She did cheat (though obviously not intentionally), but not for any of the reasons you mention. The Ruby of Charisma won't give her check the Magic trait. Only cards played to "Determine which skill you're using" give the card's traits to the check. And the Ruby of Charisma doesn't get played then. It get played during "Play cards and use powers that affect the check." "Why?", you may ask. Because the Ruby doesn't determine which skill you are using. Before and after you play the Ruby, you are using Divine. The Ruby lets you change the die, but not the skill.
As for your direct questions:
1. I guess so. There are characters that can have Magic on their Charisma check or Divine check. Kyra and Seelah for example have powers to that add the Magic trait to checks. I look at making a simple Divine check as using your knowledge of the Divine, which isn't itself infused with Magic.
2. I'm not sure. I think it says "instead of the normal die". So is using the normal die instead of the normal die really using something instead of the normal die? But regardless, given the trait thing, the question seems moot. (Or than again, I guess it could be a strategy to prevent taking more damage on a check you know you will fail by recharging the card.)
3. Yes. A skill is a skill. So you can sub a die for your "normal" Divine, Melee, Ranged, Acrobatics, Knowledge, etc. skill. And if you don't have the listed skill, then your normal is a d4.
4. Yes (assuming I'm reading this correct). If you used a Ruby of Charisma for Alahazra's strength check and for some reason she has put a +1 skill feat in Strength, you would get that +1 from her Strength skill feat. You would not get any Charisma skill feats. You change the die during "Play cards..." but you add the skill feats during "Attempt the roll". At that point, all that matters is whether the skill feat applies to your check. And since you attempted that type of check, you get that type of skill feat.
In other words, if you have a card that lets you make a combat check (weapons, spells, etc.), that's when you apply all the cards traits to your checks.
(2) Is it legitimate to use the Ruby Of Charisma to substitute Charisma for Charisma?
I believe so. Can't see a reason why not, in any case.
(3) Can you use a stat gem on a skill such as Divine, which is not one of the basic six stats?
Yep!
(4) When using a stat gem to replace a stat that has skill feats, can you use the skill feats of the stat you replaced?
If you have dexterity d12, and wisdom d6 (+1), and use an Emerald of Dexterity on a wisdom check, you'll have a d12+1.
|
The only reason I could see someone wanting to use their Ruby of Charisma on a Charisma check is to just recharge the card and get it out of their hand without discarding it.
Agreed but the original poster had said the player used the Ruby to (try and) gain the Magic trait on their check to defeat the Ghost using Divine (Charisma).
Someone refresh my memory - if you use caltrops to defeat the Ghost, what happens? (Assume that the Caltrops can do so regardless of the Ghost's stats if they're too large, for the sake of this question)
I never use caltrops, so it's not mattered before.
RAW, I think the Ghost is actually defeated because you're not making a check. But I think I remember something about Caltrops / Thieves Tools etc meaning "succeed at your check to defeat" despite not using that verbage.
Hawkmoon, I would think that "you roll Charisma die instead of the normal die (a Charisma)" means you roll the Charisma die instead of the Charisma die. Which means you roll the Charisma die. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone refresh my memory - if you use caltrops to defeat the Ghost, what happens? (Assume that the Caltrops can do so regardless of the Ghost's stats if they're too large, for the sake of this question)
I never use caltrops, so it's not mattered before.
RAW, I think the Ghost is actually defeated because you're not making a check. But I think I remember something about Caltrops / Thieves Tools etc meaning "succeed at your check to defeat" despite not using that verbage.
I think it isn't defeated. See this comment from Vic, along with the brilliant remark two posts below it.
Basically, Caltrops lets you essentially succeed at the check to defeat the monster, but it doesn't give you the Magic trait. (And for extra clarity, is again a card played during "Play cards and use powers...") You are essentially going through the check until you get to "Play cards and use powers...". Then you drop Caltrops on the monster. It is defeated. But the check you were going through (and took a shortcut to the end of) still doesn't have the Magic trait. So it is undefeated.
See this comment from Vic, along with the brilliant remark two posts below it.
Lol at this.
Someone refresh my memory - if you use caltrops to defeat the Ghost, what happens? (Assume that the Caltrops can do so regardless of the Ghost's stats if they're too large, for the sake of this question)
I never use caltrops, so it's not mattered before.
RAW, I think the Ghost is actually defeated because you're not making a check. But I think I remember something about Caltrops / Thieves Tools etc meaning "succeed at your check to defeat" despite not using that verbage.
I think it isn't defeated. See this comment from Vic, along with the brilliant remark two posts below it.
Basically, Caltrops lets you essentially succeed at the check to defeat the monster, but it doesn't give you the Magic trait. (And for extra clarity, is again a card played during "Play cards and use powers...") You are essentially going through the check until you get to "Play cards and use powers...". Then you drop Caltrops on the monster. It is defeated. But the check you were going through (and took a shortcut to the end of) still doesn't have the Magic trait. So it is undefeated.
This was actually the thread I was thinking about when I mentioned the Thieves Tools. That's what I thought it worked out like.
Thanks, oh almighty rememberer of random threads and posts!
RotR doesn't differentiate between die and skill, so you have to know (or guess at) which is which. Rule of thumb I use for RotR is if the power is worded "For your xxxx check, roll your yyyy die" then it is using the yyyy skill. If the power is not of the "For your xxxx check" form (e.g. it is not a power that determines which skill you are using), then it refers to the die itself and not the skill.
A wording change was introduced in S&S that better differentiates die and skill to make situations like this more clear. If that Sajan was printed in S&S or WotR, the power would indeed say "dexterity skill."
The stat gems, however, explicitly sub out the die; the skill itself remains the same.
As skizzerz says, Sajan has RotR wording while the questions in this thread were site about S&S. See this blog post for info on what changed and why.
Four questions:
(1) Does it make sense that a Divine check can't normally defeat a Ghost? Perhaps the Ghost should say: "if the <i>combat</i> check to defeat the Ghost does not have the Magic trait..."
(2) Is it legitimate to use the Ruby Of Charisma to substitute Charisma for Charisma?
(3) Can you use a stat gem on a skill such as Divine, which is not one of the basic six stats?
(4) When using a stat gem to replace a stat that has skill feats, can you use the skill feats of the stat you replaced?
(1) She can spook the Ghost with holy displays; but unlike a cleric, she can't turn undead. So it does make sense that a Divine check doesn't necessarily have the Magic trait.
(2) I'm inclined to say it's not allowed, as the play is known to have no effect. (And it certainly doesn't add the Magic trait to the check.)
(3) Yes, even on untrained skill checks, because they have a "normal die."
(4) "Can" isn't the right word; you do use the skill feats of the "stat you replaced."
If you use Ruby of Charisma on an Int/Knowledge check, it's still an Int/Knowledge check; you've just changed your Int die into a d12 for the check. So you use your Int skill feats, not your Cha.
|
Nymisis, Runelords' die vs skill is one exception to the standard of using the current rules and definitions. They aren't going to go through Runelords and errata every single card that needs to have die / skill, that's a single detail that applies to numerous cards, so you just state once that you don't use the current rules for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I could see some advantage to issuing an updated character card for Sajan, especially when the Monk deck comes out and he'll be playable in organized play. But the volume of cards that would need to be changed in RotR to reword them like S&S and forward is too great, especially when those cards work just fine in the framework of the RotR version of the rules.
That being said, the rules do say this:
NEW: DICE VS. SKILLS
In Skull & Shackles, we’re increasing the distinction between “dice” and “skills.” We’ve renamed the step below and added the Rules: Skills, Dice, and Modifiers sidebar on page 7. The last paragraph of Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check is also new.
If I want to take cards from one set to another, I think it is incumbent upon me to figure out how they would be worded in the new set.
Notice that RotR rules told you that you determine the "die" you are using and that you get to add modifiers for that die when you make a check. (Hence the unmodified Strength die on the Longbow.) In S&S and forward, you determine the "skill" and roll the dice adding modifiers associated with the skill you determined. That is what that quote from S&S is calling out.
Cards shouldn't work differently in one set than they do in another. That should be a guiding principle of how to understand them. The rules or cards might be tweaked, but they shouldn't stop working the way the worked previously, without an errata.
Look at Glibness. In RotR is said "check using your Charisma die" then in some class decks it became "a check using your Charisma skill". Then in WotR it became "a Charisma check". Why the change? Because in WotR there were checks that used your Charisma die (in the sense it was one of the dice being rolled) without being a Charisma check. But in the "RotR Universe" nothing cared about that distinction. So the change in wording doesn't change how Glibness worked in RotR. It doesn't mean I have a loophole where RotR Glibness works differently than WotR Glibness. Even without an errata on the RotR Glibness, I can look at how it is worded in WotR and know how it should work.
Yes, using cards from one set with another might take some broader knowledge of the overall game than what you could glean from the rulebook. That is why these forums exist.
|
|
Nymisis, Runelords' die vs skill is one exception to the standard of using the current rules and definitions. They aren't going to go through Runelords and errata every single card that needs to have die / skill, that's a single detail that applies to numerous cards, so you just state once that you don't use the current rules for that.They've done errata for much less. When that one place isn't the rules and is buried in a blog somewhere then I reiterate that its confusing.
As Hawkmoon pointed out, it's not buried in a blog somewhere, it's in the current rules. As for them doing errata for much less, I disagree. No single errata has affected as many cards as this would.
For starters, it would affect every single weapon, spell, and item from Runelords that is used to determine your base dice for combat checks.
|
|
Personally, I could see some advantage to issuing an updated character card for Sajan, especially when the Monk deck comes out and he'll be playable in organized play. But the volume of cards that would need to be changed in RotR to reword them like S&S and forward is too great, especially when those cards work just fine in the framework of the RotR version of the rules.
I'd have to agree that we will need an updated RotR Sajan when the Monk deck comes out. Just based on the fact that for Season of the Righteous, a couple of us are using WotR characters (Harsk and Kyra) for their demon/outsider abilities.
He uses his Dexterity skill so he gets any skill points added on. So he also wants Erastil to buff it for two dice, not Gorum. And I don't know about Soldier or how the card would be updated.
|
|
2) If it's dex skill, does that mean he can't use e.g. a soldier to add to his combat check?
I think the Soldier is 1d4 to a combat strength check? If so, no you would not be able to.
3) If the Sajan card were updated, what would it say?
The only portion of the character and role cards that needs to be changed from:
For your combat check, you may roll your Dexterity die ([ ] and you may add the Magic trait) ([ ] and/or the Fire trait); you may not play a weapon on the check.
To:
For your combat check, you may use your Dexterity skill ([ ] and you may add the Magic trait) ([ ] and/or the Fire trait); you may not play a weapon on the check.
Soldier is Melee combat check, so no, he doesn't work with Sajan's power to use his Dexterity.
And for clarity, (and while it is a bit technical and nitpicky, it does matter) his power doesn't let him use Dexterity instead of Strength or Melee, it just defines his combat check as Dexterity.
I suspect that any modern implementations of the monk and/or brawler will ensure that the Melee trait is present somehow.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure rewordings will be similar to the Brawler role for Meliski...for your combat check you may roll Strength+d6 with the Melee trait, you may not play weapons on this check or some such.
These powers, btw, are really fun when you encounter a monster that requires a check to use weapons or spells..."Oh no!" *punch* "I can't use my weapons!" *punch* "or spells!" *punch* "Whatever shall I do?" *punchpunch*
On the other hand, Sajan doesn't want to fight an Erinyes Devil.
I suspect that any modern implementations of the monk and/or brawler will ensure that the Melee trait is present somehow.We've got STR Ranged, time for some DEX Melee!
We've got plenty of DEX Melee already. S&S Lem, Mirisel, and of course Jirelle all have Dex: Melee with Finesse weapons. Some of the class deck characters have it as well. (Bekah, maybe one or two of the rogues).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
For some reason I like oddball skill pairings - there was a minor clan in d20 Rokugan that could get Str-based knowledge checks - so I think a character with Str: Knowledge would be amusing. Or Int: Melee. Or Cha: Fortitude.
I may make a thread where we could brainstorm some oddball pairings with story justifications.
Seltyiel can get Ranged: Intelligence + 2
|
|
We've got plenty of DEX Melee already. S&S Lem, Mirisel, and of course Jirelle all have Dex: Melee with Finesse weapons. Some of the class deck characters have it as well. (Bekah, maybe one or two of the rogues).I suspect that any modern implementations of the monk and/or brawler will ensure that the Melee trait is present somehow.We've got STR Ranged, time for some DEX Melee!
Yea but I want a 24/7 DEX melee. I'm pretty sure rules say you can use STR or Melee for combat checks if you don't play a card. Having it permanently listed under Dex means you can always use it well.
Re: Strength / Diplomacy, that is awesome.
... Or Int: Melee. ... we could brainstorm some oddball pairings with story justifications.
A justification for Int: Melee is perfectly exemplified in those new Sherlock Holmes movies. Easily the most original and entertaining idea in them :)
Back to the original question (divine skill vs ghost), it makes a lot of sense from an RPG origin : long ago, when you "turned" undead, you were just repelling them for a while to avoid damage (i. e. the Vade Retro Satanas standard exorcism), not destroying them.
So we love the idea that you can use divine but unless you manage to make that a Magic attack, it's just a temporary solution.
Actually, Kyra's "turn undead/demon" works the same (no Magic trait), which makes sense.
Actually, Kyra's "turn undead/demon" works the same (no Magic trait), which makes sense.
All of the Kyras add the Magic trait when doing their respective powers.
Ooops true... wonder what I was thinking...