I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion, but your suggested changes are changing those powers' functionality. "Villain or henchman" doesn't cover exactly the same cards in Core as it did previous rule books, and for the most part, it seems paizo is fine with powers not working exactly the same in Core as long as they don't become broken.
That said, if we are move forward with changing those powers anyways, I do have one suggestion:
"(non-)villain or henchman" > "(non-)story bane monster or barrier"
I think "villain or henchman" can just be "story bane", where "non-villain or henchman" needs to be "non-story bane monster or barrier"
I had mis-read Vic's post last night:
If you want to refer to any bane other than a story bane, the phrase you would need to use is “non-story bane monster or barrier.”
To be honest, I got confused at several times while posting last night, shifting from understanding to confusion and back and forth several times while I read and composed. I'd like to blame it on jet lag, but that would be a cop out.
We probably need to examine things in detail so that we're all on the same sheet of music.
In legacy PACG, there were villain cards and henchman cards. In general, villain cards were used in the basic villain role - there were some exceptions. The henchman cards, meanwhile, were much more flexible, serving in the henchman role, as summoned banes (usually from barriers or locations), and in the danger role (e.g., servitor demons).
Core PACG has more clearly defined the roles, but has aggregated the card types into the story bane card type. Again, there are exceptions where non-story banes might serve in any of the three roles (villain, henchman, danger).
Frankly, the exceptions create a level of complexity that we probably don't need to address at this point (i.e., the wording for the exceptions should be applied as errata to the scenarios rather than to the character powers).
If we exclude the (legacy) exceptions, I think we have the following permutations:
1. Any power that refers solely to villains would continue to refer solely to villains. Where before the card type and role was mostly interchangeable, now we're referring solely to the role. The opposite would be "non-villain" to cover any type of card that isn't a villain.
2. Any power that refers solely to henchman would be changed to "non-villain story bane" in order to include the broad usage of the legacy henchman cards. I don't recall any powers that refer solely to "non-henchman" without including villains, but if there are any, we'd have to come up with something.
3. Any power that refers to villains and henchman would be changed to the "story bane" terminology, including "non-story bane" for the negative.
So...
villain > villain
non-villain > non-villain bane
henchman > non-villain story bane
non-henchman > ??? (might not even be necessary)
villain and/or henchman > story bane
non- (or "not a") villain and/or henchman > non-story bane monster or barrier
And I think that lines up with what everyone else is saying, so it looks like I've caught up. ;)
The way I see it, there are many "attributes" to a card, that can be defined by two "inherent categories" (for the sake of clarity, I use new words in "", to avoid mixing up with other words like "type" that already have a meaning in the game).
An attribute can be in those "inherent categories"
- TYPES (ex: boon, bane, story bane, monster, barrier, location, weapon, blessing, support...)
- TRAITS (ex: Melee, Slashing, Loot, Human, Urban....)
Then the scenario adds a third category of attributes that a card get for the duration of the scenario
- SCENARIO (ex: danger, villain, henchman, closing, reward...)
Then the game play adds a fourth category of attributes that a card has a each moment of the game but that varies during the scenario
- STATUS (the hour, displayed, buried, face-up...)
In all categories, there is a long list of attributes and for each those, a card has or not that attribute (simple Y/N boolean attribute), so you can be non-sorry bane, non-Urban, non-closing, non-displayed...
When a power wants to affect certain cards and affect some another ones, it can refer to any combination of the above attributes
- it can use many attributes of the same category -> "non-story bane monster" (type + other type)
- it can use attributes of different inherent categories -> "non-Human ally" (trait + type)
- it can use attributes of different categories -> "displayed armor" (status + type)
- it can use a grammar (e. g: and/or sentences) between those attributes -> "non-story bane monster or barrier" (as per Vic's example)
Since the game allow for such a diversity of situation, I would refrain from trying to build a clever superstructure of categories/sub-categories that is pretty much sure to not be resilient when the next box is released. I would just translate the Pre-Core attributes to the nearest simplest grammar of the above attributes, like the example from Vic above. IMHO.
I've gone through and changed all of the gender-based pronouns to "their/them/they" except for those that are referring to specific entities (specifically, multiple powers referring to cohorts such as Honaire, Jinfu, Tonbarse, etc.). Part of this change was also changing instances of "that character" where a character (e.g., "a local character") was specified earlier in the power. The exceptions to this part were powers that also included "you" and some other character. Example:
"□ When you (□ or a local character) would bury an armor for its power, that character may discard it instead."
Essentially, "their/them/they" was used only when referring solely to a third person.
I've also completed changing the "you gain [a skill]" to "gain [a skill]" so the only time "you gain" appears is when it refers to feats.
I'm in the process of changing the "put it on top/bottom" of a deck to the reload/recharge verbiage. I'm using the format of "reload/recharge it to the [name, if used] deck."
After that I'll tackle the villain/henchman/story bane issue.
I should have all of these changes completed today and will upload the new version at that time.
Then I'll start looking at the individual powers that have been identified for discussion.
I (*think* I've) made all of the changes that have been identified. If I missed any, I'll fix them when they're identified here or when I notice them.
I've also changed most of the entries to "Final" (green text on white background) and have transcribed any "No Change" (gray text on white background) powers into the Updated column. So anything for which I have questions/suggestions or which other members have identified as potentially needing a change is easier to find, having either a yellow or pink background (and usually having some comment in the Discussion column). Naturally, anything that I've marked as either "Final" or "No Change" can still be changed if the community agrees (I'll go through and mark them appropriately if they come up for discussion).
There are a few entries where I've marked them for discussion (yellow background) and have a Discussion column comment indicating that I either didn't make a templated change or made some other choice for some reason. If you disagree with any of those, please provide your alternative suggestion and reasoning. If I don't see any suggestions, I'll assume that the community agrees with my choice and mark the power as "Final" (I'll give these 3-5 days unless I'm told they're good earlier than that).
What I'd like to do now is focus on the yellow/pink entries and figure out which ones we can fix by community and which need to go to the developers. I'd also like to take a good look at those characters for which all powers are marked as No Change/Conversion Guide/Final. When all characters in an AP/deck have all powers in any of those statuses and the community agrees, I'll start creating those character sheets.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'm looking at Linxia right now. Her power is a tough one for sure. The "heal" verbiage CAN apply to situations other than your own discard pile into your own deck, but those things have to be specified (there's at least one power in Core that lets you "heal a buried card" for example.) Here's my suggestion:
Base character power: When you play a Corrupted or Shield boon for its power, you may heal a card. (□ The card may be healed from another local character's discard pile into your deck.)
Enforcer: When you play a Corrupted or Shield (□ or Heavy Armor) boon for its power, you may heal a card. (□ The card may be healed from another local character's discard pile into your deck.)
Knight of the Rack: When you play a Corrupted or Shield boon for its power, you may a card (□ or 2 cards). (□ The card(s) may be healed from another local character's discard pile into your deck.)
I don't think this changes anything mechanically. The only concern I have is that people will think that the Knight of the Rack checkboxes must be taken from right-to-left order (though they don't need to be, since there's a period in between, but it could be confusing).
Then comes Zelhara. I don't think we can change "Corrupted trait" in the case of her powers... it just doesn't make sense if you do. So I recommend that power (#6) stay as-is. For her other Torturer power:
Torturer: A local character may bury an ally (□ or a Corrupted card) from their discards; if they do, heal a card (□ or 2 cards). (□ The card(s) may be healed from their discard pile into your deck.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
For Korundo, I think your suggestion to simply use "another Hunter Class Deck cohort" is perfect... drop box and vault completely, as they're unnecessary.
For Class Deck Imrijka, your current version actually changes the power, because as written before, she could use it on her own checks.
Instead, the base character power should be this: You may recharge a Divine card to add (□ 1 of that card’s traits and) 1d4 to a distant (□ or local) combat check.
Gravecharge Keeper: You may recharge a Divine card to add (□ 1 of that card's traits and) 1d4 to a distant (□ or local) combat check.
Fate's Shepherd: You may recharge a Divine card to add (□ 1 of that card's traits and) 1d4 (□+1) (□+2) to a distant (□ or local) combat check.
For Amaryllis, I believe this power actually doesn't have anything to do with the recovery step, really. What this lets her do (and let her do before Core rules) is to attempt to recharge (recover) one or more spells that she already failed at recovering. So, I think these should be:
Same power for all three: At the end of your turn, after (□ and before) you reset, you may attempt to recover a spell in your discards.
For Class Deck Seoni, the bury a card to move power is pointless, but ONLY if you're not using any pre-core locations. Since pre-core locations stick around, this still has utility when playing any older seasons. I'd say it can be left as-is, and if you're playing in a fully-post-Core game, you just shouldn't choose that power.
For Reiko, I recommend we use the "closing henchman" terminology:
Ninjutsu Master: □ When you defeat a closing henchman, you may examine your location before choosing whether to close it (□ and add 4 to your checks to do so).
For Red Raven, I'm pretty sure it's intended that the Masked Avenger can bury to reroll his own checks, so I don't think a change is needed there.
For Zova, I agree with leaving the wording of Weretouched power 6 alone, for the reason described.
For Raheli, your wording is solid and I think it should be finalized.
For Darago: Not all cards with recharge checks go into recovery, in fact there are a large number of old cards that don't, because they don't banish (though spells do). So, unfortunately, I think we need to change this to:
□ Add 1 (□ 2) (□ 3) to your recovery check or your check to recharge a card.
For Melindra: You're correct, when you encounter is the right step. I think the recovery power works as described because spells are always going to end up in the recovery pile.
For Mnesoset: Remove Heavy from the proficiency list, otherwise it's right. :)
That's all I have time for at the moment, but I'll try to jump back in for more later.
Thanks for the great feedback, Tyler.
The Linxia suggestions look good to me, but I'd like to see what others think before we implement them.
I tend to agree with your conclusion about Zelhara's "Corrupted trait" power, and I don't see any problems with the suggestion for the Torturer power. Again, though, other members might have other ideas so I'm holding off.
I've dropped the "box/vault" for Korundo, but we can add it in if there is majority disagreement on this.
Yes, I screwed up on Imrijka. I've fixed it, following your suggestions.
I'm not sure on the suggestion about Amaryllis. In instances where "recover" is an action for Core + characters, they are working with cards in their recovery pile. I don't see any need to change "recharge a spell in your discards" to "recover a spell in your discards." I might be wrong here, though, so it's worth discussion.
You have a point on CD Seoni, but I'd like to know what the designers think about all of the power feats that allow characters to (perform some action to) move after closing a location. If they're okay with keeping those power feats for times when legacy locations are being used, then they should be kept. On the other hand, if they want to replace those feats (just as they replaced the Light Armors feats), then I would see some sort of alternative(s) being provided en masse.
I tend to agree with your suggestion for Reiko, but I want to be sure we have a consensus before we implement this one.
I'm fine with the Red Raven's power staying as-is if that is the design intent.
If others agree, Zova's power can stay as-is. I'm not averse to revising it if there is a majority consensus (or developer guidance) otherwise, though. The same goes for Raheli.
I made the change to Darago (we can change it back, if necessary).
I'm good with Melindra, too. With similar feedback from other players, we can finalize that one.
I've removed "Heavy" from the proficiencies for Mnesoset (that's a basic template change, so I doubt anyone will disagree ;) ).
In addition to the above, I've marked the Urgraz power as "Final" it was a note describing an action that we've all agreed is right.
I've also marked the Angban power as "Final" since the note was self-explanatory. We can revise it (Role 1, power 7) if there is player consensus or developer guidance.
We still need to discuss the other powers. Some of them have to do with power feats to move after closing a location, so they can be addressed as part of the CD Seoni question/discussion. Others will require player consensus/developer guidance.
One additional change I've made to the spreadsheet is the addition of a Character Sheet column, with the entry to that column indicating whether a character still has powers up for discussion, is ready for the character sheet to be made, has had the preliminary character sheet made, or has had the new character sheet finalized. This will help me plan out the character sheet creation (and it adds some more nifty colors to the spreadsheet - I kept them to the line that the character's name and role names are on, and I used different colors to differentiate them from the discussion points). You'll see that on the next update to the Google.docs version.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'm not sure on the suggestion about Amaryllis. In instances where "recover" is an action for Core + characters, they are working with cards in their recovery pile. I don't see any need to change "recharge a spell in your discards" to "recover a spell in your discards." I might be wrong here, though, so it's worth discussion.
The reason I think this one needs to be changed is that "check to recharge" isn't ACTUALLY a thing anymore with new rules... it's a check to recover, which generally ends up getting recharged, but I think the distinction is important. What her power is allowing you to do is to say "okay, this card is in my discards, and I get to try to recover it OUTSIDE my normal recovery step."
Actually, there are instances of both "recharge" or "during recovery" in the Core Set characters. There are no instances of "to recover" or "recover" character powers (there may be some on other cards, but the character powers are the ones that are relevant to this project).
The instances of "recharge" are mostly spellcasters:
□ On your check to recharge a Divine non-Attack spell, you automatically succeed. (□ Then you may shuffle your deck.)
□ On your check to recharge a Divine Attack spell, you automatically succeed. (□ Then you may shuffle your deck.)
On your check to recharge an Arcane spell (□ or an Arcane item), you automatically succeed. (□ You may instead shuffle it into your deck.)
On your check to recharge a spell, you automatically fail.
There's also one instance of an Alchemical "recharge" power:
□ You are proficient with Alchemical. On your check to recharge an Alchemical item whose level is lower than #, you automatically succeed.
The lone instance of "during recovery" is the new iconic alchemist, Fumbus:
During recovery, when you would banish an Alchemical boon or an Arcane Attack spell, you may discard it instead.
In addition, there are instances of the "during recovery" verbiage in the Conversion Guide section on Alchemists and Lazzero.
The distinction there is very important. The "during recovery" phrasing means that those characters can't use those powers at other times that they might banish a boon (as a result of suffering damage or some other game effect, for example).
Based on those examples, we shouldn't be using "recover" or "to recover" as a replacement for the "recharge" verb; and we should only be using "during recovery" when the power is specifically limited to what is now the act of recovery at the end of the turn. In other instances, we should preserve the "recharge" terminology.
As for Skull & Shackles Seltyiel, I don't see a requirement to add anything about proficiency. The conversion guide and changes in terminology make it clear that you may only attempt to recharge a spell (during recovery) if you have the appropriate proficiency. Seltyiel has to attempt to recharge the spell - it's not an automatic recharge. So the Core Set + spells are covered sufficiently because they have the During Recovery requirement spelled out; and the legacy spells should be covered via the Conversion Guide (though that might need to be tweaked a bit to provide general guidance for attempting to recharge spells outside of recovery (Seltyiel's power might not be the only power in the game that allows such an action, so building it into the Conversion Guide builds for forward compatibility instead of forcing every such instance to repeat similar verbiage).
Doubling down on this, the Core Set rulebook doesn't define "to recover" as an action. I found only two instances of "to recover" in the rulebook, both as general references to whatever checks or actions are being made during recovery. Actions during recovery are often recharging of spells, but also include discarding (in the case of many Alchemical/Liquid boons) and burying (in the case of spells that are otherwise banished, such as Charm Person). Future cards might include any of the other types of actions during recovery. Changing the "to recharge" verbiage to "to recover" would change the functionality of powers, expanding their applicability from just recharging to any kind of check that might be made during recovery. And that's outside the scope of what we're doing (unless the developers tell us it's okay for any/all instances).
I've been staying relatively quiet on this, but I will agree that "To Recover" is not an adequate replacement for "To Recharge".
Additionally, in case it turns up in the future, be very careful with statements referring to "checks During Recovery". Current references to that phase in powers are kept restrictively worded to solve this issue, but keep in mind that it is hypothetically possible to make checks "during Recovery" that have nothing to do with recovering cards; for example, you play a blessing on a check during recovery that has the side-effect of summoning a monster for you to encounter, or triggering a power that causes you to examine and trigger a monster when you're playing some card to assist with a recharge check.
I'm going to go back on what I said about the suggestion for Seltyiel (after thinking about it a bit more ;) ). I think it's as simple as just modifying it to "At the end of your turn, you may attempt to recharge an Arcane spell in your discards."
The latest version has bee uploaded (link). I've added the character status indicators - a column added to the far right with a corresponding color to show whether or not we're still discussing a character and where the character sheet sits. Most of those characters for which there doesn't appear to be any discussions are marked as "Ready" with the top line colored blue. Those for which we are having some discussiong are marked as "Discussion" with the top line colored red. I already created the preliminary sheets for those characters for which there aren't currently official downloadable sheets, and those are marked as "Preliminary" with a light green top line. Some of those have powers marked for discussion/developer input, so they should really be marked as "Discussion" for now.
What I would like to do right now is validate that those characters that are marked as "Ready" are indeed ready for the preliminary character sheet to be created. If you see any for which there are powers that you think that we need to discuss, please bring them up here so that I can add the questions and mark their status appropriately. Those which we validate as ready (most likely by not bringing them up for discussion) will be hidden to make finding the discussion issues easier. They'll still be on the spreadsheet and you'll be able to unhide/see them if you want.
I've made most of the changes that we've discussed so far, minus those for which I'm waiting on additional member input to either agree with a suggestion or provide some alternative.
These are the characters that are still pending discussion:
S&S Bikendi Otongu (It figures that the first "character" is actually just a role.)
I've suggested adding the Arcane proficiency.
I didn't implement the "suffer" verbiage in place of "deal damage" because of the way this power is phrased.
S&S Damiel (I just added this one last night.)
The character wasn't given the Alchemical proficiency via the Conversion Guide, though one of his other incarnations was given that proficiency.
One of the character's powers (base and both roles) basically duplicates what the Alchemical proficiency would provide. Should this power be replaced? That would require Developer input.
S&S Feiya
Her Sea Witch role has a (useless) power feat that allows her to move when she closes a location. That power either needs to be replaced or the verbiage needs to be expanded to include allowing her to move when she guards a location. This one requires Developer input.
S&S Oloch
His Shield of Gorum role has a power that I think should have "for its power" in the verbiage. I could be wrong on this. This one requires Developer input to say one way or the other.
S&S Seltyiel (This one just came up last night.)
We've discussed adding the limitation that he can only attempt to recharge an Arcane spell (vice any spell) at the end of his turn. In addition, I think that the timing of the power needs to be discussed. If the mechanics of the power were updated to match the mechanics of the legacy version, the attempt to recharge a spell should take place *after* recovery, though the verbiage "at the end of your turn" implies that the attempt takes place before recovery. Should the timing be changed from "At the end of your turn" to "After recovery" in order to make the updated effect match the legacy effect? "Before you reset" (or any other verbiage that relates to reset) won't work because there are some game effects that allow/force a reset outside of the end of your turn.
WotR Ekkie
The base character power about invoking the Basic trait is problematic. Some suggestions have been put forth, but we haven't finalized updated wording.
MM Alahazra
She has two powers (one is a base character power and the other is just for the Recursor role) for which I want to check the wording on Curse/Haunt and scourge cards.
MM Ezren (I just added this one last night, too.)
His Spell Sage role has a power that I think is problematic. The legacy wording for both powers allows him to play a spell for an effect. Under the current simple update wording, the result is that he would now have to play spells twice to achieve the same effect as the legacy version.
His Spell Sage role has another power that I think can be reworded since the legacy version basically created what we now know as the recovery pile. My suggested wording is in the Discussion column.
CD Damiel
The Conversion Guide provided an alternative for the character's first power (base character and both roles). That power, though basically duplicates the effect of his second base character power. I think that the Conversion Guide replacement needs to be scrapped (wording assimilated into the second power) and replaced with something new. Either that or I totally screwed up which power to apply the Conversion Guide wording to. This one needs Developer input.
CD Amiri
The power feat for one of her base character powers is useless - allowing her to move after her location closes. This power needs to be replaced. The sub-optimal alternative is to leave it alone for when using the character in legacy APs/seasons, and simply not choosing that power feat when playing the character in Core Set +.
CD Brielle
Her Opportunist role has a power that I think needs to be reworded to state "another local character" vice "local characer" (current wording allows her to encounter an item after she fails to acquire it). This one requires Developer input.
CD Lazzero
The Conversion Guide provided a revised power for his Asmodean Advocate role, but the result was that the character was left one power feat short. I've simply suggested including the missing power feat. This one requires Developer input.
CD Linxia
I didn't incorporate the "heal" verbiage for a base character power because a power feat allows her to alternatively heal from another local character's discards. Cartmanbeck has suggested a revised wording above, and that looks like it will work. I'm just waiting on other members to chime in.
CD Emil
His Red Mantis Assassin role has a power that might be revised to use the "heal" verbiage.
CD Nyctessa
Her Undead Master role has a power feat (for a base character power) for which I didn't change the "shuffle" verbiage to the "heal" verbiage. I just want to determine if there are ways that we *can* change to the "heal" verbiage.
CD Zelhara
She has a base character role that *might* be re-worded, though I'm looking for suggestions. If we can't find a suitable alternative, or if we don't think it's necessary, we can just leave the wording alone.
Her Torturer role has a power for which I didn't change the "shuffle" to the "heal" verbiage. Cartmanbeck has suggested an alternative that might work, but I'm waiting for other members to chime in.
CD Korundo
His Primal Master has a role that directs you to draw a Hunter Class Deck cohort "from the box." I don't think that we need to include the "from the box" verbiage. Current version shows that. If you disagree, we'll also need to know alternative wording (players might not add the Hunter Class Deck cohorts to the vault).
CD Koren
His Unflagging Companion has a role that I think needs to be changed from "When a local character..." to "When another local character..." in order to match the design intent. This one requires Developer input.
CD Arabundi
His Nature Adept role has a power that needs to be clarified as to the design intent with regard to if the "recharge a spell" is only when a spell is played for its power. If that is the case, the power can be reworded. If the power may be used any time a spell is recharged, the power needs to be reworded (suggestion for that rewording is in the Discussion column).
CD Wrathack
Her Sentry role has a power feat that allows her to move after she closes her location. This power needs to be replaced. This requires Developer input.
CD Amaryllis
As with S&S Seltyiel, does power need to be reworded to add "Arcane" (so that she can't attempt to recharge a Divine spell)?
CD Seoni
Her Dragon Initiate role has a power feat that allows her to move after she closes a location. This power feat needs to be replaced. This requires Developer input.
CD Reiko
Her Ninjutsu Master role has a power that should probably be reworded from "a henchman that allows you to attempt to close your location..." to "a closing henchman..." (suggested by cartmanbeck, I'm just waiting for others to chime in).
CD The Red Raven
His Masked Avenger role has a power that I questioned. Carmanbeck thinks it's okay, and he's probably right. If the Developers don't tell us otherwise, I'm going to leave it as is.
CD Zova
Her Weretouched role has a power that I didn't use the "reload" verbiage on because the card is put on top of the hourglass discards (vice the hourglass). Cartmanbeck agreed with that deviation from the norm. I'm just waiting to see if anyone disagrees (if no one says otherwise, I'll mark it as "Final").
CD Kasmir
He has a base character power whose wording invites abuse. In legacy terms, that power could only be used once per turn. In Core Set + terms, it might be used multiple times per turn. We need to find some rewording that suitably limits the power to once per turn without otherwise changing the functionality.
He has another base power that was addressed in the Conversion Guide, but that omitted some power feats for his Hedge Witch role. I've added suggestions to preserve those power feats; and I've additionally suggested the addition of the Divine proficiency in the power to support recovery.
CD Raheli
Her Gravewalker role has a reworded power (it's a base character power, but only affected due to a Gravewalker role power feat) that we want checked for sanity.
CD Melindra
She has a base character power that we want to validate the change in terms of "When you encounter a bane" being the appropriate time to evade.
SoPT Mnenoset (Ironically, we're closing with a role.)
I've suggested adding the Divine proficiency.
All of the other characters are ready for the new character sheet treatment (unless you tell me otherwise). I'll start working on those to get ahead of the power curve. In the meantime, if we can come to a consensus on the characters (and roles) listed above, that will help. I'd like to take care of the low hanging fruit first - anything that we're just looking for validation on or for which we have a suggested rewording that you think works. After we knock those out, we can move to the more problematic ones that will require some skull sweat.
For CD Amiri, could you combine "move after closing" with "closing your location does not prevent you from exploring"?
Basically one power where half is redundant pre-Core and half is redundant in Core, but manages to achieve the same effect in both.
For reference, Kasmir was already given Divine proficiency in the Conversion FAQ.
Anything that changes the functionality of powers is outside the scope of our authority and can only be done if we have the approval and guidance of Paizo/Lone Shark. Our effort is simply to translate from legacy terminology into Core Set terminology.
For reference, Kasmir was already given Divine proficiency in the Conversion FAQ.
I was going to debate this, but I think that the relevant portion of the Core Set Rulebook covers your point sufficiently:
Treat characters that have the Arcane or Divine skill as proficient
with the corresponding trait...
The only problem with that portion of the rulebook (in my opinion) is that it is in the Compatibility with Older Sets section on page 26. That verbiage should be repeated in the section on Proficiencies on page 19, and it should explicitly state that it applies equally to characters that temporarily have the Arcane/Divine skill via some power. Even if there aren't any Core Set or Curse of the Crimson Throne characters or boons with powers that temporarily confer the Arcane/Divine skill, it would be prudent for forward compatibility to support future characters/boons.
For our purposes, though, it looks like the design intent is somewhat clear (by combining the portions of the rulebook with the guidance in the Conversion Guide). So unless anyone thinks very strongly that we need additional official guidance, I'll remove all of those proficiency additions on the spreadsheet.
Oops, my mistake. They gave him *Healing* proficiency, not Divine. Sorry about that. But my core point is still valid - he doesn't need that power to give Divine proficiency. He's already proficient with all the cards to which it is applicable.
Also, looking at the Hedge Witch power, you could probably abbreviate the upgrade power to (□ or an Arcane, Divine, or Magic boon).
Anything that changes the functionality of powers is outside the scope of our authority and can only be done if we have the approval and guidance of Paizo/Lone Shark. Our effort is simply to translate from legacy terminology into Core Set terminology.
I don't consider the two versions of Amiri's power as a change in functionality. The wording of the power has to change because the closing rules changed, but the functionality remains the same.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Change banish > return to the vault is probably not needed, as the rulebook says "if you would banish a card you played" => recovery pile; character powers go around that, but it's maybe better to keep the "return to vault" wording anyway
Just note that cards in the recovery pile that you don't successfully deal with are "returned to the vault," not banished.
You should be confused; it (apparently) says the wrong thing. The Rulebook does use "returned to the vault" in Recovery and During Recovery in the Glossary.
They are slightly different and the wrong one(s) should be fixed so they all match.
Just note that cards in the recovery pile that you don't successfully deal with are "returned to the vault," not banished.Upon further review, this needs to be fixed—that moment is indeed when those cards are actually banished.
The whole "banish" meaning several different things brouhaha is unfortunate. While considering this issue, please consider clearing up these questions:
- What is the action through which I'm playing a card that'll end up in Recovery? If you insist it's *also* "banishing" - that means "when you banish" effects will trigger both when I play the card AND when it's return to the vault from Recovery.
- What is the timing of "When you banish for its power" conditions? Is it when the card leaves my hand, or when it leaves Recovery? And why (if both end up being called "banish") ?
Hum I think the answer is clear Longshot:
Banish: ... However, if you would banish a card you played that has a during recovery power, instead set it aside in a recovery pile. At the end of the turn, you can attempt to recover some of these cards (see End Your Turn on page 6).
Note the word "INSTEAD".
Then, if you have any cards in a recovery pile, do whatever they say to do during recovery... After you’ve dealt with them all, banish any that remain.
Banish never happen at the time a card goes in the recovery pile. For such a card, it only happens at the end of turn if you didn't "recover".
For a card with recovery effect, effects that trigger when you banish never happen before the time when you deal with recovery.Especially, powers that can turn a banish into something else will not allow you to be able to play twice the same card (*) in the same turn, because it doesn't prevent from getting into the recovery pile, which was the intent.
IMHO.
(*) OK there is always a corner case when you play a card during a turn, send it into recovery pile, recover it during the end of turn and play it again immediately to help recovering another card during the same recover phase, but let's not pretend we are so clever.
Hum I think the answer is clear Longshot:
Banish: ... However, if you would banish a card you played that has a during recovery power, instead set it aside in a recovery pile. At the end of the turn, you can attempt to recover some of these cards (see End Your Turn on page 6).Note the word "INSTEAD".
Way I see it, that 'instead' is supposed to be "When you banish a card and would return it to the box, INSTEAD put it into a recovery pile" (so, you put into recovery instead of "return to vault", no instead of "banish") - that would've been more clear to me.
But say you're right - that's the old Core status quo - that "returning card to vault from recovery" = "banish". This is exactly what provokes my first question above:
If I'm NOT banishing a card by putting it into Recovery - then I'm not *playing it by banishing* (which important for all the "when you banish" or "when you play" triggers). HOW am I playing it then? It appears there's a new way to play a card in the game, which is inelegantly summed up as "Putting a card in a recovery pile".
I'm not sure I can explain the issue better than that, if it's not apparent what I'm trying to say here :(
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Way I see it, that 'instead' is supposed to be "When you banish a card and would return it to the box, INSTEAD put it into a recovery pile" (so, you put into recovery instead of "return to vault", no instead of "banish") - that would've been more clear to me.
It's instead of banishing it. You seem to be arguing that you want the card to count as banished when it goes to the recovery pile, but that would be *horrible*. Applying "when you banish" effects to a card that you later recharge would be both nonsensical and broken.
If I'm NOT banishing a card by putting it into Recovery - then I'm not *playing it by banishing* (which important for all the "when you banish" or "when you play" triggers). HOW am I playing it then? It appears there's a new way to play a card in the game, which is inelegantly summed up as "Putting a card in a recovery pile".
It's much the same as the "Discard to X; if Y happens, instead recharge it":
Sometimes you don’t know what action to take and must leave a card set aside until you do. For example, an armor you’re burying might allow you to succeed at a check to recharge it instead; set it aside until you know whether you succeed at the check. While set aside, a card does not count as being in your hand, your discards, your deck, or anywhere else.
The only difference is that in this case, its in the recovery pile.
The answer to "when you play it" is "when it goes into the recovery pile." The answer to "when you banish it" is "when it's banished during recovery."
And just as with the set-aside cards, the answer to "how you're playing it" doesn't matter until it's defined, which is during recovery in this case.
"If you would BANISH a card you PLAYED that has a during recovery power, instead..."
For me the "instead" means it's still "PLAYED" but not "BANISHED" (since the "INSTEAD" always refer to the action after "WOULD").
I. e., "sending to recovery pile" is another way of "playing" (just like "recharging, revealing, diplaying, banishing...)
I don't see an issue here.
Maybe I miss something...
Ninja'ed by Vic himself! Respect!
Since Jenceslav has taken the time to go through the spreadsheet and provide a substantial list of suggestions (thanks!), I'm taking the time to go through all of those suggestions.
I'll make any changes to the spreadsheet that I think work within the scope of our effort. Anything that I have questions/comments/disagreements on will be addressed in a reply. I may break that up into a series of replies just to keep things manageable. I'll omit any comments about things I implement to the spreadsheet (another aspect of trying to keep things manageable).
I've added them to my list of things to go over. Thanks!
This is the first part of my actions/responses to Jenceslav's recommendations, covering the characters from the APs. Anything that I implemented has been deleted (and marked as "Basic Change" with green highlighting on the spreadsheet), so all you see below are those that I disagree with and/or which require further discussion (and marked with "Discussion" and yellow highlighting or "Developers" and pink highlighting on the spreadsheet, usually with some sort of comments in the Discussion column (S).
[RotR Amiri -] I think this is one of CD Amiri's (and maybe other barbarian) hallmarks. With the way how her Core version is structured, this could be changed to "closing your location does not prevent you from exploring". However, when playing with old don't banish locations rule, this is still (somewhat) useful feat. This is just my idea, but follows the changes made to Amiri.
This is most definitely a functional change to the character. I like the idea, and it may be an easy solution to all of the character powers allowing characters to move after they close locations. However, this is definitely outside the scope of our authority and can only be done with a green light from Paizo/Lone Shark.
RotR Ezren - Evoker - Acid OR Cold, Electricity OR Fire
Functional change, no basis.
RotR Lem - "Once per check," seems redundant
I don't know if it is redundant. Without it, someone might argue that Lem might recharge any number of cards to add 1d4 ([]+1)([]+2) for each card recharged. Or is there some rule that we can reference to shut that argument down?
RotR Sajan - Drunken Master - MUST draw 1 card is redundant, maybe?
I think that the "you must" is there to prevent any question/argument about it being optional.
RotG Tup - Power 5 does not need "not for its power" in Core, right? Spells are banished now during recovery, so "from your hand" defines it enough. Should it work for "banish a random boon from your hand" situations as well? S&S Alahazra template for "the above power"
Yes it does. There are other game effects that might force Tup to banish a spell (or any boon) and he should not be able to draw a new spell in those instances.
S&S Bikendi Otongu - "other than loot" is not needed, we don't have that type anymore
Loot still exists.
S&S Damiel - should not have Alchemical proficiency, it would be worse than his power (and superfluous) - it is similar to him automatically succeeding at checks to recharge the item; your comment for power 5 is incorrect
I agree that I was incorrect in saying that power 5 duplicates Alchemical proficiency. If that proficiency is added, however, it wouldn't *replace* power 5 (so nothing would get "worse").
S&S Jirelle - power 5 does not need "on your check"
Your suggestion is probably right, but I haven't implemented it yet. We need to see if the "reroll" powers consistently use/don't use "on your check" in their wording.
S&S Lem - is there any reason why Freebooter (Freeboter :-D) has Ranged skill only until the end of the turn? S&S weapons did not care outside of combat. Should be similar to Finesse
I don't disagree here, but this one requires discussion. There might be some design reason or future compatibility issue...?
S&S Lini - I would add "would" to "when you recharge, ... (Animal)"
We need to check other powers for consistency.
S&S Lirianne - shuffle a card "from your hand" - that part is not needed (similar to Musketeer, power 7)
Community/developer thoughts? Are there any Core Set characters that use a similar pattern?
S&S Merisiel - Shadow - power 5 "OR discard it ..."
The "and" makes the 1d6 additive to the first 1d6 ([]+1) ([]+2) ([]+3) ([]+4). If you replaced it with "or," you would recharge for 1d6 ([]+1) ([]+2) ([]+3) ([]+4) -or- you would discard it to add [just] 1d6. The "and" needs to stay.
S&S Oloch - slightly disagree with bury armor/weapon "for its power" - see the most difficult scenario Best Served Cold - "You may not steal armor from the Shield of Gorum! Rrraaarrgh!"
And if that's the design intent, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of game effects where a card is buried/banished without any control by the character, though, so I'm just trying to get confirmation that the wording matches the design intent.
S&S Ranzak - Kleptomaniac power 7 - should be close only
I think you may be correct on this, but there is just enough doubt to leave it open (there are other character powers where the legacy term "close" applied to both permanent and temporary closing). In fairness, I think that most of those instances are where the power affects the check to close rather than the result of closing. I've marked it for the developers.
WotR Adowyn - Blight Scout power 8 - should it be "top CARD"?
Community thoughts? Developers' thoughts?
WotR Alain - Glory hound power 4 - "[] or PUT IT under the top CARD of..."; Glory hound power 6 - "Diplomacy skill" - skill is not needed (well, in fact you may delete the "your" as well - "use your XYZ skill" is "use XYZ" in Core)
I've removed "skill" and kept "your" (see Core Set Ezren). I've left the "under" part as-is for now. It sounds like a decent change, but I don't know if it's necessary (no one appears to have had an issue with similar wording in legacy). If there is community/developer consensus that it is a good change to make, I'll change it.
WotR Balazar - power 4 - Banish now works differently, as you "instead of banishing" put the item with During Recovery powers into a Recovery pile. So this power does nothing, actually. "After you play an Attack spell, return it to the vault" is the least disruptive wording true to the original power.
This one is being discussed. The way I see it, the power now takes place during recovery rather than when the card is used, but the Attack spell is still banished since that is what the power directs. This may require some re-wording of the power (which would probably cascade into the other Summoners).
WotR Balazar - Eidolomancer power 7 - 2× superfluos "your" ... "skill"
It sounds a bit awkward without the second "your" in the sentence.
WotR Ekkie - the most convoluted and hard-to-convert power yet :( - could it help if we split it into two powers? One caring about Animal and other using "You may use the above power [=Alahazra's template] for check against level 0 card or when you would play such card to determine the skill you are using." (one aspect of invoking Basic Trait you did not cover)
This one is being discussed.
WotR Enora - power 5 - maybe up to discussion - changes the meaining somewhat, if you were allowed to recharge a random spell (including the one just played) after you failed a recharge check for this spell. It could be left as it is, moving to recovery phase seems much too wordy
This one needs to be discussed. I agree that the current updated version is incomplete due to the recovery pile.
WotR Kyra - Dawnflower's Flare power 6 - does it really allow you to recharge anything, e.g. Blessing of Lamashtu (bury) or some Banish-to-bless blessings? Other similar powers use "recharge instead of discarding", which is less problematic. Discussion needed! The same for power 8, although Sarenrae's blessings don't get anything else but discarded or recharged anyway :)
I don't understand this suggestion.
WotR Seelah - Inheritor's Blade power 5 - maybe use wording for Core_Seelah "If you would discard a Heavy Armor or Sword boon for this power, recharge it instead"?
Highlighted and added note for discussion by community/developers.
WotR Seelah - Inheritor's Blade power 6 - the second sentence can be "When you acquire a non-Corrupted boon, you may ..." for consistency
No, this is a mandatory power by the character theme.
WotR Seoni - power 5 (7 in Element Master) - "(or ATTACK item)"?
Highlighted with notes for discussion.
MM Alahazra - power 6 - wording seems fine, in S&S some cards with Curse trait were put next to characters' cards (and not their decks), but that is meaningless difference - no change required? As it is, it doesn't affect Core_Scourges, which is fine with me. Haunts did the same in S&S (+RotR) - next to character's card, Curses in MM were next to the character's deck.
Still up for discussion. I'm pretty sure there was a blog post talking about how the old Haunt cards were considered as similar to the MM Curse cards, though I'm not certain if that means anything for Core +.
MM Alahazra - Recursor power 8 - this has no downside outside Mummy's Mask (a bit of a problem). If we approach it as MM-Scourge > (MM- or Core-Scourge), it can be "; if you do, suffer a RANDOM scourge" (MM scourges are random anyway, based on a list; and with this, you will not choose any Core Scourge you like). Discussion needed. However, this also generates a slight inconsistency with her main power to remove Curses (MM scourges were Curses), as you cannot "heal yourself".
I've left this marked for discussion.
MM Channa Ti - Oasis Caller power 9 - "add Survival to your ..."; "if you rechargeD"
Didn't change "recharge" to "recharged" in order to check for consistency with other characters' powers.
MM Drelm - Vaultkeeper power 9 - banish that card => the idea is, it is going back to the box, but what if the boon had During Recovery power and Drelm was proficient? He would keep it, as it goes to Recovery pile instead of being banished and then he has the chance to keep it. Would change to "After acting, return that card to the vault" break anything? I don't think so.
This is different and in keeping with the theme of Drelm borrowing a weapon, armor, or item temporarily.
MM Ezren - Spell Sage power 7 - how would this interact with playing a spell that may be played freely (e.g. Share Tattoo Enhance)? Would it be better to use "On a check, you may play 1 spell freely" in this and similar cases, where the number is specified (unlike RotR Sajan)? Second sentence is not needed, but it is a reminder of general rule - keep it or not, doesn't matter.
I've marked this as a question for the developers.
MM Ezren - Spell Sage power 8 - are you sure pre-Core you have to recharge only 1 spell? While you play or when you would banish are two different instances - banishing occurs during "After you play, ", so IMHO he would need 2 spells to recharge for Divine Attack spell (play & recharge) and 1 spell for Divine non-Attack spell (recharge). "While playing a spell or during recovery, you may recharge a spell to gain the Divine skill equal to your Intelligence skill ([]+2) and proficiency with Divine." allows him to recharge multiple Divine spells for the cost of 1 recharged spell, if we somehow don't include different wording.
This one remains marked for discussion. Pre-Core wording is there (column P "Original"). Note that "during recovery" was added not as a replacement for "when you would banish," but because legacy "when you would play" included the attempt to recharge.
MM Ezren - Spell Sage power 9 - this power is pre-creating (i.e. the opposite of re-creating :) ) recovery pile, but only to Banish-to-play spells. As I understand it, it ignores display+at-the-end-of-turn-banish spells, and these are quite numerous in Core. There were some in RotR and a lot in S&S. Your suggested wording seems pretty fine, but at no point is the Core spell discarded to play - it is banished. :) "[] You automatically succeed at your check to recharge spell that cannot be displayed for its power. ([] You may instead shuffle it into your deck.)" is as close to original as possible, but the italic text needs someone better with English ;)
Power remains marked for discussion. Note on suggestion - power doesn't affect "Banish-to-play spells." It clearly affects only cards that you discard to play (see original in column P).
MM Mavaro - Channeler power 7, influences power 3 - Mavaro should not have Arcane or Divine proficiencies until he checks the power 7 or its upgrade, respectively. "[] and GAIN the skill Divine"
Second part implemented. I agree on the first part, but that was something provided in the Conversion Guide, so I've added that as a note to the proficiencies for Developer discussion/decision.
MM Reepazo - Verminator "stupid question" - you may display a defeated bane (some traits) for its main power, but what happens to that if you choose to recharge one of these cards? Reepazo will have a monster card in its deck, but it cannot display that card anymore :-D
Perhaps Power 4 needs to be re-worded to allow her to display any such cards that she draws later?
MM Simoun - Bladewind power 8 - I prefer "Ranged Knife ([] Magic) weapon"; maybe consider "return into the vault" instaed of banishing, as there might be some Ranged Knife weapon with During Recovery power made in the future :)
Would the use of this power allow a card that would be banished to be placed in the recovery pile instead? If so, replace "banish that weapon" with "return that weapon to the vault".
On the next go around, all of the powers that have been marked as "Basic Change" (i.e., those I implemented from Jenceslav's recommendations) will be marked as "Final" (except those changes that engender some discussion).
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
RotR Lem - "Once per check," seems redundantI don't know if it is redundant. Without it, someone might argue that Lem might recharge any number of cards to add 1d4 ([]+1)([]+2) for each card recharged. Or is there some rule that we can reference to shut that argument down?
The rules in the Core rulebook clearly state that you can only use a power once per check, so I agree that this one is redundant.
Quote:
S&S Lirianne - shuffle a card "from your hand" - that part is not needed (similar to Musketeer, power 7)
Community/developer thoughts? Are there any Core Set characters that use a similar pattern?
I agree on this one, "from your hand" is redundant.
WotR Adowyn - Blight Scout power 8 - should it be "top CARD"?
Community thoughts? Developers' thoughts?
"Top of your location" is fine from what I can tell. No need to have "card" there.
WotR Enora - power 5 - maybe up to discussion - changes the meaining somewhat, if you were allowed to recharge a random spell (including the one just played) after you failed a recharge check for this spell. It could be left as it is, moving to recovery phase seems much too wordyThis one needs to be discussed. I agree that the current updated version is incomplete due to the recovery pile.
I don't see any issue with this one as-written... It happens after you play the spell, so as soon as you finish doing the effects of the spell, you recharge one. And then in recovery, you get the chance to recharge the spell you played.
WotR Kyra - Dawnflower's Flare power 6 - does it really allow you to recharge anything, e.g. Blessing of Lamashtu (bury) or some Banish-to-bless blessings? Other similar powers use "recharge instead of discarding", which is less problematic. Discussion needed! The same for power 8, although Sarenrae's blessings don't get anything else but discarded or recharged anyway :)
I don't understand this suggestion.
This one has always worked this way... It's powerful, but a little bit limited.
WotR Seelah - Inheritor's Blade power 5 - maybe use wording for Core_Seelah "If you would discard a Heavy Armor or Sword boon for this power, recharge it instead"?
Highlighted and added note for discussion by community/developers.
I like this suggestion. Seems like changing it to the language of Core Seelah makes sense.
WotR Seoni - power 5 (7 in Element Master) - "(or ATTACK item)"?
Highlighted with notes for discussion.
Agreed, we need to have "Attack item" spelled out here to make it clear that it doesn't work with just any item.
Just quickly...
RotR Lem - "Once per check," seems redundantI don't know if it is redundant. Without it, someone might argue that Lem might recharge any number of cards to add 1d4 ([]+1)([]+2) for each card recharged. Or is there some rule that we can reference to shut that argument down?
It is redundant, and has been for some time - hence why, for example, every other Bard (or character with similar powers) doesn't mention any explicit limitation of the sort, but certainly could not be used multiple times for one check.
The specific rule is as follows...
If a character power applies when a specific thing happens, you may use it each time that happens; otherwise, you may use each power no more than once per check or step.
EDIT: Ah, I blame forum oddities for not seeing cartmanbeck's post until after I posted, oddly enough. Oh well. Ninja'd (by 3 hours).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
(I should note that I'm only skimming the contents of this thread and replying to things that pop out to me as "I bet people don't know this...". My silence on a topic should not be read as an indication of correctness.)
RotR Sajan - Drunken Master - MUST draw 1 card is redundant, maybe?
I think that the "you must" is there to prevent any question/argument about it being optional.
Since we added the sidebar about active and optional powers, we've been using "must" a lot less. There are places where it's still needed, but this isn't one of them.