Locked Door - Core


Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion


I just wanted to ask about timing / rules about the Locked Door barrier from Core (lvl 1). If the following situation has some problems rules-wise, correct me please.
So character #1 does not defeat the barrier, the location gets marked with Entangled and (per rules for Scourges), all local characters suffer the scourge, receiving identical marker. The barrier gets reloaded into the location. Character #2 arrives to this location, explores, encounters and defeats this barrier. #2 does not suffer the scourge, as he/she/it wasn't at the location at end of turn while it was marked, right? The location becomes unmarked, but all the characters suffering from Entangled are affected by that scourge still.

So, by following rules - all the former characters are still Entangled, but #2 is not and can leave after #2 smashed / lockpicked the doors. From RPG point of view that does not make sense, but the game apparently has no way of knowing if the characters were entangled from another source before. So I wanted to be sure if understood it correctly.
Thank you!


Huh, odd. Sounds like it would make more sense if defeating the Door unmarks all the characters there, but as-is - you better rush that location into closing.


Check the last power on the card:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location; you may explore.

By this, I interpret that none of the characters remain Entangled because that scourge is removed when the barrier is defeated.


Brother Tyler wrote:

Check the last power on the card:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location; you may explore.
By this, I interpret that none of the characters remain Entangled because that scourge is removed when the barrier is defeated.

Well, the scourge is removed from that location only…

If I understand it right, characters suffer the scourge Entangled when they are at a location while it is being marked by the scourge. I am not a native speaker:
Rulebook wrote:
Some effects cause a scourge to mark a location. If you’re at a location when it is marked, or if you end your turn at a marked location, suffer the corresponding scourge.

By "when", I thought the meaning was temporal (at the time), otherwise it would be "if", right?

And suffering a scourge means:
Rulebook wrote:
When a card tells you to suffer a scourge, … Then place a corresponding marker next to your character. While so marked by a scourge, that scourge’s powers apply to you.

So, if the character gets marked with Entangled as he/she/it is at the location, the defeating of the barrier would not remove it from the character.

At least two high-level banes (e.g. Basilisk) specifically remove Scourges of the same type that the bane caused earlier. So it is not unreasonable to do it in this case as well, but the card does not say so.

EDIT: And one other example: If you are at a Posioned location, you become Poisoned, right? If you move outside the location, you are still Poisoned - if I got the meaning of the rules correctly.


Removing the scourge card, though, would remove the marker. So when the Locked Door barrier is later encountered and removed, everyone at the location that was previously Entangled is no longer Entangled.

Different game effects work differently, so I'm not sure comparing Entangled to Poisoned is relevant. It would really depend upon what caused the Poisoned scourge to be applied.

Shifting back to Entangled, there may be other effects that would bring the Entangled card into play. Some might work like the Locked Door barrier, affecting everyone at the location. Others, though, might only affect specific individuals. Even if those cards don't exist right now, the wording of the Entangled card makes it forward-compatible, allowing for the developers to use it in a variety of ways. Different causes might have different resolutions. In the case of the Locked Door, defeating the Locked Door removes the scourge. In cases where individuals are affected on their own (maybe some bane uses a net), it's possible that each individual might have to remove the Entangled effect on their own rather than en masse, as the Locked Door allows.

The way I see the Locked Door is that failing to defeat the Locked Door (undefeated) means that everyone at the location is somehow locked inside some room or structure. If anyone else moves to/into the structure, they, too, get locked inside (if they end their turn there). Once someone defeats the Locked Door, though, everyone can get out.


Brother Tyler wrote:
Removing the scourge card, though, would remove the marker.

That's not what RAW says, though.

First, you don't remove the "card" Scourge until there's at least one active target (character or location)

Second, as quoted by Jenceslav, a location scourge marks everyone at the location IN ADDITION to the location itself being marked.

Third, Locked Door instructs you to ONLY remove the scourge from the location, not from the marked players.

I'd prefer if you were right, but that's just not in the rules the way I see it right now.


After reading both cards and the rulebook, I don't think that RAW is clear cut and valid arguments can be made for both interpretations. However, I'm very confident that I've provided an accurate interpretation of the RAI for this combination of cards.

Being poisoned by something or other is very different from being entangled by a locked door - removing the source of the poison wouldn't (necessarily) affect anyone that had been exposed to the poison. When a locked door is removed/unlocked/destroyed, though, it no longer bars passage. Common sense says that when the barrier (Locked Door) is defeated, the effect (scourge Entangled) is removed in its entirety.

Assuming that the RAW backs up the opposite argument (i.e., I'm wrong), but my RAI argument is correct, then I would suggest that the Locked Door card needs to be amended so that the third power says something like:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location and remove Entangled markers from affected characters; you may explore.

Alternately, this case might simply be one example of combinations of cards that require the rules to be changed, differentiating between an effect that happens only while a source cause is present (i.e., one that goes away once the source cause goes away) and one that happens regardless of the presence of the source, requiring its own resolution independent from that which removed the source (and which might, theoretically, be removed even if the source cause remains present).

Of course I could be completely wrong, in which case I should just shut my yap. ;)


I admit that the chapter about rules in the rulebook isn't totally clear (I mean by that it doesn't clearly differentiate what happens when a scourge drops on a character or location), but the way I read it Locked Door makes you put a Entangle scourge marker on the location NOT on the characters.
Characters are impacted by the scourge ONLY when they are at the location with the scourge.
So when a card (like Locked Door when you defeat it) makes you remove the marker from the location, there is no marker left and all characters are immediately safe.
It also mean that once a character has triggered the Entangle, any character moving to that location after is affected by the scourge as long as he is at the location.

IMHO.


This said, I would recommend rewriting the Scourge rule on page 21 this way:

Scourge rules P21 new proposition wrote:


Scourge: These cards have lasting negative effects.
Scourges affecting characters: When a card tells you to suffer a scourge, if that scourge isn’t already displayed, draw it from the vault and display it, then choose a marker design that isn’t already in use and mark it. Then place a corresponding marker next to your character.
While so marked by a scourge, that scourge’s powers apply to you.
Scourges affecting locations: Some effects cause a scourge to mark a location. If you’re at a location when it is marked, or if you end your turn at a marked location, suffer the corresponding scourge.
Powers that remove scourges remove them only from characters, not locations, unless they specifically say otherwise.
Additional scourges: If you or a location suffer a scourge that you or it already have a marker for, the scourge has no additional effect; do not add another marker.
Encountering scourges: If you encounter a scourge in a location, immediately suffer it; the encounter is over.
Removing scourges: When a power removes a scourge, remove the marker from the character or the location as appropriate, and if no characters or locations currently suffer the scourge, you may return it to the box.

IMHO


Brother Tyler wrote:

Assuming that the RAW backs up the opposite argument (i.e., I'm wrong), but my RAI argument is correct, then I would suggest that the Locked Door card needs to be amended so that the third power says something like:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location and remove Entangled markers from affected characters; you may explore.

I would put it more like:

Quote:
If defeated, remove the scourge Entangled from this location and all local characters; you may explore.

The precedent is already there with Basilisk, which upon defeat removes Entangled and Dazed (which happened earlier). But that is based on the interpretation that:

Scourge on a location causes the characters to gain the same marker (suffer a scourge, not only "Scourge power applies to you") when initially marked + at the end of turn.
We should wait for an official statement :)


Personally, although not that big of a dial, I dislike how they implemented the Scourges. That, as evident by this thread, leave us able to argue about "removing a card" VS "removing a marker". I don't believe that's what Lone Sharks intended - they just did the markers to save on card count (and table space, which is apparently a big concern) - but when they say "remove a Scourge" - they always mean "remove a Scourge marker"; removing the Scourge *card* is just a meta thing that the player do when the card is no longer relevant (affecting no character or location).

As for the "flavor argument" (i.e. what would be "logical" for a Poison, or Entanglement, etc. to work) - I too prefer when game mechanics match flavor, but as Lone Sharks have shown time and again - they'd eschew "logic" for "streamlined gameplay" (and that's good, IMHO)- "Caltrops VS Skeletons" and all that.

Still, the whole "location scourge" thing is more trouble than it's worth, IMHO, and goes against that very same "streamlined gameplay". So, count me in a camp that'd prefer that when location scourge is remove - local character scourges of the same type are also purged; possibly as a general rule.

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You understood it correctly, that it works as written. In the case of "Locked Door" it's probably better to think of it as a series of locked doors (and rooms and corridors) that make it hard to proceed. It entangling the location stops you from escaping, perhaps driving you further into other parts of the location.

We did test the idea that a scourge on a location simply applies to all characters at that location, without marking them. It's pretty solid for some scourges, like Entangled and Frightened, but it gets really weird for several scourges where you can just leave to no longer be scourged then jump back later.


Keith Richmond wrote:

You understood it correctly, that it works as written. In the case of "Locked Door" it's probably better to think of it as a series of locked doors (and rooms and corridors) that make it hard to proceed. It entangling the location stops you from escaping, perhaps driving you further into other parts of the location.

We did test the idea that a scourge on a location simply applies to all characters at that location, without marking them. It's pretty solid for some scourges, like Entangled and Frightened, but it gets really weird for several scourges where you can just leave to no longer be scourged then jump back later.

Thank you very much, Keith, for the confirmation about the Scourges - it makes sense for e.g. Poisoned Scourge on a location to mark the characters. But what about defeating the Locked Door by another character, while the previous one is still Entangled? Do you plan to change the Locked Door card to remove Entangled for local characters (on defeat) along with de-Entangling the location or keep it this way?


I'm with Jenceslav, I'm not sure we got an answer.


I thought the answer was clear (i.e., I was wrong and needed to shut my yap). This was especially humbling coming from the president of the company. ;)

My interpretation of Keith's response is: If characters A, B, and C are Entangled after the Locked Door is undefeated, then any character defeats the Locked Door later and returns it to the vault, characters A, B, and C remain Entangled until the location is closed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread made the ruling clear, but I would like to point out that it does make the AD4 barrier Brain Mold particularly rough... and oddly designed.

Brain Mold Powers wrote:

Before acting, mark your location with the scourges Drained and Poisoned.

If defeated, banish this barrier and remove the scourges Drained and Poisoned from your location.

If undefeated, display this barrier at your location. While displayed, at this location:
• At the start of your turn, you may encounter this barrier.
• When this location is closed, banish this barrier.

As this thread clarifies, removing the scourges Drained and Poisoned from the location doesn't remove those scourges from anyone at the location. So basically, unless you can ignore BA effects, encountering Brain Mold will "permanently" give every local character two of the rougher scourges, and the barrier provides no way whatsoever to un-do what could be an enormous consequence to a tightly-knit group of characters.

Whilst I think that makes it rougher than most AD4-5 (and some 6) barriers in CotCT, I don't think that's a disaster; just a reminder for parties to keep scourge-removal around, make use of examining locations, and keep some ways to ignore non-monster BA's if possible (which... almost don't actually exist in Core/Curse, which overly focuses on ignoring BA's attached to Monsters).

However, it makes the last power rather unusual for Brain Mold (not useless, but unusual). There seems to be extremely little to be gained by encountering it again, since the people at that location (and thus able to do so) are already individually affected with the scourges, and removing the scourges from the location will not help them in any way. The only corner-case relevance is if you want to remove it before other party members come to the location, or before cleansing scourges of people at the same non-closed location, but that probably won't be all that common in actual play due to a few elements (including the timing at which a character could choose to encounter the displayed Brain Mold anyway).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, RAW is clear: removing a scourge from a location doesn't do anything to the characters at that location also suffering the scourge.

In my opinion, removing a scourge from a location should also remove it from all characters at that location. The rulebook doesn't say that right now, but it's something I'd love to see an FAQ for.


That wouldn't make sense for scourges like plagued and wounded. Entangled is special in that it symbolized an external threat that is tied to location (possibly Frightened as well).

It would be better if cards like Locked Door also stated that it removes the Entangled scourge from local characters.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nickademus42 wrote:
That wouldn't make sense for scourges like plagued and wounded.

Why not? Marking a location with any scourge means that there is some threat in the area and characters are exposed to that threat. Get rid of the threat = get rid of exposure = characters are able to recover. Exactly how that recovery happens is an exercise in Allowing For Abstractions and inventing your own flavor. Maybe a thankful local cleric offers you all a remove disease spell for stopping the plague in that area.

Inventing per-Scourge rules for whether removing it at the location also removes it from characters based on what “makes sense” is needless complication for the card game. A general rule such as what I suggested above works well for everything; you may just need to invent some flavor as to how exactly it happens if it bothers you.


Well the "better" way to have done it (but at the cost of a slightly more complex rule) would have been to differentiate 2 kinds of scourges. For the purpose of clarity, I will call them :
- Affection : scourge affecting a character
- Ward : scourge affecting a location

Typical affections would be things affecting your character like "Wounded, poisoned, diseased, stunned, slowed...", which would mess with your character cards or actions independently of your moves/location.
Unless otherwise noted, a character would keep them when moving from location to locations.

Typical wards would be things affecting a location like "blocked, stinking, dark, antimagic, cursed, blessed...". This would in fact just add temporary "at this location" powers to a location. Like any other "at this location" power, it could (at specific time of the turn) either :
- Directly mess with the location deck (e. g. all banes are undead)
- Or mess with character-at-this-location cards or actions (e. g. you cannot explore twice)
- Or give/remove affections to characters at this location (e. g. suffer the affection poisoned)

E. g.:
Stinking ward : at the end of any turn, characters at this location suffer the scourge Poisoned
Blessed ward : at the start of your turn, you may discard one of your affections

With that you could differentiate :
Blocked ward : characters at this location cannot move
Entangled affection : your caracter cannot move

And thus the different boons or banes could be worded to avoid the issues discussed in this thread :
- Locked door : the location that bane comes from suffers the ward Blocked (see above)
- Paralysis trap : your character suffers the affection Entangled (see the difference ? even if I was teleported elsewhere, I would still be paralyzed)
- Cleanse Site spell : remove all wards from a location
- Antidote item : a local character discards the Poisoned affection
- Remove Curse spell : a local character discards all their affections OR discard all local wards
- Battering Ram item : remove the Blocked ward from your location

and so on...

Then it would feel much more "real" (in RPG terms) because
A) you wouldn't stay entangled if someone else would destroy the locked door you previously failed to defeat
B) You would stay poisoned if someone else would remove the stinking cloud trap in a location (even if you moved away)

My $0.02


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In retrospect, it may have been easier to eliminate location scourges entirely and limit scourges to characters. There are only 7 cards that assign scourges to locations: Stinging Wasps, Brain Mold, Poison Gas, Mine, Madness Mist Trap, Death's Breath Door, and Locked Door. And 6 of them only do it if you fail a check. Brain Mold is the only card that automatically assigns a scourge to a location.

The rules overhead may not have been worth the trouble, especially given how rare location scourges actually are. Someone made a funny comment that they went through the entirety of CotCT and didn't know that location scourges existed until someone else happened to mention it.

Not a big deal either way, I guess.


Well the idea to have temporary location powers is cool. But it ddn't need to be called "scourges". "Display this card next to a/your location, while displayed..." was sufficient.

Maybe, they could just have created a scourge trait and add it to some cards having either one of the powers :
"Display this card next to your character, while displayed..."
or
"Display this card next to your location, while displayed..."

Then there was no need for a specific scourge rule.

Poison gas could be something like : "Display this card next to your location, while displayed at the begining of a local character's turn, if that character doen't have a Poisoned card displyed next to him, he draws a new Poisoned card and displays it"

Remove Curse spell could just be "discard a scourge card displayed next to a local character".

and so on...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to bring up that this is one of the more frequent misplays I see in Core/Curse nowadays - most people intuitively think that defeating Brain Mold would stop the party at that location from being Drained or Poisoned. After all, the Brain Mold is causing those afflictions, and you kill it... plus, why would it get displayed to let you re-fight it if re-fighting it doesn't actually solve the problem it caused?

The RAW is clear, but I would like to again state my support of an errata or FAQ, whether of specific cards or the core rules in general.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion / Locked Door - Core All Messageboards

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