Mavaro strategy discussion


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Yeah, sorry, bad choice of wording. If you have an empty slot in your deck for the card type you choose to upgrade, you're filling it with your upgrade. You can't replace it with a basic (or Tier-minus-2 AD#) card first THEN take your card upgrade on top of that.

This is a pain when playing MM Ezren with Ultimate Magic, in my opinion. I always deck him out with Cure spells (2 in my case; HV2 & Ultimate Magic), but since they banish-on-use I often let them slip out of my fingers when taking my Spell Upgrades unless I intentionally work around that (banish additional spells by handing them off, etc).

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Each of the Ultimate decks has a range of multi-skill cards that would be good with Mavaro; I guess it just depends on what you want to do with him. Magic has more Arcane and Divine; Equipment more Acrobatics, etc. I'm using Equipment in my Cards Agsinst Gnomality game, partly because of that not-holy candle that grabs blessings from the discard pile...but there are some Survival, Diplomacy, and other cards in there. Lots of options.


By the way, I found Tyler's parsing of the power correct from a rules standpoint, but actually backwards from a thematic standpoint.

You pick Item as your FCT and then you take _out_ Items because you love them so much that you're willing to put Spells in those slots? That's really backward.

I'm hitting this problem right now in my Hoarder roled Mavaro in 4-4. The bonuses are nice - but I have to choose between the thing I "love" and the thing I actually want to be more effective in.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:

By the way, I found Tyler's parsing of the power correct from a rules standpoint, but actually backwards from a thematic standpoint.

You pick Item as your FCT and then you take _out_ Items because you love them so much that you're willing to put Spells in those slots? That's really backward.

I'm hitting this problem right now in my Hoarder roled Mavaro in 4-4. The bonuses are nice - but I have to choose between the thing I "love" and the thing I actually want to be more effective in.

I've certainly noticed that. It's really awkward that if you manipulate your deckbuilding with OA1 Mavaro, you do so by favouring a card type that you want to exchange AWAY for a different type. Which means his Hoarder role always becomes weaker if you in any way lean on his special deckbuilding rules.

I agree that it's pretty annoying; and the primary reason why I don't think I'll ever play an OA1 Mavaro Hoarder. In fact, I kind of think he's just a bit annoying to work around compared to the Mummy's Mask Mavaro in general.

Scarab Sages

I was wondering how people felt about Ghost Hunter Mavaro? It seems like he’d be pretty good in some seasons. He makes the one-eyed sword useful endgame and he can dominate undead and outsiders, making him good in season of the runelords, I’d think.


You can play Ghost Hunter without ever touching the Outsider power feats (of which there is only 2 anyway), so if you want him to be combat oriented (he has 2 weaknesses; one is a lack of explores and the other is that he's relatively weak in terms of combat ability) you can take the role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've brought this up in other places, but for the benefit of people coming across this forum thread in the future (as I came across this whilst googling for something)...

Previous answers in this thread are out-of-date, such as in answer to the question about buffing Intelligence checks. A January 2019 FAQ changed the rules so that gaining a skill based on another skill now causes both skill's traits to be added to your checks.

This significantly increase the power level of both printings of Mavaro. In the case of MM Mavaro, as long as he's using any skill gained by his power then he is always making an Intelligence check; something that can be greatly exploited through dozens of specific boons and character powers, from Spellbook to Blessing of the Master of Masters to Erayu.


+1 to Yewstance. That's a really significant rules change which drastically changes how one plays Mavaro, as well as a few other characters.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So is the concern that the developers overlooked this consequence when developing the FAQ (that has been incorporated into the Core Set rules)? That's difficult to fathom since Mavaro was one of the key characters whose powers were cited in the discussions leading up to the FAQ change.

Assuming that the point is being made with the intent of some tangible outcome, what is desired?

Is the implication that Mavaro's rules need to be adjusted in some way to compensate for the benefit? Perhaps reducing his Intelligence by one die?

Or is the implication that the basic addition of the skill's traits is itself flawed and needs to be removed or otherwise adjusted?

Before we get to that, though, has anyone conducted an analysis to determine just how much of an increase in power the rule confers on Mavaro? It's obvious that there is a benefit to Mavaro and others as a result of this rule, but the important issue is determine how much of a benefit there actually is (and this has to be taken on average as much depends on a host of other factors). I'm playing Mavaro right now as we go through the Mummy's Mask AP, and I've tooled him out to have as many traits as possible on the various boons he has in his deck. This hasn't worked out quite as well as hoped because more cards for traits means that there's less of a chance that I'll have the traits that I need handy. Other players who have used him more often and/or differently may have had different (i.e., better) experiences. What's the actual data that backs the assertion being made?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Disclaimer: The following statements are merely my opinions (or observations).

Brother Tyler wrote:
So is the concern that the developers overlooked this consequence when developing the FAQ (that has been incorporated into the Core Set rules)? That's difficult to fathom since Mavaro was one of the key characters whose powers were cited in the discussions leading up to the FAQ change.

Actually, as far as I can tell the specific FAQ has not been incorporated into the Core Set.

The FAQ, oddly enough, states that it has an effect in its initial sentence, then the "Resolution" text (which causes a change in the rulebook) handles a completely different issue - it's basically two completely different FAQs in one post.

FAQ wrote:
Yes. So if you gain the skill Arcane equal to your Craft, and your Craft is your Intelligence +3, your Arcane checks are considered Craft and Intelligence checks. This does not fall under the rule that you can only use one power to determine the skill you're using.

The above quote changes Mavaro greatly, but is not covered anywhere in the Core Set Rulebook, as far as I can tell. The later parts of the FAQ - which instead clarify the differences between "For your X check, use Y" and "Use Y instead of X", as well as ensuring that the original skill you choose from a list is always one of the traits - are incorporated into the Core Set rulebook, but do not directly impact Mavaro.

(It is my opinion that something went wrong when writing that FAQ, hence why its Resolution does not actually relate to the name of the FAQ or it's initial descriptory paragraph. I have indicated the impact of this FAQ on numerous threads in the past (notably in regards to Varril) and the fact that it has not changed suggests that there is no inclination for it to be reviewed.)

Brother Tyler wrote:

Assuming that the point is being made with the intent of some tangible outcome, what is desired?

Is the implication that Mavaro's rules need to be adjusted in some way to compensate for the benefit? Perhaps reducing his Intelligence by one die?

Or is the implication that the basic addition of the skill's traits is itself flawed and needs to be removed or otherwise adjusted?

Whilst I do believe this makes both versions of Mavaro undesirably strong - particularly in PACS - I raised it in this thread solely to inform readers (particularly newcomers to the game) that the answers in this thread are explicitly out-of-date, and should not be treated as accurate.

Brother Tyler wrote:
Before we get to that, though, has anyone conducted an analysis to determine just how much of an increase in power the rule confers on Mavaro? [...] What's the actual data that backs the assertion being made?

I have not made a formal assessment, though I am happy to run through a PbP solo scenario or two under PACS rules to ascertain his effectiveness publicly, as I have used before to demonstrate characters I believe are too powerful.

I can provide an anecdote as well as a thought exercise, however.

Anecdotally. When I raised this on the official Pathfinder Discord approximately 6 months ago, there was someone who made comments to the effect of that they'd stopped playing their OA2 Mavaro that way because of how powerful it was. I would have to search to find their name and exact comments, however.

Thought exercise. A Tier 1 Occult Adventures 2 Mavaro, playing with the Ultimate Magic Add-On Deck, can start with Chronicler and Spellbook in his deck, as both are Basic Level 0 cards. Furthermore, OA2 Mavaro is uniquely capable of selectively searching out cards from his deck rather quickly.

Once these two cards are in his hand, he may reveal both to add 1d6+1d4 to any Knowledge noncombat check he makes (or 1d6 to any Knowledge combat check).

Without skill feats, power feats or even deck upgrades (so only using basics that a PACS Mavaro would be able to take); OA2 Mavaro can roll 1d8+1+1d6+1d4 (Average of 11.5) for his noncombat Knowledge checks without costing him any card. This of course includes any check made with a skill gained from his core, character-defining power. That's an average result which will successfully acquire almost every printed Level 0 or 1 boon and defeat almost every printed Level 0 or 1 barrier.

Let's say he's using his personal weapon (which is also a basic for him), The Missing Eye, and he gains either the Strength or Melee skill with his power. Revealing The Missing Eye, Chronicler and Spellbook (a reminder he can search out cards from his deck easily) causes him to roll 2d8+2+1d6 (Average of 14.5) in combat without feats and without expending a card. (Without expending cards and using Basics, a Fighter or Barbarian tends to average combat checks of about 13 or so out of the gate in PACS.)

Yes, there are other factors I've not considered, including the cost of holding onto cards in your hand, potentially slower exploration rate, the higher cost of gaining the skills from his power in the first place (especially pre-feat), etc. However, from a showing of a character using only Basic Cards and without being given a single feat, it's an astonishingly consistent build out the gate in PACS, and I'd be happy to do more extensive testing on request. I also chose to ignore the possibility of a PACS OA2 Mavaro using the AP reward Blessing of the Sages, which can be recharged to add 3d8 to his Knowledge checks, and then be able to be searched back out with his power every turn from as early as Tier 1.

(For what it's worth, I do not believe OA2 Mavaro even enters the top 5 most powerful PACG characters with the FAQ. I'm not concerned that he 'breaks the game'. I am concerned, if only somewhat, that he is much more powerful - especially in the early game - than his original design intended for him to be. There's even comments from Vic explicitly confirming - prior to the existence of that FAQ - that the kind of "Intelligence/Knowledge buff stacking" demonstrated above wasn't supposed to work with him.)

(However, I repeat, my goal in raising it here was to inform other players who would mistakenly take the rulings of this thread to heart, and in doing so learn rules that are no longer the case. Both versions of Mavaro are characters that tend to trigger a lot of people to go hunting for answers to questions they have.)


@Yewstance: First off, thanks for all the well thought out post. You post are always an enjoyable read.

Yewstance wrote:
For what it's worth, I do not believe OA2 Mavaro even enters the top 5 most powerful PACG characters with the FAQ.

Now that You have made this statement, I know you have thought about it. What is your list? Does it go pass the top 5?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:
Yewstance wrote:
For what it's worth, I do not believe OA2 Mavaro even enters the top 5 most powerful PACG characters with the FAQ.
Now that You have made this statement, I know you have thought about it. What is your list? Does it go pass the top 5?

Off-Topic:
I used to have one, then I adjusted it, and then Core/Curse hit, which throws everything out the window. It's obviously not completely objective - if I have a character that can explore 1000 times a turn and a character that passes every check they make but only explores once a turn, which is better? It depends on the team and even the scenario (but as a player I would personally argue the former, particularly because I see character death as rare in PACG and losses almost exclusively being due to timeout).

So... no, I don't think I've got a formalized Post-Core list. I will list some honorable mentions, however - characters who I feel have to be some of the most powerful characters ever printed.

Do note that most of these are only so powerful due to what I would deem an "Exploit". That is, something that massively changes their power level or lets them do seemingly impossible actions, but is explicitly in-line with RAW. As Mike Selinker is known to say; "Cards say what they say. Cards don't say what they don't say."

AKA: RAW is king, even if I don't agree with them all the time.

So here's my off-the-top-of-my-head list of possible most powerful characters in PACG. Specifically, I'm going to lean towards "For PACS play", rather than for home play.

Skizza (With Alchemist's Kit): Pretty simple, really. Skizza can discard Alchemist's Kit (from being displayed) to draw 1d4+1 Alchemical cards from his discard pile - which can include itself. With a single other Alchemical-traited card that can be used to explore left in his discard pile (such as Twitch Tonic) he has an infinite-exploration combo that cannot be stopped by taking any amount of damage and can be done from an empty hand.

1. Display AK.
2. Explore with Twitch Tonic. Things go terribly, and your hand it wiped (hypothetically).
3. You discard AK to draw AK and Twitch Tonic. You display AK, and play Twitch Tonic to explore. No matter what happens in that exploration (unless it causes you to bury cards from discard, or hits your deck directly) you can rinse repeat indefinitely.

Clearly not RAI, but RAW. The Core Rulebook even says that cards that heal cannot heal themselves, but "draw 1d4+1 cards from your discard pile" is definitely not a "heal" effect.

Without Alchemist's Kit, nothing about Skizza is broken, however. Powerful, but not enough for me to otherwise consider him one of the strongest PACG characters in any other real way.

Reepazo: Usually my go-to example of the most powerful character ever printed. She can trivially make her deck solely ascribe to her bugform boon restrictions (keep in mind that "Divine" is a trait that can be found on Spells, Items, Armors and Blessings) in PACS, and then just remain in bugform indefinetely. With 2 power feats, she can add 1d6 to every check she makes and draw a card for every check she makes, and it's really easy to average 2+ checks per exploration.

Plus, she's widely skilled and a Divine caster, so she can happily use spells to provide movement or healing to leverage the insane draw power for ludicrous results. Weaker in Core, of course, due to Recovery and Location-Closing, but she will still close a location every turn for almost certain.

Talitha: Unlike most others on this list, there's no huge draw-combo or exploration-combo with her. In fact, there's nothing about her that I would deem an exploit or unintended... she's just... incredibly efficient.

Any blessing she plays during a check effectively recharges for her, if not better, since playing/burying blessings actually fuels her other powers. This can only get better when you combine her with blessings with extra-powerful effects that's "Cost" is that they bury themselves. Blessing of Rovagug comes to mind, as it can be buried to draw any card from your discards whilst also exploring or blessing a check.

In fact, if there were a card that discards to search and draw a blessing from your deck (without going to Recovery first), then that card + Blessing of Rovagug would be an infinite exploration combo for her, as long as she always recharged BoRovagug to reroll a die on whatever check she made during that exploration. However, I don't know of such a card (that's also available to her in PACS), so that's not really an issue.

Oh, also; her Staff Master role lets her reload all spells she discards - and it isn't restricted just to using them for their power, so she can use that power to virtually ignore damage (yes you can use the power multiple times per instance of damage, because "When you would X" powers don't count towards your use of a power per check or step). Plus, the role can let her draw cards when playing blessings in checks - not quite something that's feasible to leverage into an infinite draw combo, but something that just makes her all that much better. "All of your blessings you play on a check recharge and replace themselves".

Varril: Stacked with the right Divine-buffing cards, he can basically complete any check better than anyone else. Not certain how it really stacks up to exploiting OA2 Mavaro doing the same thing; might be an interesting test.

Urgraz (Tyrant Role): He buys the party basically infinite turns once he's redeemed the Item 5 Book of the Damned. Pass it to someone, have them banish it to buy the party Xd4 turns (X=number of characters), then bury a card from his hand to draw it instead of letting it be banished. Easy.

Grazzle: He basically changes the entire dynamic of a party. It's trivial to kit him out in such a way that the entire party can basically ignore "discard" costs due to how exceptionally he can heal. With a party that is motivated to truly take advantage of this, and go throwing all of their resources at every problem they come across, there's no real reason that a party with Grazzle would ever fail almost any scenario once his deck is set up.

He removes a large chunk of the resource management component from PACG; that's gotta be worth something, even though he has no real exceptional ability in explorations or checks.

Olenjack: Can leverage bonus explorations and huge combat checks - whilst also fully healing himself - every time he reveals Tears of Death, since the FAQ to prevent Tears of Death from fully healing Zadim was never applied to Olenjack (who has an even more powerful variant of the same power).

==============================

I'll stop my rambling here. Like I said, I'd need to re-examine a lot of character from the perspective of the new Core rules and Conversion Guide to better understand the impacts on some. Furthermore, listing characters would work better if I formalized some metrics.

Just in name alone, some other notable characters are, in my opinion; S&S Alahazra (Stargazer), CD Balazar (with WotR Padrig), Fumbus (in home play), Curse Varian, Lazzero, Ahmotep (Eldritch Scion) and Zvarbel.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

We are contemplating the following rule:

When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

In addition to Mavaro, this may effect Ezren/Spell Sage (MMB), Emil/Poisoner (HV2), Urgraz/Fearmonger (HV1), Mogmurch and roles (GB), and anyone playing the ally Psychometrist (UI), the item Ring of Maniacal Devices (UE), or the spell Aspect of the Tiger (UW).

Please comment!


One question, Vic - would that affect for example S&S Alahazra - Tempest? If she gains Arcane equal to Charisma +2, is the check considered "Arcane" instead of "Arcane Charisma"? If that is so, it affects many more characters than the ones you mentioned.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This is more a rule reversion than a change, since this is how it worked pre-FAQ. Previous statements in this thread spoke about how Mavaro was not using his Intelligence skill when he used his power, after all.

I'm happy with this in the vast majority of cases. It cuts down Mavaro to how he functioned pre-2019, it prevents a huge variety of "Autopass" effects from being exploited or ultimately overly stacking the emphasis on one skill or trait and leveraging it for way too many checks.

Jenceslav is correct that the number of impacts is actually rather wide, but I think such a rule fixes far more things than it breaks, on average. (Though, really, it's not 'breaking' anything, because Alahazra's Tempest role never added the Charisma trait to your Arcane combat check prior to that 2019 FAQ.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Yewstance wrote:
(Though, really, it's not 'breaking' anything, because Alahazra's Tempest role never added the Charisma trait to your Arcane combat check prior to that 2019 FAQ.)

I've never seen a person pre-FAQ playing Alahazra's Arcane as a NON-Charisma check.

We here all do love getting hung up on technicalities, but there's a point where enough is enough and you have to wing PACG on common sense rather than RAW. It should be obvious that Alahazra (et al) are intended to add the "primary" skill as trait to their check.

So perhaps a distinction can be drawn, and - while Vic's suggested FAQ may remain as is for stuff where either the gained skills are indeterminate (Mavaro),- characters like Alahazra may be reworded as "Gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2". (I never understood and so never liked the inclusion of the expression "equal to" for such determinate skills; but it doesn't makes sense to me to fix some characters by breaking others )


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Longshot11 wrote:
I've never seen a person pre-FAQ playing Alahazra's Arcane as a NON-Charisma check.

Ooops, hang on! Cancel what I said earlier, I re-read Alahazra!

As per the S&S Character Sheets (which may not match the printed card, to be fair), Alahazra's Tempest power already reads like you suggested...

S&S Alahazra (Tempest Role) wrote:
□ When you play a spell that has the Attack trait, you gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2 until the end of the encounter.

Yeah, she DEFINETELY adds the Charisma trait to her check, whether or not the FAQ works, I'd intuitively think. She's not "Gaining Arcane equal to her Charisma +2", she's literally gaining "Arcane: Charisma +2" as a skill, which has to add both as traits as it's a unit of both.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Please comment!

For completeness, just noting that it would also affect Radovan's Fell Viridio cohort:

You gain the skill Perception equal to your Diplomacy skill; reduce Poison damage dealt to you to 0.


OK, but I don't see much difference between these two.

Vic, our champion wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

When Alahazra gains "Arcane: Charisma+2", she does gain a skill equal to another skill (+2), doesn't she? For me it is a shorthand for: "gain Arcane skill equal to your Charisma +2". So I was asking if the proposed rules change can affect such powers or not. If it shouldn't, then for the sake of less-comprehending people like me, the wording might need some tweaking to make it clear. :)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

We are contemplating the following rule:

When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

In addition to Mavaro, this may effect Ezren/Spell Sage (MMB), Emil/Poisoner (HV2), Urgraz/Fearmonger (HV1), Mogmurch and roles (GB), and anyone playing the ally Psychometrist (UI), the item Ring of Maniacal Devices (UE), or the spell Aspect of the Tiger (UW).

Please comment!

I just LOVE that rule. Fix a lot of things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

We are contemplating the following rule:

When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

This isn't clear (and seems to just be half a reversal of https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1he#v5748eaidgsbk). I'd like a proper example here.

So Mavaro:
"You gain all skills that could be used to acquire that card equal to your Knowledge skill."

Let's say Mavaro has a card on top of his deck that's CtA Divine only.

So Mavaro has "Divine equal to Knowledge skill".

So, the "original skill" is which skill? Intelligence (I suspect that's the intent)? Divine?

Does the check add "Divine + Knowledge" traits? "Knowledge + Intelligence" traits (no Divine)?

Let's say Mavaro checked off a few Intelligence feats and Knowledge is d8 + 3. Mavaro's Divine is now d8 + 3? A blessed Divine is 2d8 + 3?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Yewstance wrote:
She's not "Gaining Arcane equal to her Charisma +2", she's literally gaining "Arcane: Charisma +2" as a skill...

Correct.


Thank you, Vic, for the clarification. I wasn't sure precisely because they seem so similar in meaning. Would it be possible to make some distinction between "base" (Strength, Dexterity, …, Charisma) and "derived" skills (Diplomacy… ) in these cases? (Insert any better designation instead of base and derived; when teaching the rules, I often call them skills and sub-skills)

Zeroth hour's question would then be easily parsable if it were e.g.:

Changes to what Vic wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another derived skill, its base skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

That distinction would make me feel content, but if I just know what is the intent and play that way, that is also completely fine with me.


Jenceslav wrote:
Changes to what Vic wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another derived skill, its base skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.
That distinction would make me feel content, but if I just know what is the intent and play that way, that is also completely fine with me.
I believe what Vic meant was actually
What Vic meant when he wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another derived skill, that derived skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

I suppose the fact that we're interpreting this different ways indicates that this terminology is needed.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I son't see any reason to create that vocabulary to solve the "skill equal to another skill" issue.

My point is, it applies to both "base" and "derived" if I understand well what Vic is saying:

Potential new rule from Vic wrote:
When you gain a skill equal to another skill, the original skill is not added as a trait to checks using the new skill.

Let's get two examples from the list from Vic:

Ezren/Spell Sage (MMB) wrote:
While you play or when you would banish a spell, you may recharge a spell to gain the Divine skill equal to your Intelligence skill (□+2).

I understand that Ezren can attempt a Divine check with whatever dice he now has instead of d4, but that check doesn't get the Intelligence trait.

Now for:

Emil/Poisoner (HV2) wrote:
You gain the skill Melee equal to your Ranged skill.

Now Emil has RANGED: DEXTERITY +2.

I understand that Emil can attempt a Melee check with whatever dice he now has instead of d4, but that check doesn't get NEITHER the Ranged or Dexterity traits.

So there is no reason to differentiate between "base" or "derived" since Vic's rule covers both without difference (and therefore no reason to complicate things by introducing this vocabulary).

IMHO.

=============================
Now to be clear for less experienced players like me that certainly have some difficulty to follow all that, I would just ask another question. Providing my understanding is good until now.

When Emil/Poisoner attemps a Melee check, I cannot play a power that says "for/on your/character Dexterity/Ranged check...."

But is there in the game a power that isn't related to the Dexterity/Ranged trait of the check but that indeed modify Emil's Dexterity/Ranged?
And in that case, since Melee=Ranged, would I be able to play that power since it directly affects the check and don't care on the check traits? I guess I could, but I don't have in mind an example of such a power. Do you?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:

Let's get two examples from the list from Vic:

Ezren/Spell Sage (MMB) wrote:
While you play or when you would banish a spell, you may recharge a spell to gain the Divine skill equal to your Intelligence skill (□+2).
Emil/Poisoner (HV2) wrote:
You gain the skill Melee equal to your Ranged skill.

To try and reiterate my issue with Vic's suggestion, both of those examples would actually make sense to me to state:

"...to gain the skill Divine: Intelligence (□+2)"
(So Ezren is making a Divine Intelligence check; if opposite was intended, it should've been "gain Divine: dX (□+2))

and

"You gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +2"
(So Emil is obviously NOT making a Ranged check, but also obviously is using DEX as his "base" skill; if opposite was intended, it should've been "gain Melee: dX+2)

Given that in both cases the "equal to" skill is clearly defined/define-able, neither of them actually necessitates the "equal to" language and that wording only introduces more questions than clarity. Also, personally - on consistency grounds- I'm very heavily opposed to the game granting you "sub-skills" without an attached "base skill" - because that's not the way the game itself trains you to think (and do note this is, to me, VERY different than a character just attempting a "base-less" sub-skill check with d4 because they lack the corresponding sub-skill)! I'm not sure if any character besides Mavaro actually runs afoul of this, which to me signifies it's Mavaro himself that needs to be "fixed" (in addition to care being taken with future character skill-gain wordings), rather than another cornercase "exception on top exception" being added to the rulebook.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Mavaro strategy discussion All Messageboards

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