Armor recharging against *all* damage in an encounter?


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Playing the first scenario in Season of the Righteous last night, we encountered the Poison Spike Pit Trap. On the card, it says that if you fail, it does 1d4 combat damage then 1d4 poison damage.

Our Valeros used his armor to reduce all damage to 0. I wondered if that handled both sets of damage or if it would only handle one or the other. My thought process was that the character would have to take the 1d4 combat damage first and then have to take the 1d4 poison damage. After the combat damage was determined, you could recharge the armor to bring it to 0 but then you'd have to have something else for the poison damage. That does seem harder but it was the "and then" that threw me off.

In the end, I agreed with the consensus which was that the trap did the damage at once (they are poison spikes in the end!) so your armor would affect all of the damage.

Does that make sense?


I'd say you are correct. It's two separate instances of damage. The armor would cover one of them, but you'd need to play something else for the other.

Grand Lodge

I'd agree that you're correct that it is two separate instances of damage. The "then" is significant. Otherwise you'd have something like "take 1d4 Combat damage and 1d4 Poison damage" and that would be one set of damage. The "then" tells you that you resolve the Combat damage first THEN the Poison damage second.


I would play it that way too, however if the spikes don't puncture perhaps there is no poison to deal with!


Furthermore, you should decide whether to recharge the armor after rolling the first d4 and before knowing what the second will be, because the recharge to prevent damage happens immediately and thanks to Grammar-Vic and Non-Boolean-Mike we all know now that immediately trumps then.

I feel like I'm rehearsing my English every day.


Troymk1 wrote:
I would play it that way too, however if the spikes don't puncture perhaps there is no poison to deal with!

I love this interpretation, and would love to see a card that reads something like "if you took any Combat Damage, then take d4 Poison damage." Though that might, again, be unnecessarily cruel to casters (boo hoo poor casters. :D)

In this case, they're definitely two separate instances of damage, requiring two separate armors. I assume you used "recharging" just as convenient shorthand, jduteau, but I'd also note that whatever armor Valeros is using against Combat damage -probably- wouldn't also work against poison damage in the first place, not on a recharge.


Thanks for the help (I KNEW I was right!)

Dave - I always play squishy characters (Ezren, Seoni, Amaryllis) so I never know how those stuffy smelly armors work! Don't some of them allow you to bury or recharge to reduce all damage to 0?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Frencois wrote:
Grammar-Vic and Non-Boolean-Mike

I would watch this buddy cop drama.


jduteau wrote:

Thanks for the help (I KNEW I was right!)

Dave - I always play squishy characters (Ezren, Seoni, Amaryllis) so I never know how those stuffy smelly armors work! Don't some of them allow you to bury or recharge to reduce all damage to 0?

They do. But this seem to be a situation where damage is being dealt two separate times from 1 card. Let's pretend you roll a 4 on both the d4s. You have an armor that says:

Armor wrote:
Banish this card to reduce all damage dealt to you to 0; if you are proficient with heavy armors, bury this card instead.

So, you play that reduce all the Combat damage to 0. But then you are still dealt 4 Poison damage.

There is actually maybe another question here though.

WotR Rulebook p13 wrote:
Each player may play no more than one of each card type to affect damage to the same character from the same source.

What qualifies as a source? Is the Poison Spike Pit Trap one source? Or is the combat and poison damage 1 source each (and therefore 2 separate sources). If the Poison Spike Pit Trap is one source, and you deal with the damage separately, then you can only play an armor on one of those two instances of damage. That would also mean that you'd have to decide if you felt like the Poison damage was going to be worse than the Combat damage in order to decide whether to play armor on the Combat damage or wait to play it on the Poison damage.

Sovereign Court

I'd say separate sources. If it said 1d4 Combat AND 1d4 Poison, I'd say it happens all at once as one source. However, since it says THEN, I'd count it as two sources since you are being dealt damage twice.


Andrew L Klein wrote:
I'd say separate sources. If it said 1d4 Combat AND 1d4 Poison, I'd say it happens all at once as one source. However, since it says THEN, I'd count it as two sources since you are being dealt damage twice.

So, source means instance really in that case.

I can see that. If a card counted as a single source, then a monster that dealt you damage bya or aya would mean you could only use on armor during the whole encounter. So I just needed to think through it more.


My son made a point which goes with Hawk's question about source/instances. If you rolled (or had some effect) that made the combat damage 1 or 2, your armor could probably just be revealed to block the damage. Then you could bury (assuming you were proficient) the armor to block the poison damage.

That would only work if you could use the same armor twice, i.e. they were different sources of damage.


That's actually a different but as valid question. Bottom line the two questions are vs a power that does this damage then that damage:
Can I use twice an armor?
Can I use twice the same armor (if reveal for example)?


Hmm...So, consider this as well. There are rules about dealing with damage separate from an encounter because you can be dealt damage outside of an encounter. But the case in question here is inside an encounter. So does the 1 card per step rule prevent you from playing 2 armors in this case?

Here is a rather old post of Vic's that shouldn't be taken too far but might shed some light on this question.


As you said Hawk, shed some light but not directly answering. Strange we didn't catch this one before...


Sadly, not only am I still uncertain about 'source', I'm now reminded that I'm a little dubious on 'step' as well. Despite the fact that I should really know all this by now...

A check plus the results of that check are both the same step, therefore a character can't play an ally in combat and another to reduce the damage from failing that combat. That much I remember. Each check is also a separate step, right? So one ally per check in a sequential-check encounter is alright? And before-you-act and after-you-act, they are also both separate steps?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Steps" refers to to things. In this case we are talking about "Steps of the Encounter", which are:

1. Apply any effects that happen when you encounter a card.
2. Apply any evasion effects.
3. Apply any effects that happen before you act.
4. Attempt the check.
5. Attempt the next check, if needed.
6. Apply any effects that happen after you act.
7. Resolve the encounter.

Step 5 repeats as many times as you need it to to resolve all the checks, with each repeat also being another step. So, on each check in the encounter, the "count of card types" is reset and you can play all types again.

So yes, allies on sequential checks are fine.


And therefore using the same armor reveal is also possible.

As is the fridge-beer-break-I-need-that-damned-demons : you get to have two beers per encounters!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Yes, you can play an armor during the "before you act" step, and then another armor (or even the same armor) during the "attempt the check" step, and also during the "after you act" step.

But Poison Spiked Pit Trap is dealing damage twice during the same step, so if you want to use armor to stop each of those, you'll need to have something that lets you break the "no more than one card of any given type on a step" rule.


Vic Wertz wrote:
But Poison Spiked Pit Trap is dealing damage twice during the same step, so if you want to use armor to stop each of those, you'll need to have something that lets you break the "no more than one card of any given type on a step" rule.

I'm fine with that ruling as it was I guessed from reading the card.

But thematically, it doesn't really make sense. I would have made the card say "first take 1d4 combat damage. If you take any combat damage, then take 1d4 Poison damage that can not be reduced." that would have made more thematic sense to me.

In any case, I'll know how to treat the evil Poison Spiked Pit Trap next time we face it - AVOID IT!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

We frequently sacrifice theme to reduce verbiage and complexity. (If we didn't, you'd be playing the RPG!)

But if it helps, you can imagine that while your armor kept you from being impaled, one of the spike tips nevertheless scratched your skin just enough to deliver its deadly payload.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Yes, you can play an armor during the "before you act" step, and then another armor (or even the same armor) during the "attempt the check" step, and also during the "after you act" step.

But Poison Spiked Pit Trap is dealing damage twice during the same step, so if you want to use armor to stop each of those, you'll need to have something that lets you break the "no more than one card of any given type on a step" rule.

Hey Vic. Is it one type per step. Or one type per check. That makes a hell of a difference.


You can only play 1 card of each type per step (of a turn or an encounter). But each check in an encounter is a new step: attempt the check, attempt the next check if needed, repeat attempt the next check if needed until not needed. So essentially they are the same thing.


One type per step. If it was something like a Mongrel Wizard, you could use the same Armor twice. But all the damage on this trap occurs in the same step (Resolve the Encounter).

The "Encountering a Card" step is made up of steps inside it.

p.10
"Each player may play no more than 1 card of each type during each step; for example, no one player may play more than 1 blessing while attempting a check, though multiple players could each play 1 blessing during that check. Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step, other than cards that can be used each time something particular happens. Players may not play any cards or activate any powers between those steps."


Right,

My clarification question is due to these multiple damaging cards that are becoming trendy with the design team

If the damage taken is essentially part of the check, I can see only one armour could be played.

However if being dealt damage from a failed check ( or however) becomes a step I see no reason that each distinct type of damage shouldn't have its own step

For example Seelah's Paladin helm reveals to stop 2 damage, to my mind it should deduct two from each of these distinct damage types. But in one interpretation of a step it mechanically cannot do so.

That irks me ( and I don't play Seelah mind) it seems counterintuitive. This would be the exact situation such an item should shine.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It depends what is doing the damage. In these barriers, all the damage instances are in the same step, so you can normally play only 1 armor. If it was combat damage due to failing a check against a monster, that is a different step. Vic's post above should already clarify everything in that regard. Taking damage is never itself a step, it happens during other steps.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I know i'm performing some threadmancy here, but this thread was linked to from the Iconic Heroes 6 thread and it seemed to be a better place to put it.

It seems like I recently handled one of the Villains in Skull and Shackles incorrectly (The gunslinger that says before you act, succeed at a Wisdom or Perception x or take 1d4 - 1 ranged combat, then 1d4 - 1 ranged combat, then 1d4 - 1 ranged combat). I figured I could just reveal the same Flaming Buckler Gun for all three sources. As it happens, I also had a Reflecting Buckler in my hand, the two play nice together, and it's entirely possible i'd have rolled a 1 on one of those three rolls.

As an aside, why does he still shoot you after you act if you defeat him using Diplomacy? It's rather rude. Also, Sarah thought using two bucklers was weird, but since I was using Diplomacy, double-fisting bucklers wasn't narratively inconsistent. Also, Swash*buckler*. It's right in the name of the class!


Maybe this was answered elsewhere but this seems like a typo, Poison Spiked Pit Trap says ".. Then each character is dealt 1d4 poison damage..." This seems incorrect, I can't see how this trap could affect all locations and characters. Does it mean that each character at this location takes that damage since the beginning of the sentence says "If undefeated, each character at this location is dealt 1d4 Combat damage, then each character is dealt 1d4 poison damage,..."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gambit001 wrote:
Maybe this was answered elsewhere but this seems like a typo, Poison Spiked Pit Trap says ".. Then each character is dealt 1d4 poison damage..." This seems incorrect, I can't see how this trap could affect all locations and characters. Does it mean that each character at this location takes that damage since the beginning of the sentence says "If undefeated, each character at this location is dealt 1d4 Combat damage, then each character is dealt 1d4 poison damage,..."

Check the FAQ


Probably should have just checked there first lol. Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apologies for the necromancy but I wanted to share that I was super psyched when I ran into a bane in Adv 5 of MM who said "You may play multiple armors during this encounter." I knew exactly why it was there and I was so excited (like the nerd I am). It may have said "any number of armors" I can't remember.


And I'll bump your necro:

The beastie you're referring to (I think, it's actually AD4 but we didn't see it until 5) is the Elemental Arachnid. My Mavaro stumbled into one of these last night. A quick look-up of the Poison Spike Pit reassured us that we were reading it right, I think...

For reference:

"... You may play any number of armors during this encounter.

Before you act, you are dealt 1 Acid damage, then 1 Cold damage, then 1 Electricity damage, than 1 Fire damage." oof.

By a complete fluke of timing and random acquisition, this happened while I actually had 4 armors and one or two damage-reducing items in hand, so I was able to play 4 unique cards (3 armor and 1 item) to get past this (at the location where taking damage once meant a curse). Thanks to the Djinn Favor Amulet, I even netted one card of healing for the encounter.

Question: does the monster power mean that I could have played the same armor multiple times, or do they still have to be different cards? It would have been much easier to Reveal my Silken Ceremonial Armor ("Reveal to reduce damage... by 1") four times. Also, I didn't have a plan for the undefeated damage (1d4 of each flavor), but luckily I didn't need one :)

Edit:

I suppose that algorithmically what I'm asking is --

"If a card is played when something happens, it can be played whenever that happens" + "You can play multiple armors during this encounter (which overrides playing 1 card of each type per step or check)" + "Cards don't have memories"

Therefore --

I take 1 damage, I play 1 armor (SCA is Revealed and returned to my hand). Same step, I take 1 damage, SCA does not remember that I have already played it in this step, monster's rule let's me play armor even though I already did so in this step, I Reveal SCA to reduce damage. Repeat...


Nope. It allows you to violate the one armor per check or step rule but not the once-per-step power (the one on the armor that reduces damage) rule.


Malcolm_Reynolds posted his answer while I was typing my addendum, and I admit that the end result may be that he is right, however.

"If a power says it may be used when something happens, you may use it it every time that that happens."

SCA's power says, "Reveal this card to reduce damage... by 1."

Therefore, taking damage happens, I can use SCA's power, taking damage happens (again), I can use SCA's power (again). Normally I would be limited by playing a card type once per step, however the Monster's power has temporarily suspended this rule.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Page 8: "If a power says it may be used when something happens, you may use it every time that happens. Otherwise, a specific card’s power may only be used once per check or step."

This rule is still in effect as Malcolm_Reynolds stated. You cannot play any individual card's power more than once even if the one card of each type restriction is lifted.


No disrespect intended, but doesn't the word "Otherwise" negate the rest of that sentence, or are you saying that "to reduce damage dealt to you" does not qualify as "say[ing] it may be used when something happens?"

Edit:

I'm not so much arguing your conclusion, but rather the chain of rules that leads us there. Sadly, though I didn't want to drag Mike or Vic into this, I did realize at the outset that ultimately it boils down to one of them admitting that either,

a. The Elemental Arachnid's power was intentionally phrased so as to permit one piece of armor (like the SCA) to block all of the damage, or

b. The intent was specifically to prevent using one armor card from blocking all of the damage

Either one seems, to me, equally valid by RAW quoted thus far, though admittedly not equally likely.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sathar wrote:
No disrepect intended, but doesn't the word "Otherwise" negate the rest of that sentence, or are you saying that "to reduce damage dealt to you" does not qualify as "say[ing] it may be used when something happens?"

No. Armor powers are worded "Reveal this card to reduce Combat damage dealt to you by 1." NOT "When you would take Combat damage, reveal this card to reduce that damage by 1." In other words, it is not a power that says it can be used when something happens. Such powers always begin with the word "when" and armor powers do not.

The card lets you play multiple armors once each to reduce the different damage components. No more, no less.


Skizzerz's understanding it the one that has prevailed on this forum. I'm pretty sure if we looked hard enough we could find Vic saying basically the same thing.

"A power that may be used when something happens..." uses the word "when". No exceptions.


That sounds like a fair reading. There are so many little phrases and clarifications buried on these boards it's easy to lose track of a few.*

* - Didn't I see somewhere in another thread Vic hinting that soon the Paizo Store will be offering a kitchen table for sale?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a Public Service Bump. It appears that we have unleashed Paradox:

Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer wrote:
But Poison Spiked Pit Trap is dealing damage twice during the same step, so if you want to use armor to stop each of those, you'll need to have something that lets you break the "no more than one card of any given type on a step" rule.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer wrote:
So yeah, if you have an armor you can reveal to reduce damage, you can reveal it once each time you take damage, even if you take damage multiple times during a step, check, or encounter.

I humbly suggest that visitors from the future refer to this thread which at this time appears to be the most likely location for a resolution to manifest.

Thank you.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Armor recharging against *all* damage in an encounter? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion