I really couldn't think of a better subject line.
If, for some reason, someone REALLY wants to get cards out of their hand, is it legal to, for example, recharge a Sapphire of Intelligence on a check that is already Intelligence-based?
I couldn't see why not, but the other players thought it sounded sketchy.
The way I would interpret it, you can't use it because it fails the test of "affecting the check", since it has no impact on what you roll. Following that logic, you also couldn't use it if it didn't change the die used (e.g. they're both d8), but could use it if it made the dice worse.
Exactly that. If a card doesn't directly affect a check you cannot play it.
Where it's less obvious is whether you can play a card that doesn't change the odds but for example adds traits or change the skill used. We play it that changing the traits actually affects the check but I don't remember if there was an official confirmation.
Where it's less obvious is whether you can play a card that doesn't change the odds but for example adds traits or change the skill used. We play it that changing the traits actually affects the check but I don't remember if there was an official confirmation.
I don't know of an official confirmation, but I would imagine it would logically follow that changing the traits of a check would only be considered to 'affect the check' if the traits in some way change the outcome, dice, consequences, etc.
Giving the Fire trait when fighting a Muck Graul is meaningful. I would argue giving the Force trait is not, unless your character, scenario or location has an ability that interacts with the Force trait (either positively or negatively).
EDIT: That's purely my opinion, of course. Whether changing the SKILL is meaningful is more of a grey area for me. By my same logic, changing a 1d8 with a 1d8, no matter how you cut it, isn't meaningful unless you have some ability or effect that it will interact with. However, being able to change what skill is being used (even if there is no consequence) strikes me as a significant change.
That is to say, without consciously thinking about it, I would rule that adding a non-meaningful trait, with no other effects, is against the rules. Changing the skill used, without any meaningful outcome change, is allowed. However, after thinking about it, they really should fall under the same category, and so suddenly I'm very interested to see if there's been an official word on this.
Where it's less obvious is whether you can play a card that doesn't change the odds but for example adds traits or change the skill used. We play it that changing the traits actually affects the check but I don't remember if there was an official confirmation.I don't know of an official confirmation, but I would imagine it would logically follow that changing the traits of a check would only be considered to 'affect the check' if the traits in some way change the outcome, dice, consequences, etc.
Giving the Fire trait when fighting a Muck Graul is meaningful. I would argue giving the Force trait is not, unless your character, scenario or location has an ability that interacts with the Force trait (either positively or negatively).
EDIT: That's purely my opinion, of course. Whether changing the SKILL is meaningful is more of a grey area for me. By my same logic, changing a 1d8 with a 1d8, no matter how you cut it, isn't meaningful unless you have some ability or effect that it will interact with. However, being able to change what skill is being used (even if there is no consequence) strikes me as a significant change.
That is to say, without consciously thinking about it, I would rule that adding a non-meaningful trait, with no other effects, is against the rules. Changing the skill used, without any meaningful outcome change, is allowed. However, after thinking about it, they really should fall under the same category, and so suddenly I'm very interested to see if there's been an official word on this.
I had similar thoughts, but what bothers me about it is powers like Barnabas Harrigan's: "after you act [do a thing]; if the check to defeat included the swashbuckling trait [do something different]"
After you act isn't part of the check. It's something separate that happens later. So according to your interpretation I couldn't play Old Salt's Bandana on the check to add the swashbuckling trait according to RAW, because it's not affecting the check, it's just affecting something that happens afterwards. But on the other hand, this seems like exactly the sort of thing the banadana is for. Sure, it has other uses that still function with this ruling, but for a card that does nothing at face value you really ought to be able to use it all the times you might want to.
So to me, it sits a lot better if changing the traits is considered "affecting the check" whether there's a good reason to want to change the traits or not.
Note that the stats stones themselves do not change the check's traits at all.
I haven't the concentration this morning to cite the correct rules passages, but it seems to me these actions are considered to be affecting a check:
-- Adding a trait to a check
-- Changing the skill used on a check, even if the die and bonus do not change
(Note a stat stone played on a check you are already using that stat for doesn't do either.)
My instinct is you don't have to first confirm that someone has a way to make these changes more consequential (ie play a blessing that gives a a different bonus due to what changed, or play a spell that benefits you due to what changed). It's enough of an effect that you make these things possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where it's less obvious is whether you can play a card that doesn't change the odds but for example adds traits or change the skill used... I don't remember if there was an official confirmation.
After rereading the rules, I would advocate (until proven guilty by Vic-Mike-Hawk as usual) that "the rules say what they say and don't say what they don't say".
I. e. in this case, the rules don't say "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Odds (Optional).", but it says "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check (Optional)". The way I see it, adding a trait or changing the skill used definitively affects the check.
I agree. It may not affect the outcome but it dies affect the check.
Fun example if we were to look at odds:
Say you have a monster (combat check to defeat 10) that has a power that says "If you play a spell on the check to defeat, the difficulty of the check is increased by 1d4".
For you combat check, you play a weapon "for your combat check use your strength/melee +1d4", and with a Strength of d4, you get 2d4.
A fellow party member at your location plays an ally that says "Add twice the scenario's number (min 1) to a combat check attempted by a character at your location".
Can you then play a spell that says "Recharge this card and another card from your discard pile to decrease the difficulty of a check to defeat a bane by 1d4"?
====
Answer is... Yes and no :-)
Yes because by increasing by 1d4 and then decreasing the difficulty by 1d4 you are actually changing the odds (a bit of proba math to please Mike).
Unless....
Unless the scenario number is 4 or above in which case after playing the ally the odds are already 100% and you aren't changing them anymore.
Which means you could have played the spell before the ally was played but you cannot anymore.
So if you really needed to recharge that card from your discard to survive, you can now kill your fellow party member in retaliation for having tried to help you!!!!
We play a group of 5 real players with closed hands. Fun things happen...
Hopefully we aren't looking at changing odds but at affecting the check altogether. Rolling one more dice IS affecting the check even if it isn't affecting the odds (just like moving to a random location that happens to be the same that you were supposed to "leave": as discussed earlier, powers that happen when you leave don't apply, but powers that happen when you move do. Never overthink the rule, just read and apply).
Still finding can'o'worms that hopefully end up being working as written and not needing FAQ.
I view "affecting the situation" as "changing the status quo" -- aka the state of the check. Number of dice, traits, what skill is being used, difficulty, etc.
Adding a trait changes the status quo, changing what skill you are using changes the status quo. Using a stat stone to replace the die with the same die size does not affect the status quo*.
In Frencois's example spell and power, that would affect the status quo (you increase the difficulty by 1d4 and decrease by 1d4, aka you're doing something, even if it has potential to wash out). As such, it would be affecting the situation.
* If there were powers in play that cared about whether or not an Item was played on the check, or that counted the number of cards in your hand or deck, then playing the stat stone to no effect would affect the situation. I do not believe any such powers exist, however.