Oops, accidental post.
Charm Monster is, in fact, amazing on Balazar.
Will definitively try... if one day we get rid of B4 :-(
First of all apologies for possibly resurrecting this long thread. Our group has some questions on the "relevant to check" play of some cards.
So what we read in this thread is for balazar he can trigger his ability to get a monster after an encounter has begun (card flipped open) because it is "relevant to the check" and on the condition he must use that monster he draws. Ok!
Then we encountered stuff like sacred weapon, flames of the faithful, brilliance (for mage), glibness, etc... All would boost the skills required for the check and is thus "relevant" (?).
We always played before that it was a choice before explore to cast it first and thus an element of risk if we didn't encounter a monster... Etc...
So... Long story short.. Could we play those cards after the encounter had begun as they appear to be "relevant"?
Sure.
-Sacred Weapon is a standard "attack spell" that defines your combat check as (Melee or Ranged as) 1d8 + (the effects of the random weapon that you summon and play.) So you can only play it while you act.
-Flames of the Faithful and Weapon of Awe can be played while you act, if a weapon is being played (as they give a bonus to weapons.) Otherwise, you play them outside of an encounter.
-Stat buff spells (eg, Brilliance) can be played during any check / step that is that stat's check (eg, any Int check,) keeping in mind the one-card rule.
So Enora could use Brilliance on a Knowledge check against a monster, and then it would carry into her Arcane combat check against it. But she couldn't cast Brilliance to modify her own Life Drain, as that would be two spells played in the while-you-act step.
She COULD cast Brilliance while you act, if she's attacking with the Ring of Forcefangs (loot from AD2,) because she's making an Arcane (Int) combat check without casting a spell.
Thank you!
I understand Glibness won't work for padrig due to it being a charisma check vs padrig is a strength check.
We have been too conservative it seems.... :)
Chief Technical Officer
|
In the interest of trying to move this discussion forward, I'm going to put a new idea out there.
Let's say you can play a card that *directly* affects the check, but not one that can only *indirectly* affect the check. So, if you were attempting a check that included an effect such as “roll 2d6 and add the number of items in your hand,” then I could use Merchant to give you an item, as that action directly changes the situation... but I couldn’t give you a spell that says “discard this card to draw an item from your discard pile,” because my action wouldn’t *directly* change the situation.
Thoughts?
Does Balazar's get a monster power directly or indirectly affect the check? I feel it is more indirect. Which is fine, I am not saying he has to be able to use his power, just that his power is where this all started and want to know if you think that rule would prevent his power from working.
Or perhaps because the number of monsters he had matters it is direct. Hmmmm, got to think on this some more.
So, following up on that, I'm thinking in 3 categories here:
1. Using a power/card to get/give a card that you will play on the check. (ex: Using the Merchant to give someone a Blessing of the Gods.)
2. Using a power/card to get/give a card that another power/card will care about to affect the check. (ex: Using the Merchant to give Damiel a card with the Liquid trait for him to use to add to a combat check via his own power.)
3. Using a power/card to get/give a card that will be used to get/give another card. (ex: Using the Merchant to give someone Recast.)
Are 1 and 2 direct while 3 is indirect? Balazar would seem be be #2, since having a monster in his hand doesn't let him use the power on the monster, but lets him used it for either Padrig's power or his own power.
Ok. So basically, you can't even be required to reveal it. It would only be for powers that said (as you demonstrated) "add something for every card you have". Needing to perform an action with the card would rule it out.
Now I'm wondering if there are any cards out there like that, where just having something in hand matters, or if they tend to have you reveal the cards that are powering it. (I'll have to flip through some cards later to see.)
As for my thoughts, I'd personally prefer a more limited rule in general. And then, if desired, the golden rule could handle the exceptions. For example, Balazar's "get a monster" power could say that you could use it during a check.
What I'm trying to suggest is if a character has to *do something* with the card they gain makes it affect the check, it's indirect. If just them *having* the card affects the check, it's direct.
It's very possible that this is *too* limited.
That'd be so limited that even the original case - of Balazar obtaining a monster to burn right away - would be disallowed under it. It might be simpler to just give Balazar an exception here. :)
Interesting thought. So it's the logic of being "directly relevant" to the check. Which I imagine could lead to more complicated/confusing interactions in future.
I think the idea is sound - allow only *Direct* effects but at the same time maybe errata padrig/balazar to allow their ability to trigger during encounter (with some kind of "you must use the drawn monster" if during encounter text.)?
What I'm trying to suggest is if a character has to *do something* with the card they gain makes it affect the check, it's indirect. If just them *having* the card affects the check, it's direct.
It's very possible that this is *too* limited.
Seems to me, IMHO, that it has been and still is a very long and somehow confusing debate.
To which I would really recommend a very simple to understand final ruling, else we would never close it.Is there really an issue in gameplay to somehow release the constraints and just rule that :
During any step of an encounter you can play any card providing the golden rules below are respected :
A) unless instructed otherwise by the cards in play, a single character cannot play 2 cards of the same type during a given step
B) unless instructed otherwise by the cards in play, a single character cannot play a card that is certain to have an impact on a check relative to the encounter needed during this step (if any) or on the outcome of the current step
That would means that :
If Seoni is encountering a demon, Kyra could cure her during the fight (but why not, after all that's how it is in Pathfinder RPG?), but only during a step that involves tempering with the character deck or discard deck. And Kyra couldn't cure Valeros.
No one could just activate a power to draw a card in hope that card could be playable because of the "is certain" in my sentence.
You can play Glibness on yourself to improve the odds of success but only during a step when you have to roll a Charisma based skill... so you cannot play another spell at that time.
Since only the outcome oif the step (and not the one of the encounter) is involved, you cannot just play a card at the beginning of the encounter with strange argument like "yes there is no Before you act step written on the card but there is always one anyway so i can play that because that is relevant to the encounter"
Altogether, should be tested if it really changes things (although as long as we are not 100% clear on the original intent, it's difficult to evaluate gap), but I feel that that would be a clear rule covering at least 95% of our questions.
IMHO
Not much difference if the healer is in same location and has cure spell ready. Could just cure after combat. Kinda makes sense that the curing happens after the heated battle...
That's my point. My proposition of wording seems - at lest to me - clearer and does not change much.
Doesn't B eliminate the ability to aid others? Playing a blessing is certain to have an impact on the outcome of the check so B would bar me from playing it.
|
I'm guessing B is supposed to say "not certain"
Personally, I think it should work as the following
Does the card your playing modify the check by the power your using? If yes, you can use it, if no, you can't.
So you can still play cards using powers that immediately affect the check (blessings, bows, etc.)
You would not be allowed to play things like Rage (because the display power does not affect the check, it simply gives a usage option that would affect it), or a Merchant for Vic's example above. Balazar cannot pull monsters during an encounter.
I could get on board with things like Rage, where it's "play this card to give a character this power". Everything else though really shouldn't be allowed.
Imagine this situation: You have 2 cards in your discard pile and Cure in your hand. And that is the only Cure in your deck. You say to yourself, "Self, I don't want to waste this Cure on just two cards. I will explore again before I play this Cure, so I can get me out of it." So you explore. And, oh no! It is a monster with a check to defeat of Intelligence 15. You only have a d4 for Intelligence and no one has any blessings. "Crap, Self," you say. "I am going to lose a fist full of cards, maybe even that Cure if I roll badly enough."
If you could play cards that didn't relate to the encounter, than that isn't a problem anymore. And your choices will have less consequences. And that your choices matter is one of the cornerstones of the game.
That is, as I understand it, at least one reason for the rule. I have seen many times where someone gets in over their head and if they could play a card that didn't relate to their encounter it would help get them out of trouble. But that just isn't as fun because it doesn't require you to really prepare and plan if you can just call timeout during the encounter.
I agree with Andrew L Klein, though I see the power on Rage being fine as is since the entire paragraph constitutes the power and not just the first sentence, and therefore, as long as you use it, it applies to the check.
While my gut instinct for Rage is "it's fine, no questions asked," my logical explanation is a difference in degree. Overextending in not playing a Cure before taking a blind explore is part of the deal. Wanted to heal yourself? Too bad, shouldn't have gotten greedy. But if you extend those concepts to cards that directly affect the check, but maybe have some funny wording that makes it questionable, then you're required to be basically psychic (or abuse scouting) to play cards that have a fairly specific use case already, and "fairly specific use case" is a condition that consigns a lot of cards to the dumpster for me even when there's no question when you're allowed to play them.
I'm guessing B is supposed to say "not certain".
Of course it was. Stupid typo. Thanks Andrew.
|
|
I agree with Andrew L Klein, though I see the power on Rage being fine as is since the entire paragraph constitutes the power and not just the first sentence, and therefore, as long as you use it, it applies to the check.
Yea and that's why, while I prefer not to allow Rage, I don't specifically have a problem with it because you are technically using that power on the check.
Let's say you can play a card that *directly* affects the check, but not one that can only *indirectly* affect the check. So, if you were attempting a check that included an effect such as “roll 2d6 and add the number of items in your hand,” then I could use Merchant to give you an item, as that action directly changes the situation... but I couldn’t give you a spell that says “discard this card to draw an item from your discard pile,” because my action wouldn’t *directly* change the situation.
I don't think that this answers. An effect like that is a power on some card. If you haven't activated the power then sending the item would be an indirect way to improve the check since it requires you to use a power later. Otherwise, once you activate the power then you will need to finish one thing (using this power to determine/enhance the check) before starting another (sending a card). Checking the contents of your hand after all modifications have been made seems wrong unless adding the number of cards from your hand comes from a power on a displayed card; it would need to be a continuous power (Cloud of X) instead of an activated one (Sphere/Orb of X) for passing a card to directly improve the check.
Does casting Raise Dead on a character so that it can perform a check count as directly affecting a check? Does a check happen if there are no characters present to make it?
Villain:
Discard the top card of your deck. (Potentially killing the encountering character.)
Check A then Check B. (One of which must be performed by the encountering character.)
Discard the top card of the Blessings Deck. (Possible perma-death, for extra excitement.)
With the third deck coming up and banishing basics around the corner - any ruling on Balazar being able to overrule the standard procedure and being able to greedily grab those monsters before theyre gone forever?
|
|
With the third deck coming up and banishing basics around the corner - any ruling on Balazar being able to overrule the standard procedure and being able to greedily grab those monsters before theyre gone forever?
Unless I missed something, that's a simple answer. Since both tell you to do something instead of banish, you follow the hierarchy. Adventure Path overrules character and he can't take them.
With the third deck coming up and banishing basics around the corner - any ruling on Balazar being able to overrule the standard procedure and being able to greedily grab those monsters before theyre gone forever?Unless I missed something, that's a simple answer. Since both tell you to do something instead of banish, you follow the hierarchy. Adventure Path overrules character and he can't take them.
That is the correct implication of the Golden Rule. But Vic indicated that Balazar might be reconsidered to let him take the Basic monster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you do it Hawkmoon? How do you have a link for EVERY post you make? How do you remember all of this? Are you like the Rain Man for PACG? Or are you like Data from Next Gen?
How do you do it Hawkmoon? How do you have a link for EVERY post you make? How do you remember all of this? Are you like the Rain Man for PACG? Or are you like Data from Next Gen?
Hawkmoon001-Hawkmoon268 are on constant alert.
Except Hawkmoon117. Hawkmoon117 is "missing".
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Stay tuned.So, since no Paizo employee debunked it, I take it that later on in the AP, even if Balazar defeats a 'basic' monster he won't be able to take it into his hand?
So design would be happy if Balazar/Darago/Lini said "When you defeat a monster and would banish it or remove it from the game", so that these powers apply to cards that get RFGd, but we have length issues we haven't been able to solve.
What if you tweaked the adventure path instead? Basically take the "would" out if it. "When you banish a bane with the basic trait, remove it from the game." Then the "mancer" powers would kick in before that happens. You could even throw "additionally" on the adventure path if you wanted.
But see, how important is it on the adventure path? Are there times where you apply the adventure path power and it matters that didn't actually banish it? I don't think so. In fact, if anything there are likely to be things that care that you did banish it. Is the only thing "would" is doing there is telling you that you don't "put the card back in the box"?
Right, but other than these character powers, can you think of a time when that matters? I can't.
I think once balazar hits tyrranomancer these problems will go away.... :)
I think once balazar hits tyrranomancer these problems will go away.... :)
Not this specific problem. They're talking about encountering Basic monsters in AD 3+, or Elite monsters in AD 5+. The point being they are not banished, but instead removed from the game. Those aren't summoned, so the Tyranomancer power doesn't apply.
Off the top of my head? No. But A) We may see it in the future, and B) I'm pretty sure we've seen unrestricted banish triggers, but there's way too many cards for me to remember for sure.
Think about B for a minute. The way the adventure path is worded right now (with "would") means that you don't really banish that card. Instead you remove it from the game. Now, imagine a scenario that said "When you defeat a bane and banish it, move to a random location." In that hypothetical scenario, when you defeated a bane with the Basic trait, you wouldn't banish it. Instead you would remove it from the game. And therefore you wouldn't activate the scenario power.
That is what I'm getting at. A card being banished means two thins: (1) Shuffle it back into the box. (2) Apply powers that trigger on banishing. The adventure path makes the Basic cards not banished, and therefore prevents anything that triggers from banishing (2) from applying to them. And I'm guessing it is doing all that when really all it needs to do is instead say "Don't shuffle it back into the box (1) but remove it from the game."
That's a lot of guessing on my part though, I don't know what is really in store for the future of the game. Maybe there are other reasons they don't want you to consider removed cards banished besides just where it is shuffled.
|
|
That it doesn't trigger banishing powers is exactly my point though. If that wasn't what was intended, I doubt the word "would" would even be there in the first place. Removing the word "would" makes a lot of changes. Ones that, if they wanted to be made, I'm sure "would" wouldn't be there in the first place.
That's possible. I'm just not sure I see anything else that triggers on banish that you wouldn't also want to trigger even when you apply the adventure path power. (Damiel and Drunken Master Sajan obviously have powers similar to the 'mancers but since they work on boons they can choose to not apply the adventure path power.)
But I could very well be missing something, and I totally believe there could be future things planned that would want to delineate between banished and removed. So maybe it won't work.
Interesting. If I'm understanding Hawkmoon correctly, even if Balazar can take a Basic Monster card into his hand in AD3, he technically can't "Banish" it at that point in the game, so he can't trigger his powers to draw cards or get extra dice.
That is a problem even if he can't capture Basic Monster cards in AD3 because he could always discard a spell to draw a Monster card from the box and end up with a useless un-banishable Basic Monster card.
Removing "would" solves both of these problems, but definitely could introduce other problems (though I can't think of any specifically).
Not quite. And sorry if I'm not making this clear. Balazar can always play his monster. Even if it is Basic and you are in Adventure 3, he still activate his power. It doesn't matter that the adventure path changes his power from "banish" to "remove from game" just like it doesn't matter that Valeros activates the power on a weapon by recharging it instead of discarding it. The powers still activate.
What I'm saying is, I think the only real affect of the adventure path card's power is to tell you "don't shuffle the bane back into the box". And if that is the case, I don't think it needs the "would" formula. Look at it like this:
Banish: Put it back in the box, shuffling it in with the other cards
of the same type
So, banish means to shuffle it back in with the cards of the same type. I think all the adventure path card is trying to say is "Don't shuffle it back in with cards of the same type. Instead, remove it from the game."
As players, we know that there could be things that trigger off you banishing a bane. Is the adventure path card really trying to stop you from applying those other triggers?
Imagine a location that said, "When a monster is banished, all characters at this location are dealt 1 Combat damage." The question I raise is, whether it is really the intention of the Adventure Path card to save you from that kind of thing. Are you really supposed to say, "Well, this monster was Basic, so I don't really banish it, I remove it from the game, so I don't have to take that 1 Combat damage." I don't think it is. I don't think it has really mattered, other than for Balazar and his friends. But I think in general you'd want things that happen when a card gets banished to still happen when the card is removed from the game instead of banished.
So, I'd guess, and it is just a guess, that the adventure path card is just intended to tell you not to shuffle. It has the "would" construction because that is the typical formula for "don't do this, do this instead". But I'm not sure it needs that formula. I think it would have the same effect (assuming it is the intended effect) if it said "When you banish a bane with the Basic trait, remove it from the game." Yes, technically it is saying, "When you shuffle a bane with the Basic trait back into the box, remove it from the game." Which is probably why the "would" construction is there. But I think we can all understand that you don't need to shuffle it into the box, then find it so you can remove it.
Admittedly though, that is a lot of conjecture and could be way off. I won't be surprised if it has other flaws, but I just thought that approaching the problem from the adventure path side instead of the character side could help.
Sounds like a pretty good plan to me!
Not quite. And sorry if I'm not making this clear. Balazar can always play his monster. Even if it is Basic and you are in Adventure 3, he still activate his power. It doesn't matter that the adventure path changes his power from "banish" to "remove from game" just like it doesn't matter that Valeros activates the power on a weapon by recharging it instead of discarding it. The powers still activate.
Of course. I think I was confusing it with the Hirgenzosk wording, if this would happen that happens instead mechanic vs when you do this then do that mechanic. Words am hard. :)
|
Well thematically a Summoner isn't resurrecting the monsters he kills, so while I see the logic in taking the Basic monsters, theme isn't it lol.
Summoners don't resurrect monsters. They aren't necromancers.
He's summoning a copy of a monster he just defeated to aid him. It's like the Summon Monster spell, except that he is only able to summon things he just encountered. But he's not resurrecting them.
Almost every power on every card in the game is tied to some sort of theme. You know this.
|
|
Well thematically a Summoner isn't resurrecting the monsters he kills, so while I see the logic in taking the Basic monsters, theme isn't it lol.Summoners don't resurrect monsters. They aren't necromancers.
That was the point of my post.
He's summoning a copy of a monster he just defeated to aid him. It's like the Summon Monster spell, except that he is only able to summon things he just encountered. But he's not resurrecting them.
Almost every power on every card in the game is tied to some sort of theme. You know this.
Yes I do know this. My point was that some powers connect thematically in pretty oddball ways, like this one, so using theme to explain theme doesn't work as well as, say, his pulling monsters from the box.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We're considering this new rules sidebar (so it also applies to other cases where restrictions apply, such as damage prevention):
Rules: Affecting the Situation
In some situations, the rules limit you to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the check. For example, let's say that a character is attempting a check using a power that adds 1 to her check for each blessing in her hand, and a second character has a power allowing him to give the first character a card. He could give her a blessing, because that doesn't require any other action to affect the check. But he could not give her a card that allows her to draw a blessing from the box, because she would have to do something else—in this case, play that card—to affect the check.
Would that prevent playing Rage on someone during a check, since it requires the character to do something else (bury a card) to affect your current situation?