Greyflame Mace and the divine skill

[Tyquaius]

If I recharge a card with a divine trait to add my divine skill while using the Greyflame Mace +2, am I allowed to use modifiers that affect my divine skill i.e. Headband of inspired wisdom? Would evangelist and the 1d6 apply as well?

[Hawkmoon269]

I would say no. Though I don't recall the exact wording on the Greyflame Mace +2, typically these "skill add ons" don't make the check a new kind of check. In other words, it isn't a Divine check, and the Headband of Inspired Wisdom says it adds to a Divine check. Now, if a card said it added to any check that used your Divine skill, then I think you might have a case for letting it work in this situation.

[Frencois]

Just to rephrase : if a card would say it "adds to any check that used your Divine skill" it wouldn't apply but it would if it was to "add to any check that has the Divine trait".

[Ripe]

Wasn't there a similar discussion awhile ago about Noxious bomb [or maybe it was Alchemist fire] adding Craft skill to combat check and what that mean?

[Hawkmoon269]

Frencois wrote:

Just to rephrase : if a card would say it "adds to any check that used your Divine skill" it wouldn't apply but it would if it was to "add to any check that has the Divine trait".

Actually the other way around. "A Divine check" basically means a check with the Divine trait. A check gets the Divine trait from the card you play to determine the check, either because that card has the Divine trait or that card determines the skill you are using is the Divine skill.

I'm guessing what the cards says, but the Greyflame Mace determines you are using Strength or Melee, and the card itself doesn't have the Divine trait. That means it isn't a Divine check. So cards that add to "Divine checks" don't help you. But if a card were to say "A check that uses your Divine skill" then it might.

Which raises a question: What is the wording for Skull and Shackles on cards like Strength, Speed, and Glibness? I can't remember off the top of my head. But in RotR they added to "a check that uses your X die." So, if Alahazra had Glibness on her, then played the Greyflame Mace, I think she might get the +3 from Glibness, as long as Glibness said either "a check that uses your Charisma die" or "a check that uses your Charisma skill."

[Hawkmoon269]

Ripe wrote:

Wasn't there a similar discussion awhile ago about Noxious bomb [or maybe it was Alchemist fire] adding Craft skill to combat check and what that mean?

There was. It is over here.

[Ripe]

There is no Glibness in S&S but Strength and Speed add +3 to checks using Strength or Dexterity skill.

[Hawkmoon269]

Thanks. So it says Skill. Assuming Glibness would say the same, then I think they'd work the way I said, not just adding to those types of checks, but any check that uses that skill.

If there was an Intelligence version of those cards, you could use them with Damiel and the Noxious Bomb too, since that uses his Intelligence skill.

All just my non-authoritative opinion.

[Michael Klaus]

Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?

[elcoderdude]

FYI the card is:

GrayFlame Mace +2 wrote:

Traits: Mace, Melee, Bludgeoning, Magic

Powers: For your combat check, reveal this card to use your Strength or Melee skill + 1d8 + 2; you may additionally recharge a card that has the Divine trait to add your Divine skill.

As Michael says the question is whether adding a skill adds the skill's traits to the check.

I think if I'm adding my Divine:Wisdom + 2 skill to the skills I'm using, the check is a Divine and a Wisdom check. But that's not clear. I'm not sure of the intent.

[Flat the Impaler]

Michael Klaus wrote:

Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?

I would think that "cards don't do what they don't say" rule would apply. It says only that you add the skill (rule book says this is die + modifier); it doesn't say that you add trait(s).

I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that says adding a skill also adds the traits, except when you are determining the skill (which you are not; you are past that step).

So why would you think you add them?

[Andrew L Klein]

Because, while it is mentioned in the section for determining your skill, the exact wording is "Any skills you use are added as traits to the check". I believe the intent is exactly as you say, but as written it can easily be construed as including something like Divine in this example. Being mentioned in one section of the rulebook doesn't mean it doesn't apply anywhere else.

[zeroth_hour]

To me, there's a difference between "add your X skill" and "use your X skill" (and hawkmoon in the other thread does as well). Since "add your X skill" doesn't have any special rules governing addition of their traits to a check, I don't think they do.

Mike Selinker's team has it in the queue to rule on.

[Michael Klaus]

If it was not the intent then those cards should be changed to add the skill die and the skill modifier. For hell's sake we have those terms and we do not need to bring another one, that is a commen verb and which is already used in other situations in this game.

It really cannot be that adding skills to a check and adding skills as traits to a check should be distinuished.

[Andrew L Klein]

They would not say add the skill and add the modifier because that's more text than is necessary. It's not even that the word "use" needs to be defined. It's just that the rule that says you add your skills as traits needs to be reworded to clarify either way.

Since the rule is in the Determine Your Skill step

1) "Any skills you use during this step are added as traits to the check
2) "Any skills you use, or add, are added as traits to the check

One of those is the right way, and regardless of which one, the fix adds no more than three words to the rulebook and makes it clear how it works.

It could easily be that determining a skill for a check and adding a skill through a card effect the check differently. They are current, the question is how different? The fact is Michael, it's not as clear as you say it is and could easily be interpreted either way depending on how important you consider the section the rule is in in the book.

[Ripe]

Let us look at this from slightly different angle... what playing this mace and using it's power represent: Character draws his Mace, offers a prayer to a deity asking for help in defeating his opponent and said deity responding by adding some of his divine energy to damage dealt.

In Card game terms each action is represented as follows:
- revealing a mace: drawing a weapon and readying it for use
- discarding a card: offering a prayer to deity and asking for help
- adding Diving skill: deity responding by adding divine energy to damage

Now let us imagine that opponent that character is facing can only be harmed by using divine energy which in card game terms that would mean a check to defeat need to have Divine trait [there is a precedence for that since in S&S character add-on deck there is a monster requiring check to defeat to have Magic trait]... would that opponent be defeated or undefeated following a successful attack using this weapon?

Thematically, I would say yes, he is defeated. But going by the rules as written at the moment, arguments could be made for each option.

[Andrew L Klein]

Exactly. It'd be nice if thematics were a basis for a ruling, but thematic accuracy would cause too many extra rules and exceptions (Caltrops vs Ancient Skeleton)

[Ripe]

Agreed, it would be nice to get a definitive ruling on this.

One "benefit" I could see from making a ruling that monster from my example is defeated would be that it would make introducing a future Villain with "If the check to defeat does not have Divine trait, 'Villain' is undefeated." power possible.

At the moment introducing a Villain like that is not an option since doing that would make soloing the adventure path with any non-spellcaster almost impossible since they wouldn't have a way to defeat such Villain. Introducing a weapon like this would make that possible [and then you can only blame yourself for not keeping one of those when you get them... especially if it was given to you as Loot].

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about (Caltrops vs Ancient Skeleton) causing issues with thematic accuracy... Skeleton might ignore damage effect from them but uneven footing and balance issues still remain allowing you to either evade or defeat that Skeleton.

[Dave Riley]

Maybe you have a bunch of different types of caltrops, like some ball bearings and they just slip around the room on them while you walk on by. :3

[Ripe]

Well, there are a bunch of different types of Caltrops used throughout history... one design [most common one] is four spikes arranged so their end points create a tetrahedron [a d4] but there are also designs using six spikes and even some with eight spikes. Their design also determine how much balance issues came out of stepping on one.

[Michael Klaus]

Oh you did not get that I am totally in for the adding of the trait of the second skill. I do not mind having those uberpowered card that allow you to weird combinations that allow you to sneak behind the villain in your Boots of Elvenkind and then shoot him dead with your Swordcane Pistol +2.

Or that one character assembles a Noxious Bomb and another one is like "Well we could also add this Potion of Lucubration for some extra boom."

I mean we already have the Potion of the Ocean and Aquatic viallains so what is the problem with automatic success in a combat check? (Or really high modifiers, if you take the cards on their own without auto success combinations.)

But if we really need this uber cool things to be ruled out. Please do not tell me to decipher between adding and using skills.

And Andrew: We're talking about cards you play in the Determine... step. So the options are either:

3)"Any skills you use during this step are added as traits to the check. Skills you add are not added as traits to the check." (What Hawkmoon would seem to prefer.)

or:

4) "Any skills you use and add druing this step, are added as traits to the check." (What you would seem to prefer.)

So far no cards you can play during the Play Cards That Affect Your Check step add skills or let you use skills in any way.

[Michael Klaus]

Flat the Impaler wrote:

Michael Klaus wrote:

Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?

I would think that "cards don't do what they don't say" rule would apply. It says only that you add the skill (rule book says this is die + modifier); it doesn't say that you add trait(s).

I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that says adding a skill also adds the traits, except when you are determining the skill (which you are not; you are past that step).

So why would you think you add them?

Why am I past that step? I am still playing the same exact power that allowed me to use another skill instead of Melee/Strength for combat. It is not only on the same card, it is the same paragraph, meaning the same power! How can I play one sentence of the power in this step and the next sentence in another step? (Which is not even the following step.)

[Flat the Impaler]

Michael Klaus wrote:

Flat the Impaler wrote:

Michael Klaus wrote:

Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?

I would think that "cards don't do what they don't say" rule would apply. It says only that you add the skill (rule book says this is die + modifier); it doesn't say that you add trait(s).

I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that says adding a skill also adds the traits, except when you are determining the skill (which you are not; you are past that step).

So why would you think you add them?

Why am I past that step? I am still playing the same exact power that allowed me to use another skill instead of Melee/Strength for combat. It is not only on the same card, it is the same paragraph, meaning the same power! How can I play one sentence of the power in this step and the next sentence in another step? (Which is not even the following step.)

You're right, sorry. Upon closer inspection of the text, I agree that you are still in the "define" step. For some reason I was thinking this was a card power you're playing into an already-defined check.

So as zeroth_hour pointed out above, it comes down to a matter of "add" vs. "use" and the distinction between them. Quite literally, it does say "add your Divine skill" not "use your Divine skill". Since only skills you are using add their traits, I would still be inclined to conclude you don't add the traits. We'll see what the official ruling is.

[Vic Wertz]

Answered in FAQ.