last night I had a player point out to me that the skill gem items in the S&S base set don't specify that they have to be modifying your check. "Recharge this card to roll your (whichever) die instead of the normal die on a non-combat check."
He asked me why he couldn't recharge it to, say, swap his d10 Charisma die in for a d4 Wisdom die that someone else was using for their check. Other than saying it most likely wasn't in the spirit of their design (only my assumption of course), I could not find any reasons why not in the rules or messageboards to give him. Anyone have any more solid rulings? Thanks in advance.
I believe, like with Thieves Tools, this is a case of "no one else can take your turn for you." Rolling is something YOU do, not something you permit someone else to do.
I think it was a real shame that they didn't rewrite the thieves tools, etc for S&S and the Class Decks.
Given the number of cards in this game which say "your check" the fact that some which don't say that, randomly still mean it, is just confusing.
I agree that it's obvious, but exploiting exact wording to bypass obvious intent is what some tabletop gamers live for. And without a reason not to do it in the rules somewhere I couldn't really stop him.
I'll take the "no one can take your turn" rule though. It's a good point that when it says "recharge this card to roll" it implies you doing the rolling yourself on another person's check, and not just replacing a die with your die. Thanks again!
|
I think it was a real shame that they didn't rewrite the thieves tools, etc for S&S and the Class Decks.
Given the number of cards in this game which say "your check" the fact that some which don't say that, randomly still mean it, is just confusing.
Because there isn't really a reason to rewrite it. The rules specify that you can't succeed / evade / defeat a check for anyone else, so instead of rewording multiple cards, the rules now tell you already that you can't do that. If there is an exception, the card says you can allow someone else to succeed or evade, or whatever, their check/encounter. At the point, the card is specifying that you aren't passing the check, it's clear that you are allowing that character to succeed it. Them, not you.
Because there isn't really a reason to rewrite it. The rules specify that you can't succeed / evade / defeat a check for anyone else, so instead of rewording multiple cards, the rules now tell you already that you can't do that. If there is an exception, the card says you can allow someone else to succeed or evade, or whatever, their check/encounter. At the point, the card is specifying that you aren't passing the check, it's clear that you are allowing that character to succeed it. Them, not you.I think it was a real shame that they didn't rewrite the thieves tools, etc for S&S and the Class Decks.
Given the number of cards in this game which say "your check" the fact that some which don't say that, randomly still mean it, is just confusing.
I'm sure I'm not alone, in that in the various groups of people I play this game with, I'm the only one who has actually read the rules. Everyone else is dependant on my explanation - I try to make sure I cover everything, but a.) I forget things, and b.) If I remember to tell them, there's no guarantee they will remember I've told them.
It would make everyone's life easier if the card itself always specified "your check" or "anyone's check" - that way the person with the opportunity to play the card can see whether it's applicable.
Swipe is a particular pain - the wording STRONGLY implies that it can be played on someone else's combat check, so to say you can't swipe a weapon for someone else is just confusing.
I definitely don't think Paizo should be doing anything just because some people don't read or remember rules. You're expected to know the rules to play the game, just like every other game ever.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't use the most precise wording possible when it wouldn't result in significantly longer card text. That's why they changed the text of Thieves Tools to specify they only work on your checks.
|
|
And before the book rules didn't say you couldn't pass checks for other players. Had the rules said that from the beginning, someone would have asked about Tooling for someone else's check, and the answer would have been "No, because on page X it says you can't pass other players' checks" and that would have been the end of it. No errata would have been done because the book already told you how it works. When S&S came, they had 3 choices. Change the text on every card that passes a check / evades / etc, or add a section to the one rulebook, or do both and have a bunch of cards repeating rules already in the book.
For the same reason, we don't put on every single card that you can't play another of that card type on the check, or on all cards with "secondary" skills that if you don't have that skill listed, use a d4. Because it's already in the rules, and even if only a little , why waste effort and card space to tell you something you have already been told.