Oh yeah, I forgot about that ability.
It's the same reason that being a Mythic Marshal doesn't add twice your # of charges. You're not making both a Strength and Charisma check. You're just making a Strength check.
That said, it's your table. Enjoy it first and sweat the little details second.
I think you're conflating two things. Balazar does add his Arcane SKILL (which includes his skill feats), but he can't use cards like Glibness to augment the attempt because, at it's core, he's making a Strength check. Glibness adds to your Charisma checks, it doesn't apply a flat bonus to your Charisma skill for the turn. It's a bit finicky, but I assume it's for balancing purposes. The Strength spell still works on Balazar just fine.
I get the difference in the Mythic path though, in that case I would be double dipping from the same skill, here you aren't. You're casting a spell to modify something that is a named element of a characters power.
This whole issue definitely lends itself down a slippery slope and ultimately could lead to a question of why were the cards and skills set up the way they are, what's the point of ever putting a + in charisma if it doesn't do anything for the base power and under that theory why even make Balazar a Charisma caster? At the endgame will he even be viable? Of course I still have faith in you guys so I'm anxious to wait and see how he progresses.
First off, something that modifies checks does not modify the skill used for the checks. That's where it seems the confusion lies.
Glibness gives a +3 on Charisma checks. If you have 2 skill feats in Charisma:
Charisma = 1d10+2
Arcane = Charisma +2 = 1d10+4
With Glibness, you get a +3 to Charisma checks. If used on an Arcane check:
=1d10+4+3 = 1d10+7.
----
When you're interacting with a Strength check, Padrig allows you to add your Arcane skill to the check:
=1d6+1d10+4. Glibness doesn't apply because it's not a Charisma check.
The reason Balazar is a Charisma caster:
1. Summoners are normally Charisma casters.
2. There isn't a card-game balancing concern (which is why Seelah casts off Wisdom rather than Charisma as paladins normally are) to merit a change to that.
Glibness would help Balazar on Arcane spells, checks to obtain humanoid allies (which are generally Charisma / Diplomacy,) and checks to close Charisma-based locations.
Skill feats that you put into Charisma affect your Charisma skill, and would be included when you use Padrig's power to add your Arcane skill to your Strength checks. :)
Quick question - can Balazar use his power to discard a spell to put a monster in his hand when he encounters a bane? Or does he need to do it between enconters?
I would say that it has to be in between encounters since the drawing of the monster doesn't directly relate to a step or check during the actual encounter.
It's the same logic that prevents a spell like Call Weapon from being played during an encounter.
|
Actually, I could see it either way. You are allowed to play Rage during an encounter as long as the player uses its power on the check, and I could see this using the same logic. Call Weapon can't work because, if I remember the discussion properly, by the time you play it you are already past the step where you would play the weapon.
However, in this case you would still be in the step where you would use his power to get rid of the monster for dice. Of course, you aren't actually playing the monster so regardless of steps, personally I'd say no.
I'd say you can't use it during an encounter. The difference from Rage is that Rage is all very tightly contained in the power of Rage itself. As long as the cost is paid, the powers on Rage will be what affects the check. Balazar is getting a card, and that card will effect the check. I think every other "get a card" type power we've seen can't be played during an encounter, or is worded to make it clear you can (i.e. Sacred Weapon). The question is this:
1. Does the power on Rage affect the check? Yes, the text of the Rage spell affects the check as long as I'm willing to pay the cost which is entirely outlined in the Rage power.
2. Does the power on Balazar affect the check? No, it lets me get a card that I can then use for another power (and on another card even, if I'm using it for Padrig) to affect the check.
So I say get your monsters before your encounter.
Thanks everyone. Going to start a 6 person group next week for wrath. Let's see how it goes.
Thanks everyone. Going to start a 6 person group next week for wrath. Let's see how it goes.
Good luck! 6 players is very challenging!! Must work together tightly or its gg..
|
Keith's post makes me assume the intent of his power is to use it during combat.
I get where you're coming from, but I just feel it works better mechanically and thematically to allow it. Until I hear an official answer otherwise, I'm going to stick with my interpretation of it.
In the meantime, something that will come up for Balazar later, and the fates do not smile on him in this regard.
Once you are in AD3, when you encounter Basic monsters and defeat them, you do NOT gain them in hand: the instruction to remove such cards from the game is on the AP card, and thus (by Golden Rule) has priority over your desire to take them in hand.
Same goes for AD5 and Elite monsters.
Same also goes for if you somehow get such cards in your deck (eg, through discarding a spell, or Tyrannomancer's upgraded take-in-hand power) and subsequently banish them through your (or Padrig's) power.
Hold up. Is that true? If so, I will junk Balazar tomorrow.
|
|
Wow that didn't even connect for me, but yes Omega that it is correct. Any time two powers conflict, you follow the card hierarchy (Adventure Path is at the top, and overrides anything that conflicts with it).
I'm curious to see if that will be errata'd. Probably not, since cards in your deck at the end of a scenario get out back in the box, not banished, and those Basics / Elites really should be removed from the game.
Keep in mind Omega that once a Basic after Adv3 is removed from the game (Elite starting in Adv5), you're never going to see it in that playthrough ever ever ever again, so it really actually isn't that bad.
Oh, I know. I played through all of RotR. It just never occured to me what impact it would have on Balazar.
Oh well. At least I have plenty of other interesting characters to choose from.
Hold up. Is that true? If so, I will junk Balazar tomorrow.
To be sure, if you get RFG monsters in your hand through effects other than defeating them, you still get to use them; it's only after you burn them for your powers that they RFG.
But if you defeat the monsters, the RFG has priority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keith's post makes me assume the intent of his power is to use it during combat.
Fwiw, I did not intend to imply any sort of timing with that post. Either for or against. I let the others weigh in on the nitty gritty rules details :)
I would not be surprised if many Balazar starts go...
A blessing is flipped over for someone. Before anything else happens, Padrig is displayed, if they have a spell they don't care about, it's discarded and a random monster is drawn. Bring it.
To be sure, if you get RFG monsters in your hand through effects other than defeating them, you still get to use them; it's only after you burn them for your powers that they RFG.
But if you defeat the monsters, the RFG has priority.
Balazar's power say 'when you defeat a monster and WOULD banish it' though, which circumvents the Golden Rule. "Would" means the banishing never actually happens in the first place, so the scenario rule never comes into play (until he banishes them from his hand, anyway).
Balazar's power say 'when you defeat a monster and WOULD banish it' though, which circumvents the Golden Rule. "Would" means the banishing never actually happens in the first place, so the scenario rule never comes into play (until he banishes them from his hand, anyway).
I get what you're saying but that logic didn't work for Lini at the Farmhouse.
I don't have the Farmhouse in front of me, but Lini's character card doesn't say "would" it says "when you play an ally with the animal trait, you may recharge it instead of burying it." So in essence you're discarding it and then going SWOOP and turning that discard into a recharge. When Lini's character card says "recharge instead" and the Farmhouse says "bury instead" you have a conflict that the Golden Rule resolves.
In the past, Vic has cited would as essentially a super word (lots of vitamins and minerals) that means whatever action ~might~ have occurred actually did not (when you WOULD die, when Hirgenzosk WOULD be defeated), and therefore no conflict with the Golden Rule, because the banishment never actually happened. In the example of Hirgenzosk, player cards trump monster cards, right? Per The People's Disintegrate vs. Giant Turtle even if obliterate Hirgenzosk's core, tortoisy essence with a Disintegrate spell, the giant turtle gets to go "nuh uh uh, I was never defeated in the first place! :3 :3 :3" and you don't get to banish him.
Then again, it may just be that term wasn't codified in that way during RotR, so maybe I'm operating with incorrect information. S&S Lini does use 'would' and maybe an S&S-style Farmhouse would (:D :D :D) too.
If so, poor Balazar, he's had so many hurdles already. D:
|
|
Balazar's power say 'when you defeat a monster and WOULD banish it' though, which circumvents the Golden Rule. "Would" means the banishing never actually happens in the first place, so the scenario rule never comes into play (until he banishes them from his hand, anyway).To be sure, if you get RFG monsters in your hand through effects other than defeating them, you still get to use them; it's only after you burn them for your powers that they RFG.
But if you defeat the monsters, the RFG has priority.
The Adventure Path also says "would", so it replaces the banish effect with permanent removal from the game, and Balazar never triggers his power.
Sounds like we could use some clarification on this issue.
I did NOT think to check the adventure path for woulds. :D Poor Balazar~ He just can't win.
|
|
Why's that Omega? As it stands it's very clear reading the cards, and knowing the card hierarchy, that his power would not trigger. Any clarification would just be restating the card hierarchy rules. Anything else is a flatout errata. One that wouldn't make sense because it makes it possibly, and easy, to not remove weak basics and elites from the game.
It does make sense if you expect all Balazar players to take it on the chin and leave Basic monsters in their hand/discard pile/deck until the end of each scenario, never using them, strictly for the purpose of keeping a handful of Skeletons and Zombies around into AP6. I don't think the playerbase is deserving of quite that level of suspicion (sounds like a lot of boring hand draws for the Balazar player), but it also doesn't seem like it'd crush the character into unplayable paste. Balazar's got more going for him than just having Monsters in hand. Like... like... using his Strength skill instead of his Con skill! Or, or...
Well, his Tyrannomancer role really doesn't. :D But at least it finally gets to keep summoned Monsters around! (sometime during AP4, presumably, after 2 power feats)
Did this question somehow never come up with Darago? I guess because OP banishes all Basics at once, it'd never even enter your mind unless you're playing him through a regular AP.
Fair enough, Andrew.
I am just going to scrap him. That will eliminate my frustration (and complaining. ;)) with the character. Now I have to determine if I want to play Seelah, Enora, or Imrijka. Since we have Shandra and Crowe, who will go Arcane as quickly as possible, I'm thinking Imrijka for her interesting ability to possibly explore after slaying a monster.
|
|
Dave, remember there's a lot of things that will send cards from your hand to somewhere else. Damage, random shuffles into your deck, buries, Shackles even seent a card from your hand into a location. There are many ways someone could have a monster in their cards at the end of a game without trying to game the system.
As for Darago, I don't remember it coming up. I'd definitely rule it the same as this though, but I'm guessing you're right in that Darago mostly saw OP play where the gradual removal of cards doesn't exist.
Omega, I've played Imrijka and Enora (played Seelah RotR and CD a while back, not a fan of her character), and I definitely recommend Imrijka. She's been able to handle nearly everything that's come her way.
Well, that's certainly a complication I didn't forsee; thanks for bringing that up, Sandslice.
I still want to play Balazar though for the playthrough with my fiancee (I am thinking/hoping she picks up Adowyn).
Andrew: think I want Imrijka for a possible solo playthrough, glad to hear you like her.
From where I'm sitting, Adowyn makes the choice to play her for you. She's my favorite of the set! Just make sure your fiance knows Adowyn receives a Sweet Woof; that's what ultimately tipped the choice between her and Imrijka, for me.
I've been reading all this Balazar stuff with a keen eye. I don't normally like the more straightforward casters, so Enora's straight out, but the weirder ones (hi Damiel) are just my cup of tea, so I was leaning towards Balazar for our inevitable second playthrough. Also I just like weird mechanics with cumbersome rule interactions, so just reading this stuff has been a feast for the kid in me that use to memorize AD&D manuals with no hope of ever playing the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make sure your fiance knows Adowyn receives a Sweet Woof
I, uh, may have told her that we could get a puppy/pet when our PACG characters get puppies/pets. Just some motivation to finish out the S&S box (just the two of us) and Season of the Shackles (us + a friend with hopefully the occasional guest) and start up WotR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keith's post makes me assume the intent of his power is to use it during combat.Fwiw, I did not intend to imply any sort of timing with that post. Either for or against. I let the others weigh in on the nitty gritty rules details :)
C'mon, you guys know the score: Never trust a designer in his or her understanding of the rules. Always wait for Vic.
I, uh, may have told her that we could get a puppy/pet when our PACG characters get puppies/pets. Just some motivation to finish out the S&S box (just the two of us) and Season of the Shackles (us + a friend with hopefully the occasional guest) and start up WotR.
Good idea! We're moving soon and hopefully bound for a puppy. I wonder if this reasoning will work on our future landlord?
|
|
I have to say, Balazar loses a lot of his luster to me if his "Discard a spell for a monster" power can't be used in combat, and the issue with Basic monsters not going to his hand after defeating them post AD3.
He's already having to rely on trickery to overcome combat as it is through Padrig. I feel like these two things hamstring Balazar's utility in a significant way.
Seelah can discard any card for any check, and even for other characters with her, for a d6. Balazar gets a smaller die, limited types of checks it can be used on, the card discarded has to be a specific type, and also has to be done pre-encounter. Seems like a big disparity between the two powers, and makes Balazar's unique mechanics less useful.
I agree that Balazar requires a lot more fiddly effort, but he does have the benefit of generating his own resource (instead of consuming his deck), choosing the discarded card, and his power works across locations. Seelah has to commit to it blindly and doesn't get her recharge power until role cards this time (and only on one role). Even playing original flavor Seelah, I'd go through several scenarios where certain allies would never get in my hand just by bad luck of the draw of turning them over for her (immaculately OP, let's all admit) power.
I'd certainly WANT Balazar to be able to discard a spell whenever he cares to, but in my reading: there's been enough Call Weapons and Phantasmal Minions to suggest that was never the intent. I certainly don't see Padrig as a liability in combat: he doesn't have the Attack trait, so he circumvents that pure caster issue, and he's Displayed, which means he's not vulnerable to hand wipes or Before You Act damage. In a lot of ways, Padrig is better than your average Melee character (and he provides a huge bonus to non-Combat Strength checks!)
There's other difficult to quantify aspects too, like Balazar's larger hand size giving him more options on a turn-by-turn basis, where Seelah's power might not see a lot of action when she's alone at a location with her hand stuffed with weapons/armor and only getting one explore anyway. Seelah's power is more versatile, but potentially more costly and sometimes trickier to implement.
Don't forget that Padrig also adds the adventure deck number to Balazar's strength checks along with his Arcane skill. Depending on your choice of Mythic Path, you could be looking at something like a +18 modifier by deck 6 on top of whatever dice you are using.
You guys should really wait for Vic to rule on this before throwing out your Balazars.
You guys should really wait for Vic to rule on this before throwing out your Balazars.
I wouldn't for anything throw myself! I'm the one and only Balazar. Plus Padrig would never forgive me. And anyway I'm the only one that could use the Sweet Goblin-Dragon-Kobold armor to just show off to the rest of my party while Padrig does all the work.
Need to get that armor before Ennie tries to steal it.Naughty Goblinette.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Are you folks thinking the rule that stops you is "You may not activate a power or play a card that doesn’t apply to your current situation"?
I believe that Balazar's power does apply to his situation if (and only if) he's using the monster right away—say, to add 1d4 to his check to defeat a barrier, or if he's immediately feeding it to Padrig to affect his check.
|
|
Sounds good to me. My reasoning behind saying it couldn't be done, Vic, was that you are not actually using the monster, you are using a power that just happens to use the monster as a cost. I don't see this as being any different allowing Call Weapon being cast by Seoni during an encounter, and it being OK as long as you instantly discard that weapon to trigger her power. We don't allow that, so I don't really see a reason to allow this.
Actually, now that I think about it I don't see it as being any different than playing Call Weapon during any part of the encounter as long as you use the weapon. somehow for something.
Sounds good to me. My reasoning behind saying it couldn't be done, Vic, was that you are not actually using the monster, you are using a power that just happens to use the monster as a cost. I don't see this as being any different allowing Call Weapon being cast by Seoni during an encounter, and it being OK as long as you instantly discard that weapon to trigger her power. We don't allow that, so I don't really see a reason to allow this.
This is a nitpick on your example, but that would be 2 castings of a spell during an encounter, since Selioni's power counts as casting a spell. I don't think that changes the substance of your argument, though.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing cards and using powers to affect your check needs to happen during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" action.
Because Balazar is using the monster to affect the check, the right thing is happening at the right time.
Call Weapon generally doesn't work at this time because this action happens *after* the "Determine Which Skill You're Using" action, which is when you need to use the "For your combat check..." power of most weapons.
That said, it's not true that you *can't* use Call Weapon at this point—you *can* use it to call a weapon that has a power that affects the check. For example, you can call a Dagger to use it for it's "add 1d4 to the combat check" power, but it's too late to use it for its "For your combat check" power.