Using rage (the spell) during a check


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So, while playing Lady's Favor, my Lem was a bit hard press to defeat Commander Kain as the villain's power prevented him from playing his weapon. He had no choice but to beat him mano a mano with his mighty d4 in strength. Luckily, I had acquired a 'Rage' card earlier in the scenario and I played it right there and buried another card to get an extra 1d10. With that, a blessing of Achaekek and some more help from other players, the little Lem was able to kick the annoying commander off the ship to feed the sharks.

Now, as much as I enjoyed the image of a small halfling beating the snot out of a human, I'm not sure I played that correctly. Can Rage be played during a check that it can affect (i.e. Str, Melee or Con if I remember the card correctly) ? Or, since it doesn't directly affect the check but just gives an 'extra power' that can affect the check, it can only be played before the check, outside of an encounter ?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

What is the wording on the card?


I believe Rage is a Display card, as are Strength, Speed, and several spells, including Sphere of Fire. I would be interested in hearing how these are handled in general.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Strength and Speed you can play both during a encounter/check (as long as the check is using the skill they modify) and outside of an encounter.

See this explanation. And then see this confirmation.

If Rage is worded similarly, it would work the same way.

Sovereign Court

Rage allows a player to use Amiri's Barbarian power from Runelords. The chosen player may bury a card to add 1d10 to their Strength / Constitution (and Dex?) checks for the turn.

It differs from Strength and Speed, because those give a straight bonus to your checks, whereas Rage gives the player the option to pay a cost for a bonus. Because it doesn't directly affect the check itself, and really just gives the player a power, I'm inclined to say it couldn't be played on the check.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So, is the wording something like "Display this card and choose a character. While displayed, that character may bury a card to add 1d10 to her Strength or Constitution checks." If so, I'd say that can be played during a check, as long as that check was a Strength or Constitution check.

But I'm still guessing at the wording. If I'm wrong on what it says then I could obviously be wrong on whether you can use it or not.

Sovereign Court

That's exactly it (a few changes not relevant to this, like Melee checks and limited to your location)

I'd argue it doesn't actually affect the check and couldn't be played. Speed affects your Dex, period. Same with Strength. Rage, however gives you more powers, but doesn't actually affect those skills at all.


If it affects a skill or alters a die being used for the check, then it affects the check.


Based on the wording given here, I'd have to agree with Andrew K.

Only cards that directly affect the check in question can be played once the encounter begins. Cards that indirectly affect it, such as this, aren't valid plays during the check portion of an encounter.

It *gives* an ability that affects the check, but its own ability doesn't affect the check, nor is the ability it grants even automatic, so if played, the affected character could actually choose not to use it at all.


If it can't be played during a check, then the spell is extremely limited in its usefulness. It only makes sense that you would play it during a check. I agree with csouth, the rage ability being granted affects the check and therefore should be able to be played during encounters.


Well, I know that what I said in my post is correct, but Andrew K seems to be correct, too. If Rage does not directly and immediately affect the check, then it can't be played during the check, I would say.

Grand Lodge

csouth154 wrote:
If it affects a skill or alters a die being used for the check, then it affects the check.

If that's the case, then Phantasmal Minion would have to be allowed during a check as well. Since you could argue that using it to give another player a weapon is affecting his check against the monster.

I think Rage should be allowed, but I think that blanket statement has some exceptions that players should be careful of.

Not allowing Rage to be used during checks makes it a severely handicapped card. You would have to play it before any combat begins, and that character may end up exploring and not encountering any enemies. I'm certain the intent of Rage is to be used once a combat check begins.


ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
If it affects a skill or alters a die being used for the check, then it affects the check.

If that's the case, then Phantasmal Minion would have to be allowed during a check as well. Since you could argue that using it to give another player a weapon is affecting his check against the monster.

I think Rage should be allowed, but I think that blanket statement has some exceptions that players should be careful of.

In my last post, I made clear that I am of the opinion that Rage is not playable during a check, because it does not directly affect the check. Neither does Phantasmal Minion. Playing a card that allows you to give a player a card that can determine the skill or affect a check does not DIRECTLY affect that check. Likewise, playing a card that gives a character an option of paying a price to use a power that affects a check does not directly affect that check. My statement that you quoted is absolutely true, but the effect on the check must be immediate and direct, not one or more actions removed. I didn't post it as a way of taking a side in the debate, but as more of a guideline to figuring it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So, I'd say this: If the player making the check isn't going to bury a card, then you can't play it during the check. If they are, then you can play it. It applies because it relates to the skill you are playing. Sort of like what Vic said over here. So in my view, when played during a check it isn't optional. You ask the player, do you want to bury a card for an extra d10 (or whatever it is)? If they do, you can play Rage. If they don't you can't.

Phantasmal Minion is unplayable not just because of how it relates to the check (i.e. it doesn't relate by skill or trait or card being encountered or anything like that), but also because when it would have to be played during the check. i.e. After you'd already determined what skill you are using. Plus, you'd have to assume the weapon would be playable. It could be that "evading weapon" which wouldn't be playable.

Outside of an encounter, you can play Rage and then they have the option the rest of their turn.

I'm using what I call Golorian Common Sense Realism. Or maybe PACG Common Sense Realism. I'm not sure yet.


Thanks for all the responses. Personally, I'm thinking a bit like ThreeEyedSloth. It should probably be allowed even if I cannot clearly prove it with the rules.

Grand Lodge

FWIW, I agree about Phantasmal Minion. I was using it as an example in my previous comment.

And I agree with your assessment of Rage. To me, common sense seems to indicate that Rage could be played to affect a check, even though it doesn't directly spell it out. Even from a thematic point of view, Rage is one of those spells in the roleplaying game that is designed to be used in combat, to give someone a fighting edge. The intent of the Rage card seems to match its flavor, I feel.

But, who knows? I could very well be wrong. Hopefully one of the designers can shed some light on it.

Sovereign Court

I can see Hawkmoon's latest point from Vic's post. To play it during the check, it has to affect the check. In order for it to affect the check, they would have to bury a card for a d10. So, I agree it can be played during a check if, and only if, the chosen character uses that power on the check. It may be a stretch. But if someone at my table used that reasoning I'd side with it.

Definitely not playable on any check regardless of it being used or not though.


Rage has another issue. It banish/discards/recharges at the end of the turn of the person who played it. So you can cast it on the next player's turn and have the ship drag that character around to help with multi-check cards for 6 turns.

Safe Harbor is neat in that it banishes at the start of your turn, so it really is supposed to be displayed for a full round (creating a location where you can Cure yourself instead of doing your first exploration).


Can someone please post the Rage abilities on the card? Most of the "Display" beneficial cards go poof at the end of the current character's turn, and there were a few in RotR that had to be fixed for that because they'd display until the end of the user's turn and not the 'current' turn.

Based on mlvanbie's statement, that may be the case for Rage, too.

Sovereign Court

Quote:
Display this card and choose a character at your location. While displayed, that character may bury 1 card from her hand to add 1d10 to her Strength, Melee, or Constitution check. At the end of your turn, if you do not have the Arcane skill, banish this card; otherwise, attempt an Arcane 8 check. If you succeed, recharge this card; if you fail, discard it.

I think this one is supposed to work as a longer-lasting spell. I know we shouldn't make comparisons to the RPG, but Barbies will rage for turns on end when they need to. I really don't think it's too powerful giving the person a few extra turns that aren't even theirs, meaning very few times they'll make a check, even fewer it will be Strength/Melee/Constitution. They become half-Barbarian for a round, not too bad.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah. I hope it is intentional. After all, it has a cost too, unlike Strength.


I think that if it were intentional, then it would say to do the recharge check at the beginning of your turn (like Safe Harbor) so that it works better on yourself. Having the effectiveness depend on seating order of the person you cast it upon is also a bit odd.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

We'll take a look at this. Thanks for the info.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

By the way, it is worth noting how great this is to play on Shield fo Gorum Oloch when he can discard (and eventually recharge) armor and weapons instead of burying them, even when he doesn't play them.


Hawkmoon, that is a cool combo.

While I wrote 'on yourself' in my previous post, it really should have been about using it on your own turn being weaker than using it on another player's turn.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So, I really hope this stays "end of your turn" and not "end of this turn". Here is why:

1. Anyone using the benefit outside of their turn is going to pay a serious cost. They'll start their next turn with fewer cards, potentially even none.

2. It actually does work evenly. You can give it to virtually anyone for the same number of turns. You can play it on anyone on the turn after yours, and that character will have the benefit until your turn ends. So how long it lasts doesn't depend on "who" you target with it. It only depends on "when" you play it.

3. 2 check cards are uncommon enough that the "rage machine" won't really be able to go around helping with defeating and acquiring like crazy (Love the 2 check to acquire ally by the way. Nice to see that showing up as an acquire check.)

4. It is just an awesome level of cooperation. I want the game to make me want to take support spells more. Rage does that. (So does Flaming Sphere if it ends on your turn too. Since if frees up space for me to take support spells.)

Sovereign Court

Yea, for as rarely as someone will make a Strength, Con, or Melee check out of turn, it's not that powerful.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

It is definitely staying "end of your turn." The only question (that we might address anyway), is exactly when you can play it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Awesomeness!

And honestly, I don't think you need an FAQ really. All you have to say is "You can play it during a check." (Assuming that is the way you go.)

I'll leave the final determination up to the professionals of course, but to some extent I think this is the kind of thing where you can just clarify it without needing an errata.


I honestly feel that it does need errata if it can be used during an encounter. At least to say that if it is used in such a way, then the character attempting the check is obligated to bury a card a get the effect.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I was a little boggled, because I wasn't sure what about the text would suggest there was a way to NOT bury a card for the d10. Then I thought about it for a second and realized you meant like if you played it and the other player was like "Eh, nah," and made you waste your card. I understand with Organized Play this is maybe more of a concern than it would be with friendly play, but I'm still a little unsure that situation would ever come up. It's not like you'd drop the card on the table and go "Okay now take the d10." You'd go "Hey, do you want Rage?" and then they'd say Yes and they'd take their d10.

As it is, with characters who can offer rerolls, I thought the ruling was "nobody can force you to do anything you don't want to do." In light of that, I don't think that's errata they'd make anyway.

Really, I feel like Rage HAS to be playable during an encounter. I understand the reason behind the rule, especially in S&S where Damiel could just Tot Flask or Powder Horn everything he wants mid-encounter and never have to care what his actual hand was. It would let him nullify early villain's powers that make him recharge a card with the pirate/swashbuckling trait which, often, will be his sole weapon, a pistol. We don't want to make a situation where certain characters can just ignore things that're supposed to be hard because they're so great. Damiel has to deal with the Pirate Council? Better keep that Potion of Glibness on hand, Tot Flask won't help you once you turn over the card.

However: at what point do these restrictions make the only strategies for playing the game either 1) heavy scouting or 2) be psychic. Rage isn't even that good a card! If you don't have a bunch of Daggers or Wooden Shields in your hand you're sacrificing cards that whatever Con or Str check you're attempting probably wouldn't even make you bury (or like at the Sea Caves, you'd bury that card anyway, so that's a no go). At that point, either you're scouting every card you're going to encounter or you're only playing Rage when you know there's a Str or Con closing check coming up. And at THAT point I'll just keep Aid in my deck and not worry about the extra thinking that goes into Rage.


Based on all the information, without errata, it seems like Rage is one of those cards that is useful to play on someone who is at a location where it is know that there's plenty of Monsters (as most require Combat of some type) and the person can both explore multiple times while also getting rid of extra cards for the benefit, or a location in which the villain is known to reside on top, etc.

So as it is, it kind of requires knowledge about the current makeup of the location deck, thus allowing the character it is used on to gain actual benefit from the card.

If that knowledge isn't there, then the benefit of the card is unknown, making it mostly "useless" (whether it actually would be or not, since it's up to the 'luck of the draw') and very likely that people won't play it.

It sounds like it would be better used if it was playable "Before any character acts," as that would allow it to be useful at least on a per-card basis, especially against a villain with multiple checks or against an encounter that has the possibility of leading to other encounters (such as closing requirements after dealing with a henchman).

This would improve the likelihood that the card would actually be played as it wouldn't require knowledge of the cards in the location deck, and the "Before you act" is a step already. It would still be up to the person to decide whether to use the benefits for any of the checks. So the mechanics of the card wouldn't need to be changed, only the play window.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm king of feeling like so far there are a fair bit of Constitution checks in Skull and Shackles. For characters that don't have a good die for that skill, Rage might be very helpful. If you fail Man Overboard, the person stuck making the check every single turn might really appreciate some Rage if their die is a d6 or d4.

I know it probably comes down to playstyle, but I personally really like Rage. I underestimated Amiri in RotR, partly because I thought this kind of power was weak. But my wife played her and I changed my mind.

Since the player you play this on can have it for multiple turns and use it multiple times, I'm totally hoping to get pick it up. Depending on my group's characters, I might even start to play it on a specific character as soon as the turn after mine starts. Played outside of an encounter, they don't have to use it. But that way it is there for them to use when needed. And heck, if I was Hexer Feiya I could eventually take the power to to possible draw my next card when I played it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree with you Hawk. I feel like that, and most cards like it (Cloud spells) are useful because you can play it in response to something, and go into turbo overdrive with explores after you have. For me I guess it's just where you put the agency. We often set up situations where one character has a lot of blessings/allies to burn and the other has a lot of cards that will persist through multiple checks (no Potion of Heroism yet, though it was the sole piece of plunder in a scenario we didn't win :()

I like the feeling of "Okay, NOW! Go go go go!" versus "well, we'll play it now and hope for the best." The former is exciting for me, the latter means I'd just go with a more versatile, weaker card (Aid). I've never been a fan of cards with ultra-specific uses. Especially in this one where Augury and equivalents haven't shown up yet (and may never, I don't read ahead :D) Without scouting, having cards you in your hand you -might- use are a burden. You're totally right about Con checks. Fortitude Ring in S&S? Great, I use it all the time, and I definitely hold onto it for multiple turns when the Sea Caves are looming. Potions in RoRL? We didn't even pick them up because we didn't want them clogging our hands/discard piles.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, I'd say this: If the player making the check isn't going to bury a card, then you can't play it during the check. If they are, then you can play it. It applies because it relates to the skill you are playing. Sort of like what Vic said over here. So in my view, when played during a check it isn't optional. You ask the player, do you want to bury a card for an extra d10 (or whatever it is)? If they do, you can play Rage. If they don't you can't.

Correct.

•You can play it (and cards like it) outside of an encounter. Then, if the applicable check comes up, you can trigger the effect.

•You can't play it in response to encountering a bane, because once the encounter begins, you can only play cards that relate to the encounter steps, and unless you're going to power it up (see the bullet below), it doesn't relate to any steps.

•You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.

•You can't play it if the recipient *is not* going to power it up, because it wouldn't relate to attempting the check.


Vic Wertz wrote:

•You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.

.

This ruling could be used to argue that Phantasmal Minion or Merchant can be played during a check if the recipient intends to play the given card on that check. How do you feel about this? Am I wrong?

Sovereign Court

I would say it still doesn't apply to giving a card.

With Rage, you can play Rage because Rage is what is going to be used by them.

If I use Phantasmal Minion, they aren't going to be using Phantasmal Minion, they will be using the Dagger I give them. So, Phantasmal Minion did not affect the check, and could not be played.


Andrew K wrote:

I would say it still doesn't apply to giving a card.

With Rage, you can play Rage because Rage is what is going to be used by them.

If I use Phantasmal Minion, they aren't going to be using Phantasmal Minion, they will be using the Dagger I give them. So, Phantasmal Minion did not affect the check, and could not be played.

I guess I can see the logic in that argument.


Seems like Spheres of Destruction can be played during an encounter, then.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

What's Spheres of Destruction say?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ok. Looked at my cards. Do you mean Sphere of Fire? "Display this card. While displayed, for your combat check...." Yeah, that is totally playable in an encounter, using the same requirement. If you display it during an encounter you have to use it. You can also display it outside of an encounter to have it handy for any combat check that comes later.

And also, notice how awesome it is that it discards at the end of YOUR turn. I'll probably be playing that spell on the turn after I draw it while resetting my hand. Then I'll be ready for whatever comes until the end of my next turn.

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, we may now write a spell called Spheres of Destruction, because that's badass.


I was referring to the series of Sphere spells (although Fire and Freezing seem to be the only ones; I thought I saw another one). I could call them just Spheres like I referred to Clouds ... but that wouldn't be very badass. There are some open wording issues for the the Spheres still, but now I think we know how they are supposed to work. I've got a thread somewhere, but it really drifted away from the initial issues.

There's a couple Wall spells coming up (Fire and Swords; looks like there are lots of such spells in Pathfinder). Walls of Unconventional Building Materials?


Aqueous Orb was the other Sphere of Destruction. I imagine Spheres of Destruction setting several of these spells in motion.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Good catch. Two new terms for the PACG lexicon.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic wrote wrote:
You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.

Vic, this doesn't make sense. Are you saying that if I play Rage on someone else while they attempt a Strength/Constitution check that they're obligated to bury a card to add d10 to it? They can't say no?

I feel like this can backfire. It relies on something that's predictive. I can play Rage on you because you're going to bury a card even though I can't guarantee that you'll be doing that.

It also has the potential of forcing another player to do something they don't want to do, which would be detrimental to OP.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

No. He's saying that you ask them before you play it. If they say no, you can't play it. That is where the cooperative nature of the game comes in. On almost any check by another player where I might play a card, I always ask if they want me to do something. If they don't, I don't do it.

And OP is covered with the rule that you can't do something that impacts another player without their permission.

OP Guide p5 wrote:
Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

And OP is covered with the rule that you can't do something that impacts another player without their permission.

OP Guide p5 wrote:
Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.

If Siwar the Manipulator encounters a bane that will kill her, does she need permission to make a random other character at her location encounter the bane? Can someone who won't die refuse permission? 99% chance of surviving? 1% chance of surviving? What if there are two people at the location and one person says it is okay but the other one doesn't? What if the bane wouldn't kill her but its shorts were a crime against fashion?

(PSA: If you are overweight, don't stand on bridges that trolleys run under.)


mlvanbie wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

And OP is covered with the rule that you can't do something that impacts another player without their permission.

OP Guide p5 wrote:
Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.

If Siwar the Manipulator encounters a bane that will kill her, does she need permission to make a random other character at her location encounter the bane? Can someone who won't die refuse permission? 99% chance of surviving? 1% chance of surviving? What if there are two people at the location and one person says it is okay but the other one doesn't? What if the bane wouldn't kill her but its shorts were a crime against fashion?

(PSA: If you are overweight, don't stand on bridges that trolleys run under.)

My understanding is no.

While the cooperative nature of this game suggests you try and find a team concensus, Ranzak and Siwar evade first, and then, as a side effect, someone else encounters the evaded card. The evade is the primary effect and one that affects you, the other players encountering the card are just experiencing potentially adverse effects. It's like trying to play Blizzard on your encounter - it can hurt others, and so you should double check, but technically it's your decision to play it, not theirs. Now, you can't play it solely to hurt someone, that violates the sportsmanship side of things and is a judgement call as to whether or not you're doing things wrong, but the point is that you don't need permission to do these things. If Ranzak encounters a monster that kills you before you act, he can totally evade it and kill someone else.

As I understand it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Orbis Orboros wrote:
mlvanbie wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

And OP is covered with the rule that you can't do something that impacts another player without their permission.

OP Guide p5 wrote:
Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.

If Siwar the Manipulator encounters a bane that will kill her, does she need permission to make a random other character at her location encounter the bane? Can someone who won't die refuse permission? 99% chance of surviving? 1% chance of surviving? What if there are two people at the location and one person says it is okay but the other one doesn't? What if the bane wouldn't kill her but its shorts were a crime against fashion?

(PSA: If you are overweight, don't stand on bridges that trolleys run under.)

My understanding is no.

While the cooperative nature of this game suggests you try and find a team concensus, Ranzak and Siwar evade first, and then, as a side effect, someone else encounters the evaded card. The evade is the primary effect and one that affects you, the other players encountering the card are just experiencing potentially adverse effects. It's like trying to play Blizzard on your encounter - it can hurt others, and so you should double check, but technically it's your decision to play it, not theirs. Now, you can't play it solely to hurt someone, that violates the sportsmanship side of things and is a judgement call as to whether or not you're doing things wrong, but the point is that you don't need permission to do these things. If Ranzak encounters a monster that kills you before you act, he can totally evade it and kill someone else.

As I understand it.

I would absolutely disagree. And even if you can, I wouldn't play with someone who did that without consent from the affected players. And I'm saying this as someone who got another player's Lini killed in one of my earliest games by exploring the Garrison and making her encounter a Giant she didn't have the hand to deal with.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Using rage (the spell) during a check All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.