How bad is the Curse of Poisoning, exactly?


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


Cross-post from BGG thread.

The card states:

Curse of Poisoning wrote:
While displayed, after you reset your hand, recharge a random card for each Curse of Poisoning next to your deck.

I have one Curse of Poisoning displayed. I recharge 1 random card after I reset my hand.

I have two Curses of Poisoning displayed. How many random cards do I recharge?

It seems it would be 4, as each Curse would direct me to recharge a card for each Curse displayed....

Is this the intention?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think it is meant as 1 per card. So, 2 Curses, 2 cards. 3 Curses, 3 cards.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Fun one. Didn't see it coming. I guess (like Hawk) the obvious intention is recharge as many as you have curses but indeed the wording is tricky.
Somehow the wording should be something like
While displayed, after..., recharge ONE random card.
Since effects of displayed card are by default cumulative (if you have 2 Sagacity displayed in front of you, nobody ever questioned the fact that it was cumulative as far as I know).


Haunts in Rise of the Runelords AD2 and AD6 have exactly the same issue. Each one has a power that says something like: "Add 1 to the difficulty of your checks for each Haunt displayed next to your character card."

I've been deliberately ignoring the issue and assuming the intention is to just add 1 for each Haunt.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree with Hawkmoon that it's probably intended as one per curse total, but it is poor wording. That being said, I could see a group which feels the adventure is too easy house-ruling to the multiplicative version, and that'd probably be pretty fun for them.


I had forgotten about haunts in RotR.

I neglected to copy the wording, but I read it; it is something like:
"For each Haunt displayed by your character, the difficulty of your checks is increased by 1."

Using the passive form makes it clearer that the increase is only calculated once using all your haunts. Not sure how that could be applied to this case.

It does seem to make more sense in game terms for the Curse of Poisoning to simply say: "While displayed, after you reset your hand, recharge a random card." Then you would perform this action for each Curse of Poisoning displayed. But then, certainly, people would be asking if you only do this once if you have more than one Curse.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

elcoderdude wrote:
It does seem to make more sense in game terms for the Curse of Poisoning to simply say: "While displayed, after you reset your hand, recharge a random card." Then you would perform this action for each Curse of Poisoning displayed. But then, certainly, people would be asking if you only do this once if you have more than one Curse.

That is indeed the problem we have. We went the way we did because I bet you a lot more people would read the above wording wrong (that is, to their advantage) than would read the current wording wrong (that is, to their detriment).


Does it help to add the following paragraph to the current wording?

"Ignore the powers on other Curses of Poisoning you have displayed."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that it's possible that people might misinterpret the "While displayed, after you reset your hand, recharge a random card" wording, it doesn't really change the fact that this would be more of a correct wording for those who actually understand the game and follow the cards as written vs "what we think is meant" by the cards. Instead of trying to overthink which wording might be less likely to be read wrong, how about just use a wording that actually says what you want the cards to do?

The current wording as written would indeed have an exponential effect.

Scarab Sages

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

Probably because, if too many people read it (wrongly) to their advantage, then said folks start coming on the message boards crying bloody tears about how the game is "too easy", and then the devs think it actually is too easy, and then go make another Wrath of the Righteous or something of an equal level of quality.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

If you misinterpret a rule to be too difficult, then learn it's actually easier, there is a sense of relief. If you misinterpret a rule then it turns out harder, there's a sense of disappointment or feeling cheated. I do not at all blame, and in fact encourage the developers, to err on the side of more restrictive for that sake.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'd like to raise that an almost identical templating issue is raised with Ultimate Wilderness plants, and I'd strongly appreciate an official word as to the design intent (because I suspect it doesn't line up with the RAW). (Card example)

Plants in that deck (which cover a number of powerful items and allies, one of which is even capable of immediately searching out 3 other plants from your deck or discard pile) all have the following power...

Plant power wrote:
While you reset your hand, reveal any number of cards that have the Plant trait to treat your hand size as 1 higher per card revealed.

RAW, to me, suggests that if I have three plant cards in hand, I could use the powers listed on all three of them, reveal 3 plants each time, and increase my hand size by 9.

The only thing I can think of that would prevent is is the "one card type per step" rule, as per...

Mummy's Mask Rulebook, Page 9 wrote:
Each character may play no more than 1 card of each type during each step

However, using this last paragraph listed on every plant is pretty clearly not "playing" the plant, as it doesn't follow the expected template of a card power that you can play. It's more in line with the template used, for example, for recharging magic armors during hand reset (which is not considered playing an armor), as has been detailed several times before. There's other discussions that have taken place regarding the "once per step" rules, too, anyway, not that it matters since it's pretty clear that you're not playing the plant.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Calthaer wrote:
Probably because, if too many people read it (wrongly) to their advantage, then said folks start coming on the message boards crying bloody tears about how the game is "too easy", and then the devs think it actually is too easy, and then go make another Wrath of the Righteous or something of an equal level of quality.

Well the game is too easy and we need new harder version of Wraith of the Righteous!

;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / How bad is the Curse of Poisoning, exactly? All Messageboards

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