If weapons and attack spells replace "the Combat skill" with others, do I ever make a combat Dexterity check?

[Michael Klaus]

Is Combat considered a skill or is it not?

The rulebook for Skull and Shackles never state that it is a skill, obviously you will never find it in any character's skill section and you never have to roll a d4 for that reason, but still the rulebook also pretends that you are replacing Combat with another skill.

1. The examples in the paragraph on replacing hold a weapon and an attack spell; not something like Crowbar or Mattock.

2. Only that paragraph explains how to add a cards trait to a check.

3. Only that paragraph forbids you to play more than one "For your combat check..." card on a single check.

Both of the above would not be true if Combat was not considered a skill. For example you would only get the Swashbuckling trait from allies and certain items if you would stick simply to the paragraph on combat checks. Other "replacing" cards like the aforementioned Mattock do not even add any significant traits.

Then again if you replace it, why should you consider the check to be a combat check? If you used a Mattock you should not be able to also add Blessing of Calistria or Blessing of Milani, since you do not make a Dexterity check any more. But if play a Dragon pistol you can only play Blessing of Erastil and none of the above? They are both replacing a skill... or at least something like a skill.

Maybe the rules should pry that more apart? Or could they declare that Combat is kind of a special skill, that can be substituted by Strength or Melee instead of the normal d4(!) and that unlike all other skills it does not actually get replaced when playing such a card as a weapon.

Then its use would still add Combat as a trait to such checks AND all the other traits of the card.

[Firedale2002]

You seem to be reading the rules differently than they're intended.

Combat checks aren't 'replaced' by anything. To make a combat check, by default, you use either the Strength skill or the Melee skill. Other cards allow you to use those or others. It is still a Combat check, but it also becomes a check with the relevant traits and skills.

A Combat Check made by someone the Strength skill would be a Combat Strength Check, otherwise known as both a Combat Check and a Strength Check.

Many of the ranged weapons say "for your combat check" roll your Dexterity or Ranged. If Dexterity is chosen or the Ranged skill is based on the Dexterity die for that character, then that would be a Combat Dexterity check (in addition to any other traits added by the card), and if Ranged is chosen, and that character's Ranged Skill is based on Dexterity, then it'd be a Combat Ranged Dexterity Check plus whatever traits get added.

Combat is considered a skill by the rules, however it is the only skill that is never used directly. It is always made using another skill.

There's no need for the rules to say anything about 'don't use a d4' because the rules say if you don't use any cards when making a combat check, that you MUST use your Strength or Melee skill. It's not optional.

"Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check. Weapons
and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell
you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you aren’t
playing one of those cards, you must use your Strength or Melee skill."

[Michael Klaus]

Well but if one does not write rules as they are intended, one shouldn't be surprised to find new players having difficulties playing by those rules.

For players who wriggled their way through the early rules versions of PACG: Rise of the Runelords it is obvious when a check is supposed to be a combat Dexterity check by designer's intend. Still the current version explains in detail that checks gain traits from used skills. And every few days there is a question about whether or not you can add a power to a check. So we can assume that it wasn't and isn't so obvious to all players.

Firedale2002 wrote:

Other cards allow you to use those or others. It is still a Combat check, but it also becomes a check with the relevant traits and skills.

Well here you are interpretating, since the rules never say that cards that deal with a combat check add any traits other than the skills (and that only from a byline somewhere almost hidden in another paragraph).

One could also double everything that is valid for "combat cards" from the "replacing cards" paragraph.

"Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check. Weapons
and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell
you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; these card
also add their traits to your combat check (this isn’t the same as
giving you a skill); you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power
that defies the skill you are going to use but if you aren’t playing
one of those cards, you must use your Strength or Melee skill."

Also one should then remove the examples from the paragraph that does neither concern the Dragon Pistol nor the Fireblade.

[Michael Klaus]

And if you imagine for a second that you are new to the game and you are supposed to make combat check but have no weapons, Attack spells, or Attack items on your hand. Where would you first look to get an answer on what to do?
Wouldn't you look at the reference sheet on the backcover? Could it be possible that you assume that combat might be handled as any other skill? The reference sheet clearly states: "If your character doesn’t have a skill listed for a check, you can use a d4 for that skill."
Using your Melee or Strength is highly plausible if you are into the theme of the game for example when coming from a roleplaying background. But then again it's the roleplayers who frequently assume that they cannot attempt a check when they don't have any of the listed skills.

[Mike Selinker]

Michael, it's pretty hard to answer why the rules don't make clear that combat is a skill, because combat is not a skill. It's like saying "A cake is a raven. If ravens fly, then cakes should fly. But they don't, and thus something is wrong with ravens." But since a cake is not a raven, I can't tell you why they don't fly in the same manner that all other ravens fly.

Combat is not a skill; it's a type of check. There are two types of check: combat and non-combat checks. Both of those will require some sort of skill to attempt, but neither combat nor non-combat is a skill. Now, combat checks are simple: anything that says "For your combat check" lets you do whatever it says to do. If nothing says to do anything, then you use Strength or Melee. Non-combat checks are more complicated: there is nothing (yet*) that says "For your non-combat check," because no check is listed as "Non-Combat 13." Instead, it asks for Wisdom or Craft or whatever and says you must make one of those checks, and specifically none of the combat rules apply.

Now, you can absolutely say that we may have buried the critical information you need, and we'll look very closely at that to see if we can make it clearer. Thanks for the guidance.

*Well, there's Arcane Robes.

[Michael Klaus]

Thank you, Mike, for your clarification.
Well in the end if combat should be treated as a skil was a pure design question since it is a mechanic and nothing that one observes in nature.

I am totally ok with it not being a skill.

I just want to point out that

1. The rules never state that combat is not a skill.

2. The Dragon Pistol is used in an example of a card that let's you replace a skill instead of a card that let's you roll a skill for a combat check.

3. We all play under the assumption that certain points from that other paragraph automatically are valid for all combat checks, although they are listed under another special situation, namely

a) You may only play one weapon or card with the attack trait per combat check;
b) You add that cards traits to your combat check;

Actually I wonder which card that let's you actually replace a skill in a non-combat check needs to add it's traits. I just mean so far you did not write any power that refered to a non-combat Tool check, or a non-combat Clothing check, not even a non-combat Magic check. I guess most of those powers would work more likely with "If you play a card with the ... trait on a check..." On the other hand did you write cards that let you replace a skill in a non-combat check that added relevant traits aside from the skills? I am not sure but most times they are Tools, Clothing, Magic and the like and even the Magic trait is mostly used in relation combat checks.

Also for each of my friends (yes every single one of them) every check against a monster would be considered a combat check at first glance.
I have to explain to them that every check that calls for a skill is a non-combat check since the rules do not. I think that most people can make that conclusion themselves but it would be more elegant if the rules worked without some inferring on the players part.

PS: I love the Arcane Robes; I need the Arcane Robes; I will go crazy in the months and months till the Arcane Robes might be available in Germany.

[Frencois]

I was quite sure that my broadsword was a spell, now thanks to you, I know it is. Because it says nowhere that it isn't! Yes it says it is a weapon, but it doesn't say it isn't a spell. So me poor wizard can certainly use my Arcane to use that sword. And I guess I can recharge it before resetting because it doesn't say that it isn't an armor. But on the other end I cannot play more than one card per check because every card is an armor, an item, a weapon... because it doesn't say otherwise and I cannot play two cards of the same type....
You get the point.

So maybe there is a implicit "ravencake" golden rule that says : a card is what the rules say it is. If the rules doesn't say it is, then it isn't. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything in English but I really wanted to write that one :-)

Just kidding... Just wanted to get my full support to Mike.

[Theryon Stormrune]

Michael Klaus wrote:

1. The rules never state that combat is not a skill.

But it also never says "Combat skill" in the rulebook. They are Combat checks that require some skill/power/combination of things to defeat. So try separating the Combat and skill keywords when looking at it. It is simply a Combat check.

Michael Klaus wrote:

2. The Dragon Pistol is used in an example of a card that let's you replace a skill instead of a card that let's you roll a skill for a combat check.

Again, you're using a skill for the combat check. That's why the wording on banes is Check to Defeat - Combat. This, like Mike stated, defines what you can use to defeat the bane. What you can use for your combat check.

Michael Klaus wrote:

Also for each of my friends (yes every single one of them) every check against a monster would be considered a combat check at first glance.

I have to explain to them that every check that calls for a skill is a non-combat check since the rules do not. I think that most people can make that conclusion themselves but it would be more elegant if the rules worked without some inferring on the players part.

On page 12-13 of the rulebook, under Attempting a Check, it describes what is needed for the check. It talks about skills used. It provides an example for a Combat 13 or Wisdom 10 check. It doesn't say a Combat skill check or a Wisdom skill check. Just checks. The next paragraph, Determine Which Skill You're Using, gives the information on how to figure that part out.

I think it's a matter of substituting skill for check that is stuck in your head. When you just realize that you have Checks to Defeat for banes (usually) and Checks to Acquire for boons (usually) and those are then broken down into types of checks (not skill) like Combat or non-Combat (like Wisdom) or Other (defined in text further on the card). Then you determine the skills needed to attempt the check.

Hope that helps.

[Hawkmoon269]

Ok. So after a good night's sleep and a re-read, I think I understand the issue Michael is pointing out. Michael is basically saying "The rules talk about replacing one skill with another, then give an example that involved playing a weapon for a Combat. Doesn't that imply that Combat is being replaced, and therefore Combat is a skill?"

And I don't think it does, though perhaps the rules could be a bit more clear on this.

S&S Rulebook p12 wrote:

Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one. As part of this action, you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that defines the skill you are going to use. When you play a card that does this, add that card’s traits to the check; for example, revealing the weapon Dragon Pistol for your combat check adds the Firearm, Ranged, Piercing, and Elite traits to the check...

Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check. Weapons and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell you what skill to use when you attempt a combat check; if you aren’t playing one of those cards, you must use your Strength or Melee skill.

This is what I think Michael is saying (and forgive me if I'm wrong): Michael doesn't see how playing a Weapon or other combat defining card fits into "replacing the required skill for a check with a different one." He thinks cards like the Arcane Robes and the Mattock fit there, since they clearly replace one skill with another. But he doesn't see how a weapon fits there, even though a weapon is given as an example, because he doesn't see what skill is being replaced, unless Combat is a skill (which Mike says it isn't). If he could change the rules, he'd have the Mattock used as the example there, then under the "most monsters" paragraph, state that playing a weapon gives traits to the check and that you can only play one weapon.

Ok, so here is how I see this. First, some more straight forward examples:

Ezren and the Arcane Robes You are Ezren. You encounter a barrier and have to make a Wisdom 8 check. You have the Arcane Robes and decide to play them during the "Determine Which Skill You Are Using" part of attempting the check. You have replaced the Wisdom skill with the Arcane skill. The check is now all of the following: non-combat, Arcane, Intelligence, Clothing, Magic. The check is no longer a Wisdom check.

Valeros and the Mattock You are Valeros. You encounter Dance With Squeally Nord. You choose Wisdom 9 as the check you will attempt. You play the Mattock.

Mattock wrote:

Recharge this card to use Strength or Melee in place of the normal skill in a check to defeat a barrier with the Lock or Obstacle trait.

You choose Melee from the Mattock. The check is now all of the following: non-combat, Melee, Strength, Tool, Baisc. The check is no longer a Wisdom check.

Ok. So, assuming I'm right that those checks stop being Wisdom checks, here is a Combat example. I think perhaps the best way to understand this is the skill required for a combat check is Strength or Melee (you can choose) unless you replace it with something (which sounds a lot like that "most monsters" paragraph). So...

Lirianne and the Dragon Pistol You are Lirianne. You have to make a combat 8 check. You play the Dragon Pistol. You have replaced "Strength or Melee" (offered via the rulebook) with Ranged. The check is now all of the following: Combat, Dexterity, Ranged, Firearm, Piercing, and Elite. The check is no longer a Strength or Melee check.

Valeros and the Longsword You are Valeros. You have to make a combat 8 check. You play a Longsword. You have replaced "Strength or Melee" (if it helps, just think that you've replaced Strength) with Melee. The check is now all of the following: Combat, Strength, Melee, Sword, Slashing, Basic. The check didn't stop being a Strength or Melee check, because the card you played ended up in those same traits for the check.

I don't know if Mike or Vic really see it as if you are replacing "Strength or Melee" with whatever the played card gives you or not. But it works with the rules as written.

[Michael Klaus]

Ah. That makes perfect sense. But it is hidden in a small sentence at the end.

Well... then I, personally, would still change the rules.
"Most monsters and some barriers call for a combat check.
You generally have to use your Strength or Melee skill for a combat check but Weapons
and many other cards that can be used during combat generally tell
you what skill (or dice) to use instead when you attempt a combat check."

I can see that the "combat" paragraph got moved after the "replacing" paragraph and it makes sense since the latter refers to all combat and non-combat check and is therefore more general.

But some of the rules segments seem to be written in order of what most frequently get's played in a session. This is fine if you read it for the first time but to me it is hard to find the more general rules that lie hidden somewhere in between specific situations and that you need to refer to if you get an unusual question.

For example on the next page in the first paragraph of the Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check (Optional) step your restrictions actually do refer to types of checks but these types are only introduced in the next paragraph when it comes to cards/powers that have further restrictions.

The segment also adds the traits and used skills to the type although the used skills are already added as traits during the Determine what skill(s)... step.

[tropictuco]

So to ask the original question in reverse--if blessings, allies, and items allow you to add dice to "non-combat" Wisdom/Constitution/etc. checks, are there ever "combat" Wisdom/Constitution/etc. checks? So for example, one time I was faced with the Siren Caller (Wisdom 8 check). I was confused as to whether it was combat (since it's a monster, that makes intuitive sense) or non-combat (well it doesn't SAY combat, so that makes sense too). So if it's combat, I should be able to use weapons and attack spells to "replace" my Wisdom check with whatever the card specifies. But if it's non-combat, I should be able to use Besmaran Priest to add a d6. But I hesitated to do that because I couldn't think of a situation in which a Wisdom check WOULD be combat, if not against a monster.

[elcoderdude]

tropictuco wrote:

I couldn't think of a situation in which a Wisdom check WOULD be combat

Kyra playing Holy Light.

Lini playing Fireblade.

[Andrew L Klein]

Any using a Divine combat spell with a Divine skill that is based on Wisdom for example. Elcoderdude listed a couple.

I think S&S and the class decks actually had some combat spells that directly used your Wisdom as well.

[Dave Riley]

I imagine the "non-combat Constitution" stuff is just hedging against future characters or mechanics who might have nontraditional combat stats. I don't know anything about Pathfinder the RPG, so I don't know if there's, like, an "earth wizard" who uses Constitution as their magic stat.

I feel like a majority of players get confused by Sirens**, thinking "if it's against a monster it SURELY must be a combat check." We were pretty deep into RoRL before we realized that it's only Combat if it says Combat, so playing Sages against Sirens is fair game.

**(or maybe that's just what I tell myself so I can sleep at night)

[Michael Klaus]

tropictuco wrote:

So for example, one time I was faced with the Siren Caller (Wisdom 8 check). I was confused as to whether it was combat (since it's a monster, that makes intuitive sense) or non-combat (well it doesn't SAY combat, so that makes sense too).

See? It would really help if the rules would clearly differentiate between these types of checks when they explain how to read a bane card and state that not all checks again monsters are combat checks.

[Andrew L Klein]

That's not a flaw in the rules, that's a flaw with players making assumptions with no basis. It's never indicated that a monster with a Wisdom check is a Combat check. If there is no reasoning behind an assumption, I don't see a reason to clarify it in the rulebook.

Does if say Combat? It's a Combat check
It doesn't say Combat? It's not a Combat check

I don't see where that needs put into the rulebook.

[pluvia33]

Dave Riley wrote:

I imagine the "non-combat Constitution" stuff is just hedging against future characters or mechanics who might have nontraditional combat stats. I don't know anything about Pathfinder the RPG, so I don't know if there's, like, an "earth wizard" who uses Constitution as their magic stat.

Not saying that I think they'd ever translate it into the card game, but there is a witch class archetype for orcs in the Advanced Race Guide called Scarred Witch Doctor that has this ability:

Constitution Dependent: A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.

So yeah, there is a precedent for Constitution based spell casting. Whether that concept ever actually comes through in the card game remains to be seen, but when it comes to future proofing, better safe than sorry.

Oh, I just checked something and a more likely possibility of constitution based combat is if the card game ever decides to use the Kineticist class from the upcoming Occult Adventures Pathfinder RPG hardcover book. As long as they don't change it from what it was like in the playtest document, they have a number of attack abilities that are constitution based.

[Michael Klaus]

Andrew L Klein wrote:

That's not a flaw in the rules, that's a flaw with players making assumptions with no basis. It's never indicated that a monster with a Wisdom check is a Combat check. If there is no reasoning behind an assumption, I don't see a reason to clarify it in the rulebook.

Does if (sic) say Combat? It's a Combat check
It doesn't say Combat? It's not a Combat check

I don't see where that needs put into the rulebook.

Whoa. From the POV of someone who understood the rules that is completely acceptable. But if you did not notice: Many people do not understand that part.

Rulesbooks are never written for people who know or are taught the rules by someone else. They are intended for those who unpack the box at home without having played it before or having seen a video on youtube.

So the rules tell you that you have to fight villains on page 2 and then that you have to defeat monsters on page 11 and finally give you the rule that you are referring to: "Cards Don’t Do What They Don’t Say" on page 29... after every card type got explored, the example of play and your suggested starting decks.
And even if people read through the entire rulebook without saying "Let's simply try and read through the rest when something comes up" I am sure that most make the assumption not from the card but the rules themselves. And there is no rule written against that.
Actually many people work their way through troublesome situations with the rules as intended approach. And that is nothing else but making assumptions.

[Frencois]

Michael Klaus wrote:

Andrew L Klein wrote:

That's not a flaw in the rules, that's a flaw with players making assumptions with no basis....

Whoa. From the POV of someone who understood the rules that is completely acceptable. But if you did not notice: Many people do not understand that part.

...

Hum, to get back to my broadsword example above... After many remarks during RORL, Paizo made a point in adding a clear GOLDEN rule.

"If the card doesn't say it is, it isn't!"

I can fully understand that people don't grab the full rules on the first try, I didn't. But I wasn't taught the rules by anyone and English isn't even my native language, so the only thing I made sure is to always remember the golden rules. My advice IMHO : reread aloud to the players before any game. They solve 90% of tricky questions.