I've gone through and moved everything that was marked as a "Basic Change" to a "Final" status. There are also a few items that I didn't implement last time, but subsequent discussion has resulted in those being implemented this time around. Those are now in a "Basic Change" status. Also, there were some powers for which Jenceslav made a recommendation and which I didn't implement, but which I failed to mark for discussion and didn't enter the recommendation/comments into the discussion column - I've fixed all of those (I hope).
Following up on some of the discussion...
[CD Amiri -]
(I originally had this erroneously marked as RotR Amiri)
RotR Ezren - Evoker - Acid OR Cold, Electricity OR Fire
Actually, I agree with the recommendation. However, the "and" wording was there in legacy PACG and wasn't an issue; and it is not a template change. This would need Paizo/Lone Shark approval (I've marked at for the Developers).
S&S Bikendi Otongu - "other than loot" is not needed, we don't have that type anymore
The application of this would be that any boon with the Loot trait wouldn't be included (I think).
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 is an overarching issue of banish vs. return to the vault and power/card hierarchy (see below).
WotR Seelah - Inheritor's Blade power 6 - the second sentence can be "When you acquire a non-Corrupted boon, you may ..." for consistency
Oh, I get it. I've suggested an alternate wording.
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 goes along with the larger issue of banish/return to the vault and power/card hierarchy (see below).
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 ;)
This is one where we really have to figure out the design intent. Your recommendation is based on one (completely valid) interpretation, while mine is based on another (potentially less valid) interpretation. Yours is that the design intent is that the power works only when the spell card says something like "...you may discard this card to..." Mine, meanwhile, is that the power works when Ezren plays the spell and would end up discarding it (so even if it says "...you may banish this card to..." but he would end up discarding it on a failed recovery check, it would apply). So we either need the developers to jump in and give us the design intent, or we need to deduce it from the mechanics of how it worked in Mummy's Mask (without implementing the Core Set rules); and then translate those mechanics into Core Set rules phrasing.
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 :)
This goes along with the larger issue of banish vs. return to the vault and power/card hierarchy (see below).
"Banish" vs. "Return to the vault" and power/card hierarchy
There are a number of character powers where this is the underlying issue, especially in cases where the normal playing of a card would result in it going into a recovery pile. I see two elements:
First is whether or not there is a functional difference between "banish" and "return to the vault." Part of the rulebook's definition for "Banish" is to "Return a card to the vault..." The sticky part of the definition is the second portion: "...if you play it and it has a during recovery power, put it in a recovery pile instead." Does the initial equivalency mean that any power that directs a card to be returned to the vault would result in that card being placed in a recovery pile if it has a during recovery power?
Second is whether or not the golden rule of hierarchy applies. Character powers override other card types (boons being relevant here). So when a character card directs that the card is to be banished/returned to the vault, does that trump whatever play actions are described on the card, precluding the during recovery power?
Ultimately, the issue might only be an issue of the timing of the banish/return to the vault action. Even if such cards are put into a recovery pile, the power precludes the recovery check and directs another action (banish in most cases, though two summoners must bury Attack spells). If the only real change is the timing of the effect, but the same functional effect still happens (without imposing other changes), do we need to change anything? And is this an issue for character powers, or is it something better done as Conversion Guide or FAQ/errata guidance?
Beyond that, "banish the card" takes up less space than "return the card to the vault" (only matters if the two terms are functionally identical).
In the Conversion Guide thread, I was asking about 2 types of powers which are affected by the core rules, but which are not yet addressed by the conversion rules. Perhaps note these on the chart?
1) End-of-turn powers: S&S Seltyiel #5 (already noted), S&S Alahazra #5.
2) Redrawing midturn: S&S Feiya #5, WotR Seoni #4
There may be other affected characters, but I'm not as familiar with the class decks.
This is quite ambitious though. I think I do want to take a deeper look into this later in the week!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only impediment with "functional changes beyond the scope of this project" is that they require Paizo/Lone Shark input/approval. There are multiple instances of such recommendations in the spreadsheet, though. We've actually identified a few of the character powers that are affected in the way you describe, and these are all marked for the Developers to address (pink background). Yes, they're beyond the scope of our authority to resolve, but we can help the developers by identifying them and making suggestions. I'll make sure that all of the ones you've identified are marked appropriately.
This project isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all of identifying issues with the legacy characters, but it does give us a more holistic view of the issues and where they affect multiple characters/roles.
This is quite ambitious though.
Yes, never accept a double dog dare from cartmanbeck. Luckily it's a community effort, so the burden is being shared. ;)
Many have been mentioned, but there's other characters massively impacted by Recovery. For example, S&S Alahazra's "Tempest" role lets her gain the Arcane skill during an encounter in which she plays an Attack card...
...but that means she won't have the Arcane skill (or, by extension with pre-Core characters, proficiency) when Recovery rolls around, forcing her to banish any and all Arcane spells she uses and rather defeating the point of that power feat. Nor is she the only character, I believe, who gains spellcasting ability solely for the duration of an encounter, which is no longer a fully functional template.
As an aside, I'd prefer a WotR Seoni solution where she can draw spells straight from her Recovery pile, as long as they do actually feature a check to recharge (as opposed to bury/banish, etc). Easier to read.
(At this point in time, I don't have the time to more fully go over everything that's already been discussed and recorded, sorry.)
Hello, I just discovered this. I've been doing a similar (much smaller scope) project on my own so I've got Opinions to bring in.
I'll probably eventually look through the majority of the characters, but for now, I'm looking at things tagged discussion.
Now, the list begins!
- ROTR Seoni: Should read "...to recharge an Arcane spell ([]or Arcane item).
- S&S Lini: Should use Brother Tyler Alternative 2. I don't think it functions properly without the "would".
- S&S Oloch: If it didn't originally have "for its power", I don't see why it should be added.
- S&S Seltyiel: Timing-wise, I'm of the thought that this power still works, if slightly differently, so it should be left alone. Whether it should specifically call out Arcane spells (or spells he's proficient with) is another question, and one I think the developers will need to address.
- WotR Adowyn: I would probably make it "When you examine any number of cards from the top of a location, you may recharge a card to examine one additional card." But it's a bit awkward.
- WotR Balazar: Jenceslav's wording works. You could also do "When you would put an Attack spell into your recovery pile, return it to the vault instead." (or "banish it instead"? I'm not sure if that works, given it's two replacement powers working against each other.) Or, possibly, "When you play an Attack spell, you always banish it." I'm not entirely sure if "always" works that way except in the rulebook, though.
- WotR Ekkie: Boy, that's a can of worms. The best way to word it I can come up with, which is still terrible, is: "On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or on which a card you play to determine the skill you're using or the card the check is against is of level 0 ([] or level less than #), add 1d4 ([] 1d6)." I've never seen a card refer to such a card play before, and I think I know why.
- WotR Enora: I don't see a problem with it the way it is. It's a slight functional change, but not significant enough to try to change the wording, IMO.
- WotR Seelah: The wording in Discussion seems correct. However, is this power supposed to refer to cards on which the Corrupted trait has been removed, rather than ones that never had the trait?
- MM Alahazra: It should not be worded as "a location deck". I would say the best way is "...cards of ([] the hourglass or any deck or) any location ([] and put them back in any order)." If you must have a separator after location, though, it should be "stack", not "deck".
- MM Ezren: Starting the power with "[] When you would discard an Arcane spell for its power" doesn't work, as that is not something you ever do. Instead, it should be something along the lines of "[] During recovery, when you would discard an Arcane spell, recharge it ([]or shuffle it into your deck) instead."
- MM Simoun: Like with Balazar, making it "After acting, always banish that weapon" could help, IF "always" works that way outside of the rulebook.
- HV1 Linxia: I would say "When you play a Corrupted or Shield boon, you may heal a card ([]or shuffle a card from a local character's discards into your deck)." ("When you play [a card] for its power" is redundant, as "playing a card" is defined as doing something with a card for its own power.) That "shuffle" could be "heal", but otherwise it would still need to be the same. (The "into your deck" might be redundant with "heal", but I would still want it there for clarity.)
- HV2 Emil: Same thing here, I would leave it as shuffle, or swap "shuffle" for "heal" but otherwise leave it the same.
- HV2 Nyctessa: Same as Linxia, I would go with "When you defeat a monster and would banish it, you may draw it instead ([]then you may heal a card)([]or shuffle a card from a local character's discards into your deck).
- HV2 Zelhara: I would say no, leave Power 6 worded as is. Power 7: "...if they do, heal 1 card ([]or 2 cards). ([]You may instead shuffle that many cards from that character's discards into your deck.)" The period being the only separator might cause some confusion about maybe needing to take the feats in order, but there's precedent, right?
- HCD Korundo: I like "...another Hunter Class Deck cohort."
- RCD Arabundi: I think the timing being "before you reset your hand" works perfectly fine, actually. That's after recovery, so it works exactly the same as it used to.
- SCD Seoni: If we get the green light to convert "When you close your location, you may move" powers to "Closing your location does not prevent you from exploring", the wording for this one would probably be something like: "At the end of your turn, you may bury ([]or recharge) a card to move. ([]When you close your location, you may perform the same action to not be prevented from exploring.)"
- UE Reiko: I think that's the right call, although it can still be condensed to "When you defeat a closing henchman, you may..."
- UW Zova: That seems like the right call; I think "reload into the hourglass discards" is technically correct, but it's somewhat confusing.
- WCD Raheli: I don't see any reason why you can't leave it as "([] If the check invokes the Undead trait, add 1d6 for each item instead of 1d4.)" Actually, the way you've worded it it does make a slight change, in that it makes replacing the d4s with d6s optional (maybe; it's unclear).
- WCD Melindra: Core Merisiel has "When you encounter a card... you may evade it," so this must be a correct phrasing. I would put it as "a Stealth 8+## ([] 5+##) check" though. (Also, this is fine, but would the phrasing "You may succeed at a Stealth 8+## ([] 5+##) check to evade a bane" work?)
- SoPT Mnesoset: I wouldn't remove the word "cards" from "examine the top and bottom cards of your location." Also, I think "When a local character defeats and would banish..." should have an "instead" at the end of the sentence. As for the proficiencies.. I think all the add-on roles will need to say they add to your character's base proficiencies rather than replacing them, but that's for the developers to decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the third (and final, for now) part of my actions/responses to Jenceslav's recommendations. As before, anything that I implemented was deleted, so all you see are those that I disagree with and/or which require further discussion.
All of the powers I implemented in parts 1 and 2 have been changed from "Basic Change" to "Final" unless they created some sort of unresolved discussion, in which case they have been marked as "Discussion" with a yellow background (so only the new stuff is green).
Alch Cogsnap power 5 - isn't "Ranged Alchemical" better-sounding than "Alchemical Ranged"?
Deferring to Vic's statement that in general, traits should be in alphabetical order (the exceptions, I imagine, being when power feats force a different sequence).
Alch Damiel - Mindchemist power 5 - the part "[] or discard" probably needs ANOTHER power after the previous line: "[] When you would discard an Alchemical item for its power, you may recharge it instead." Ugh, so many words
I've added my version (before seeing your recommendation). It definitely needs another set of eyes (or three) to make it better.
Alch Damiel - Mindchemist powers 6&7 - need developers' input; there is nothing wrong with the powers' wording, but: consider Dex combat check - discarding card for power 6 adds Intelligence skill (and TRAIT), so now you can play power 7 to add Dexterity skill as well. It works similarly the other way for Intelligence check > (power 7) Dex+Int check > (power 6) Dex+2×Int check. Powerful like crazy
I've marked Mindchemist power 7 for discussion.
Brb Amiri - her "close then move" conundrum cannot be easily reworded if we change it to "closing does not prevent exploration" variant - two independent triggers, two independent powers (for roles)
Requires developer approval since this is a functional change (which would be a decent sweeping change as a replacement for all character powers that allow movement after closing a location).
Brb Ostrog power 6 - should we leave "open location", as post-Core there are no closed location in play? (Let's not think about using the suggested post-Core wording for playing old scenarios with don't-banish-locations-or-you-may-not-win-at-all); "..., you may move" seems fine
Unless you're using Ostog in a pre-core AP, in which case there will be closed locations in play.
Brd Meliski - Brawler power 6 - should it have the same wording as Gambler power 6 for symmetry? "up to 2 blessings" - also, what if someone else plays a blessing? Should he be allowed to play two blessings anyway for 3 total? Maybe change to "1 blessing may be played freely"; discussion / developers' input needed
The first suggestion looks sound, but I've marked it for discussion (since this is legacy wording that apparently wasn't an issue). As for the second part, that's a question for the developers. It might be that anyone else playing blessings (that aren't played freely) limits it to 1 blessing, but Meliski playing them on his own check allows 2.
Brd Siwar - Courtier power 7 - Bound Imp and other allies with During Recovery power will be put into discards only if the check to not-banish fails and if that counts as "for its power"? Seems OK power-wise for such corner-case scenario, but may cause confusion.
Corner cases are probably issues for independent discussions/questions to the developers (unless the power itself is the source of the problem).
Clr Kyra power 5 - I don't like it to start with "For", the template (see e.g. Brd Lem) is "Add 2 ([] 4) to your Sword combat check and ..."
I recall the designers stating that part of the basic template for powers was to start with the circumstances in which the power is being used. In this case, the "For..." establishes that the power works when the character is making a Sword combat check. If Bard CD Lem has another template, that might be an exception (although there are likely plenty of similar exceptions). This is an issue I'll open for discussion and consensus (and hopefully developer input).
Ftr Tontelizi - Halberdier power 7 - "to the new result" almost sounds as if you reroll and then decide if you will add 1d4; Pathfinder Adventures app uses the same text, but you get the die(dice) before reroll. Suggest: " ...before the reroll, you may add 1d4 (2d4)."
Or we could just replace "new result" with "check" ?
GobBrn Mogmurch power 6 - "while you play or during recovery, gain ..."
We'll need to tweak this a bit because it's limited to Fire spells (marked for Discussion).
GobBrn Mogmurch - Tinderfoot power 8 - do Alchemical and Fire cards add together for this power? That is, 4 Fire cards and 2 Alchemical cards with 5 cards in hand - would it trigger? If so, then "[] AND Alchemical" would be maybe better.
The "or" is carried over from legacy. If it wasn't an issue then, the functionality hasn't changed, and no other rules effects change anything.
GobBrn Poog power 6 - add "reload" to the conditions, keeping in line with the intent. Nom Nom, tasty animal.
I absolutely agree with this one (it seems like a no-brainer), but it needs official approval. I've marked it for the Developers.
GobBrn Zibini - The Great power 7 - "At the end of your turn, you may put a random spell from your ([] or another local character's) discard into your recovery pile." - I don't fully get the meaning of "to your deck", is that there so you cannot recharge to their deck? I suggested a proposed S&S Seltyiel wording for clarity.
I can see possibly shifting the part about another local character around, but why would you change it from recharging it to putting it into your recovery pile? That makes no sense. I *think* the "to your deck" part is to make it clear that the card is going from either your or another local character's discards into your deck (vice someone misinterpreting the power feat to allowing you to recharge another local character's spell from their discards into their deck). If that is, indeed, the intent, and if that remains valid, then the current position of the "another local character" power feat probably makes sense.
GobFght Chuffy power 4 - what about "During your encounter with ..."? While tends to require continuous tense :)
I'll defer to the developers on why they chose the wording, which comes from the legacy version.
Gun Angban - Living Cannon power 9 - "Instead of the first exploration ..."? the way I read it, it replaces normal exploration with examine 2+encounter. In line with the wording for similar effects.
It's not an "instead of the first exploration," though. It is the first exploration. It's just carried out in an exceptional fashion - examing 2 (or 3) cards, encountering 1, and shuffling the others back into the location. All of the "instead of the first encounter" powers that I recall replace the first encounter with some other power, usually healing. Admittedly, I don't have all of them memorized, so there might be some other character power(s) that similarly modify the first encounter while preserving it as an encounter. If such exist, we should look at those as possible models for modifying this one.
Gun Lirianne - Mysterious Stranger power 6 - similar to Barbarian Amiri (when location is closed), but due to move to a RANDOM location at least does something new as a cost (open may be omitted). "may move to a random location; if you do, you may examine the top card of THAT location."
This one, I think, is a bit more complicated than the CD Amiri issue simply due to the random location aspect. However, this one is much less problematic in that if Lirianne moves to a random open location when her location is closed, she may examine the top card. So this one isn't actually useless. It's just slightly less impactful. I've unmarked it (actually, it's marked as "Final" now).
HV Zelhara - Torturer power 7 - "if they do, heal 1 ([] or 2) card(s) ([] from that character's discards)" - again some repositioning to prevent confusion about order of power progression/branching. May use the same wording in other identical powers - i.e. ([] or 2)([] or 1d4+2)
The revision you recommended put the third power feat into a sequence, requiring the second power feat to be taken first, whereas the original power wasn't arranged in that way. I've modified your suggestion a bit.
Hunter Ukuja - Animancer power 8 - I am confused - does he discard (or recharge) only a single card or should it be all cards? "any number" ... "a card". It would be unambiguous if it was "a (single) card from among those you revealed" or "all cards you revealed"
He reveals 1 or more Animal cards, then he discards/recharges 1 of those cards, returning the rest to his hand. This is exactly the same as the legacy wording. It brings up the larger issue of using "1" instead of "a" (since higher quantities always use the Arabic numeral).
Inq Salim - Reluctant Priest power 8 - strange that it checks for blessing AND spell when upgraded. Most powers check for <type_1> OR <type_2>. Maybe ask developers?
I don't see the issue - the power feat makes it more likely that he'll be able to draw a card. I've marked it for the developers, though.
Inq Varril - power 4 similar in effect to the Witch Kasmir, is it any help (or trouble)? That is, if it counts each exploration step ... Use "Before your first exploration, ..." instead? And similarly to Kasmir "After your last exploration on this turn,..."???
I've marked it for discussion.
Magus Talitha - Holy Avenger power 7 - "bless" carries another implication: it makes the check 'blessed' which some banes and maybe boons care about; therefore, "add a die to your ..." should be used
From the Core Set Rulebook: "Bless: Add a die that matches your skill die to a check." Even if we used alternate wording, if the effect is that the power adds a die that matches the skill die, the check counts as 'blessed' (I think).
Mnk Athnul power 4 - "ON your Melee combat check, you ..." see Core_Sajan/Fumbus; "for" is used to determine the skill used
Done. I also got rid of "your" and "skill" for Wisdom (I'm not sure that was appropriate in this case, so I'm pointing it out in case anyone disagrees).
Mnk Athnul - Monk of the Ki Fist power 7 - "examine the TOP card OF your location"
Next is there for a reason. In most instances, Athnul has explored and encountered a monster, and that monster card still counts as the top card of the location. So the power allows her to examine the card beneath it (the "next" card). Even she is encountering a summoned monster, the "next" card is simply the top card.
OA Estra - Spiritual Counselor power 8 - "shuffle a card into ..."
I don't see what this is referring to.
OA Meligaster - power 5 - maybe write "or TO defeat"
I don't know that the "to" is necessary - the sentence structure is simple enough that there's no confusion as it is currently written (see how the "to" has been added to the Consummate Liar role because the power feats add complexity to the point where the "to" is necessary).
OA Meligater - Egotist power 7 - "you may return it to the vault instead, then recharge a new ally." - several allies have During Recovery powers and you are changing e.g. recharge for its power into banish ("instead"), so the recovery should trigger, which we don't want, right?
This one needs to be discussed. I see where you're coming from, but it comes down to whether or not there is a functional and mechanical difference between "banish" and "return to the vault" (i.e., does "return to the vault" ignore the recovery pile?). There probably *is* a functional difference, but I'd like to know that for certain from Paizo/Lone Shark. Regardless, the character power itself might overrule the recovery pile process.
Orac Alahazra - Wandering Prophet power 7 - "you encounter", "they encounter" seems redundant
Perhaps the wording is there to prevent players from trying to "evade" powers from a barrier that some other player encounters?
Orac Grazzle - Bone Diviner power 5 - nested upgrades? Huh. I suggest slightly longer "you may recharge a random card from your discards)([] or recharge 2 random cards from your discards.)"
The legacy version had the power feats nested. I'm not opposed to the change, but I don't see the problem with nested upgrades (if they're not confusing, which I don't think this one is).
PT Celeste - power 7 - "([] or blessing)" - the indefinite article should not be there (I think), as it is after an adjective "new"
I'm neutral on this one. I've marked it for Discussion by the community.
PT Radovan - Pitbound Guardian power 6 - lacks the summoned monster part: "Combat damage ([] or any damage dealt by a summoned monster) you suffer" - we should probably keep "dealt" in here
Added. Also, I rearranged it a bit to preserve the separation of the power feats (so that we don't add any sequential power feat requirements).
UE Reiko - Ninjutus[sic] Master power 7 - (closing henchman being scenario-specified and not necessarily linked to story bane, I think this works) "When you defeat a closing henchman, you may examine all cards in your location before choosing whether to close the location ([] and add 4 to your check to close the location)." The examine part is a little wordy - examine location sounds like 1 card
I left "the location" out (since the only thing you can close is a location, making it redundant, just like we only say "reset" now). I can add "the location" if the community prefers that.
UI Aric - Infiltrator power 8 - "discard a card to guard your location" - in the case of defeat bane / acquire boon closing conditions, your suggested wording is not correct, as it could be construed as a success in defeating / acquiring the cards
If the Updated wording included "at your check" I could see the argument. However, the rulebook makes it clear that you either fail or succeed at your attempt to guard a location, whether it's by performing an action (e.g., banish a card), making a check, defeating/acquiring a card, or whatever. I've marked this one for discussion by the community.
On the next go around, I'll go through foxoftheasterisk's recommendations.
Some broad issues that need to be resolved:
Impact of Recovery on Powers
In addition, I've gone through and marked all of the powers that EmpTyger identified, along with some recommendations for potential fixes. These are the powers that are adversely affected by the addition of recovery (largely having to do with characters' ability to recharge/heal/draw cards from their discards outside of the normal sequence). We've discussed this issue to a degree prior to this, but it might be worthwhile to have the larger philosophical discussion now in order to determine a general way forward.
The summary of the problem is that these powers allowed characters to somehow get cards from their discard pile. With the creation of recovery and the recovery pile, the full pool of cards that would have been in the discard pile previously is now split, with some potentially being in the character's recovery pile. As a result, this degrades the potency of the power, especially since it is very likely that the specific types of cards that most characters would have access to in this way could be in the recovery pile.
I see three basic outcomes:
1. Leave alone (The reduction in the power's potency is negligible, or is desired in order to better balance the character).
2. Change the timing of the power (This is most likely applicable when the power takes place "at the end of your turn" - simply change it to "after recovery" in order to preserve the mechanics and balance).
3. Broaden the pool from just "discards" to "discards and recovery pile" (This works best when the power takes place other than "at the end of your turn").
Admittedly, this is just an initial assessment, and a more thorough analysis might provide better recommendations.
Arcane/Divine Proficiency
Also, do we have a consensus that the recommendations for Arcane/Divine proficiency [when the Arcane/Divine skill is granted temporarily by a power] can be removed? The rationale we see is that the rulebook already states that characters with the Arcane/Divine skill have the corresponding proficiency.
"Banish" vs. "Return to the vault"
The rulebook defines "banish" as returning a card to the vault. However, the definition goes further in identifying how a card that is banished goes into a recovery pile if it has a During Recovery power.
The basic issue comes down to two things:
1. Are "banish" and "return to the vault" the same thing? If a power says to return a card to the vault (instead of telling you to "banish" the card), would the card still go into a recovery pile if it has a During Recovery power?
2. With the basic hierarchy where a character/role card trumps other cards (including boons), would the direction to "banish" a card bypass the During Recovery power, resulting in the card being banished/returned to the vault regardless?
The two characters for which this issue has been identified are Drelm and Simoun, both from the Mummy's Mask AP. Both temporarily get a boon, then banish that boon at the end of the turn. The concern is that some boons of the respective types might have During Recovery powers (and forward compatibility means that even if there are currently no cards with During Recovery powers, it would be prudent to consider the possibility of such cards coming in later APs/decks). The desired end-state is that these powers continue to have the (temporary) boons returned to the vault without the possibility of recovery (assuming that is the developers' intent).
There are three basic outcomes based on the four combinations of answers (given in order of precedence):
A. If the answer to the second question is "Yes" (i.e., "banish" means that the card is returned to the vault without the chance of recovery), then we can keep the "banish" wording on those powers. This can be done even if the answer to the first question is "Yes" since the hierarchy trumps.
B. If the answer to the first question is "No" (i.e., "banish" =/= "return to the vault"), then it would be prudent to change the wording from "banish" to "return to the vault" on those powers. This can be done even if the answer to the second question is "No" since the hierarchy doesn't trump.
C. If the answer to the first question is "Yes" (i.e., "banish" = "return to the vault"), and the answer to the second question is "No" (i.e., character/role powers that say "banish" still allow cards with During Recovery powers to go through recovery), and if the answer to the first question is "Yes" then we need to come up with new wording.
Also note that I've hidden the "Original" columns to make it easier to look at all of the powers without having to scroll laterally. If you want to see them for some reason, feel free to unhide them.
This is obviously a ton of work. Thanks everyone for all your efforts on this.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Clr Kyra power 5 - I don't like it to start with "For", the template (see e.g. Brd Lem) is "Add 2 ([] 4) to your Sword combat check and ..."I recall the designers stating that part of the basic template for powers was to start with the circumstances in which the power is being used. In this case, the "For..." establishes that the power works when the character is making a Sword combat check. If Bard CD Lem has another template, that might be an exception (although there are likely plenty of similar exceptions). This is an issue I'll open for discussion and consensus (and hopefully developer input).
We do generally want the timing up front now. Powers that determine the skill you're using for a check should generally begin with "For" a check. Powers that otherwise affect checks should generally begin with "On" a check.
Today, this one would begin "On your Sword combat check, add..." (The "to it" at the end would no longer be needed.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Or we could just replace "new result" with "check" ?
Ftr Tontelizi - Halberdier power 7 - "to the new result" almost sounds as if you reroll and then decide if you will add 1d4; Pathfinder Adventures app uses the same text, but you get the die(dice) before reroll. Suggest: " ...before the reroll, you may add 1d4 (2d4)."
The reroll rules now have a lot of things built in that we used to have to address in each reroll power. Today, I would make that power "When you reroll dice, you may add 1d4 (□2d4)."
1. Are "banish" and "return to the vault" the same thing? If a power says to return a card to the vault (instead of telling you to "banish" the card), would the card still go into a recovery pile if it has a During Recovery power?
2. With the basic hierarchy where a character/role card trumps other cards (including boons), would the direction to "banish" a card bypass the During Recovery power, resulting in the card being banished/returned to the vault regardless?
It's worth noting that the specific wording for banish in the rulebook is:
Most cards you banish return to the vault, shuffled in with other cards of the same type. However, if you would banish a card you played that has a during recovery power, instead set it aside in a recovery pile.
So the actual act of banishing is returning to the vault - there's just an replacement that occurs when you would banish a card to play it. In theory, this means that if you are told to banish a card by an external source - such as a character card - it would never go into recovery.
(Unfortunately though, this isn't 100%, since it says "a card you played", it could be argued that it applies if the banish power was triggered by playing the card, even if it's not the card's power. Now, if it said "if you would banish a card to play it", that would be 100% foolproof. But, this should still be good enough as long as we're a little bit careful with the wording.)|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...it comes down to whether or not there is a functional and mechanical difference between "banish" and "return to the vault" (i.e., does "return to the vault" ignore the recovery pile?). There probably *is* a functional difference, but I'd like to know that for certain from Paizo/Lone Shark
There is a functional difference. Most obviously, if the card has a During Recovery power, banishing sends it to the recovery pile and return to the vault does not. Also, returning cards to the vault does not trigger effects that happen when you banish cards.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I left "the location" out (since the only thing you can close is a location, making it redundant, just like we only say "reset" now). I can add "the location" if the community prefers that.]Quote]
UE Reiko - Ninjutus[sic] Master power 7 - (closing henchman being scenario-specified and not necessarily linked to story bane, I think this works) "When you defeat a closing henchman, you may examine all cards in your location before choosing whether to close the location ([] and add 4 to your check to close the location)." The examine part is a little wordy - examine location sounds like 1 card
We now prefer "close your location" over "close [a/the] location" (the most notable exception is when the closing might be done by someone other than character the card is addressing).
"Examine a location" with no further specification means you examine all its cards. If we want to limit it to the top card, we say so.
Also, be careful about changing "checks" to "check" in that last clause. A location could easily have more than 1 check to close, and this power is intended to affect them all.
Today, I'd go:
When you defeat a closing henchman, you may examine your location before choosing whether to close it (□ and on your checks to close it, add 4).
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I really appreciate the fact that Vic is in this thread helping clarify things. This is a fantastic community project!!
EDIT: I just had a thought... We should probably mark which characters currently do not have Community-use compatible portraits. I know there aren't a TON of them, but there are definitely some.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Updating the package is on our list of things to do. The list I have is:
Ultimate Combat: Hayato
Ultimate Magic: Enora
Ultimate Equipment: Reiko
Ultimate Intrigue: Aric and the Red Raven
Ultimate Wilderness: Zova
All Core and Curse characters (including Blackjack)
Crimsi, Grenek, Pizazz, and Siathorn
Updating the package is on our list of things to do. The list I have is: ...
Also Unavailable:
Wrath of the Righteous: Arueshalae
Mummy's Mask: Ahmotep, Channa Ti, Drelm, Simoun
Could Be Included If Available:
Skull and Shackles: Bikendi Otongu (Has a bust in the module.)
Season of Plundered Tombs: Mnesoset (Does she have a picture?)
Available Elsewhere:
Hayato, Enora, Reiko, Aric and the Red Raven, and Zova are available in the Pathfinder (1E) Iconics pack.
If/when there's a 2E Iconics pack the Core Set characters should be in there.
Apologies upfront if I havent followed correctly the issues below, and my comments are inadequate:
Quote: GobBrn Poog power 6 - add "reload" to the conditions, keeping in line with the intent. Nom Nom, tasty animal.
I absolutely agree with this one (it seems like a no-brainer), but it needs official approval. I've marked it for the Developers.
Goblin decks all have Owner "pet" Toads, all of which reload onto another character's deck (and that's pre-Core!). So perhaps the intent always was that Poog is a little more considerate with his peeps' pet animals.
Quote: Magus Talitha - Holy Avenger power 7 - "bless" carries another implication: it makes the check 'blessed' which some banes and maybe boons care about; therefore, "add a die to your ..." should be usedFrom the Core Set Rulebook: "Bless: Add a die that matches your skill die to a check." Even if we used alternate wording, if the effect is that the power adds a die that matches the skill die, the check counts as 'blessed' (I think).
This seems like backward logic. ALL "bless" add a die; however, NOT ALL "add a die" powers are a "bless"
Quote: Mnk Athnul - Monk of the Ki Fist power 7 - "examine the TOP card OF your location"
Next is there for a reason. In most instances, Athnul has explored and encountered a monster, and that monster card still counts as the top card of the location."
Under examination rules, all faceup cards are exempt - so this consideration is invalid. I cant think of an instance where examination would make a functional distinction between "top card" and "next card"
Thanks, Vic, for that guidance. It helps a lot.
I've gone through and applied the wordings that Vic posted. Now I'm going through and looking for similar instances to see if the same/similar adjustments need to be made elsewhere.
With the logic that "banish" and "return to the vault" are functionally different, my assumption is that "bless" and "add a die to the check" are also functionally different, so I'll make those changes, too. Similarly, I'm compiling a list where there might be other functional differences between terms (where the second is part of the definition of the first, but doesn't necessarily have the exact same effects as the first).
All of this will be before I get to foxoftheasterisk's recommedations.
Longshot, I'm working off of this passage from the rulebook on page 8 in the RULES: FACEUP CARDS ON LOCATIONS:
...it still counts as the top card of the location for any other purpose...
Admittedly, this section is about cards that are left faceup on the location (such as a number of barriers that are left faceup if they are undefeated; so there may be another passage I've missed about cards that are currently being encountered not counting as the top card. I'll keep looking for it, but if you (or anyone else) can point me in the right direction, that will help.
Longshot, I'm working off of this passage from the rulebook on page 8 in the RULES: FACEUP CARDS ON LOCATIONS:
...it still counts as the top card of the location for any other purpose...Admittedly, this section is about cards that are left faceup on the location (such as a number of barriers that are left faceup if they are undefeated; so there may be another passage I've missed about cards that are currently being encountered not counting as the top card. I'll keep looking for it, but if you (or anyone else) can point me in the right direction, that will help.
Sure :) This is what you're looking for:
"If you are examining a location, when determining which cards you are examining, consider only facedown cards."
So, even if you're told to examine the top card, if the top card(s) are face-up - you disregard them for purposes of examination.
Some more thoughts... hopefully a little more readable this time.
WotR Balazar: On some consideration... I'm not entirely sure that it doesn't work as written. If you're banishing it to an external power, and not to its own play, then it shouldn't trigger recovery, I think.
MM Mavaro: It is perhaps a little odd that he always has Arcane and Divine proficiency, but it makes sense. He is able to gain the skills by displaying a card with them listed to acquire. Previously that would have been sufficient for him to be able to cast and recover spells, so they've just made him able to do that instead of going the other way and making him lose an ability that many players likely used heavily. (I suppose they could have made it so he gained proficiency in Arcane or Divine when he displayed an appropriate card, but that would be super awkward for not much benefit.)
MM Reepazo: I don't know that we should be trying to address issues that already existed in the previous versions of these characters. (Anyway, worst case she can discard them to draw something else.)
MM Simoun: Ignore what I said earlier, this power already works as written.
ACD Damiel: The additional power to recharge discarded Alchemical cards works fine.
I would prefer to make the spell power separate and then on the Mindchemist role add a third power of "[] During recovery, when you would recharge an Alchemical boon or a non-Attack spell, you may shuffle it into your deck instead."
As for the mindchemist combo: Actually, it doesn't even work. When you add a skill to your check, it doesn't add it as a trait. So adding your Intelligence skill to your Dexterity check does not make it an Intelligence check.
CCD Kyra: I haven't found it, but I'm pretty sure there's a template that lets us make Fireflower Power 6 something like "[] When you defeat a monster on your turn with a Sword check, you may discard ([] or recharge) a card to explore."
GB Poog: Whether it was intended or not, Poog doesn't eat the frogs when they hop onto other characters' decks (maybe they just escape?) and that should probably remain the case. So no "reload".
GB Zibini: The role additions to her character powers should both refer to "stack", not "deck".
ICD Varril: The problem with "Before your first exploration..." is it doesn't trigger if you choose not to explore, right? You could probably make it "After your Give step", but that'd be a developer change.
MCD Athnul: I think either of "next card" or "top card" works, but "next card" is slightly clearer?
OA1 Meligaster: This one probably does actually need to be "return to the vault". We can make it "recharge a new ally," though.
OCD Alahazra: Agreed, it can just be "to evade a barrier" in both cases.
OCD Grazzle: I didn't think feats are supposed to nest, but that's how it was originally, so I guess it's fine? And honestly, it's hard to figure out how else to word that, because the power is a full sentence.
PT Celeste: Jenceslav is right, it should either be "([] or blessing)" or "([] or a new blessing)".
PT Radovan: The current wording almost makes it sound like you can reduce any damage from summoned monsters (not just local). I think it's slightly better if you make it "Reduce Fire, Poison, or Ranged Combat damage ([] or damage dealt by a summoned monster) you suffer..."
RCD Arabundi: I'm going to continue to advocate for not changing powers when they still work how they used to, and both in timing and which recharges trigger it, this one does.
SCD Alase: Hmm... could we use "character/check local to Tonbarse"? The rulebook has some precedent to that (in "location distant from the villain".
UI Aric: Hmm, interesting question. I think you're right that it wouldn't count as success at defeating/acquiring a card if that was the location's requirement. However... there is some question as to whether you would be allowed to attempt to guard using the location's requirement, and if you fail at that, then discard a card to guard anyway. I would argue the original text allows that, and the current text doesn't. So I'm in favor of "you may discard a card to guard."
UI Red Raven: Why wouldn't he be able to discard a card to allow himself to reroll? (Except that the use of "she" on the original card implies intent was to not let the power work on himself, but the rest of the wording did allow it.
UM Enora: Another power that mostly works and therefore I'm going to argue for leaving it alone.
WCD Kasmir: She doesn't need to add Divine proficiency against Healing cards; she's already proficient with Healing!
Yeah, but if it's "before your first exploration" that implies the exploration had to exist. We could do "At the start of your first explore step on a turn..." though. It's wordy, but it works.
"At the start of your explore step..." would be enough. RAW there is only one explore step per turn (with multiple explorations potentially). Although that may be misleading for people not carefully reading the rules.
You may never explore outside of your explore step.
Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; each exploration is a separate step.
So... there's a single explore step which contains a number of individual exploration steps? But if that's so, wouldn't that containing explore step make it so you could only use one card of each type to explore again? Which definitely isn't intended. I honestly have no idea how to interpret this.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
RAW there is only one explore step per turn (with multiple explorations potentially). Although that may be misleading for people not carefully reading the rules.
Core added the following rule: "Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; each exploration is a separate step.
I would say "At the start of the first explore step of your turn..."
(Unfortunately, you can't just say "At the start of your first explore step," because that could be misunderstood as "At the start of the first explore step of the game.")
This is really an impressive project. Keep up the effort!
I've looked over the Base Set characters, and compiled some comments below. For those maintaining the spreadsheet, what would be the easiest way for me to supply corrections? Both for specific instances of the below, but also going forward if I have a chance to look over class deck character data? Should I list in-thread, revised version of spreadsheet, corrections column, something else?
[!] Some official FAQ errata are missing.
[!] RotR Lini 3: Weapon Proficiency feat option missing
[!] RotR Sajan Zen Archer 3: Weapon Proficiency missing
[!] WotR Imrijka Cold Iron Warder 7: Change "skill" to "Diplomacy"
[!] WotR Seelah Inheritor’s Blade 5: Last sentence needs clarification added back in that Heavy Armor and Sword are recharged only if discarded to this power.
[!] WotR Seoni Element Master 6/7: Missing “mastered”
[!] WotR Shardra Visionary 6: This should either have have "Local characters gain this power" added back in, or the "you" in the last clause changed somehow.
[!] MM Simoun 4 Lightning Thief: Power should not work on Combat damage.
[!] MM Simoun 4 Bladewind: Change “and Combat” to “or Combat”.
[!] MM Simoun 8 Bladewind: Change “recharge a Knife and Ranged weapon” to “recharge a Knife Ranged weapon”
[!] Change “reload to” to “reload into”. Likewise for “recharge to”.
[!] Change “check by a local character” (and similar) to “local check”.
[!] Change “any type of damage” (and similar) to “any damage”.
[!] Change “the #” to “#”.
[!] Repeat types to prevent ambiguity.
[?] Consider updating word order.
[?] Consider splitting skill and proficiency into 2 sentences, for grammatical agreement.
[?] Consider consistency for introducing optional powers with “you may”.
[?] Suggestion for note on MM Alahazra Seeker 5: “You may recharge a blessing to examine the top 2 (□ or 3) (□ or 4) cards of any location (□ or any deck) and put them back in the same (□ or any) order. You may not use this power during an encounter.”
[!] RotR Lem Virtuoso 5 should have the same note as S&S Alazahra and S&S Seltyiel.
[!] WotR Harsk Abyssal Walker 7: Should get same note as Ranzak Kleptomaniac.
[?] Opinion: Do not change power options to move after closing a location, so long as they are still applicable in some pre-Core Adventure Paths. Already there is precedent that not all character powers are relevant in all Adventure Paths.
[?] WotR Crowe 5: Is this intended to be optional or mandatory?
“When you defeat a monster, you may move or reload the bottom card of your deck, then end your turn.” (especially considering Spellrager’s power to add “or acquire a spell”?)
[?] S&S Lem 8 Freebooter: How does this power work with sequential checks? Also, “the bane” should be deleted since ships are not banes.
“□ When you encounter a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6 to the check to defeat the bane.”
[?] WotR Seelah 5: What’s the timing on the draw? How does this power work with sequential checks?
“You may discard the top card of your deck to add 1d6 (□ +1) to any check by a local character. (□ If they defeat a monster on that check, they may draw a card.)
[?] MM Drelm Vaultkeeper 7: This presumably cannot be given if the check to acquire fails? “□ Add 1d6 to your check to acquire a boon (□ then you may give it to another character) or your check to close a location. (□ You may automatically fulfill the requirements to temporarily close your location.)”
[?] WotR Champions of Mendev: Grants Melee/Ranged/Fortitude/Knowledge/Divine/Arcane until end of turn. Does it also grant proficiency with Divine/Arcane? All 6? Does the proficiency persist into recovery?
...what would be the easiest way for me to supply corrections?
Providing them in a reply here is the best. The pattern of listing "AP/Deck, Name, base character/role, #" works (see Jenceslav's series of feedback posts above).
Right now I'm going through the spreadsheet and applying changes based on Vic's recent replies, using the wordings that he'd use now as well as the latest batch of character sheets (Core Set, Curse of the Crimson Throne, We Be Heroes?) as models. There are quite a few, and I'm bound to miss some, but I'm trying to get as many as possible in order to reduced the number of add-ons that will be identified later (hopefully by me, but more likely by other members ;) ). The sheer number of these changes mean that it's likely that suggestions made in the meantime will be moot as the wording may already change. I've gone through and found powers to reword based on a number of search strings (as well as those explicitly identified by Vic). Now I'm going through one by one to find those that didn't include those wordings that I searched for, but to which the same changes should be applied. I've just begun on the Skull & Shackles characters, but expect to get through all the rest relatively quickly. So I recommend that everyone hold off on recommendations for now. I should have an updated version up for review and recommendations in the next couple of days.
So on Monk CD Athnul, I noticed you changed it to "add Wisdom and the Bludgeoning trait". All the Core characters though use the phrasing "add your [skill]". (The phrasing "you may use [skill]" shows up, but when you're adding it always specifies "your [skill]".) IDK if this shows up anywhere else but I thought I'd point it out, since that's another one that might be in multiple places.
Actually technically the only Core character with this format says "your Fortitude skill" but the Curse characters use "your [skill]".
Yes, there are probably a bunch of places where "...your X skill..." was changed to "...X..." and I'll fix them.
Wizened Explorer Ezren uses "...add your Intelligence."
Seelah uses "...use Divine..."
Hakon uses "...add your Diplomacy."
Quinn uses "...add your Perception."
I'm not using the "for your combat check" powers, but I don't recall any of those including "skill" in the wording and they don't include "your" so they are different from the other instances in how they are templated (e.g., "For your combat check ... use X...").
I've left the "Original" columns visible this time since the changes were so extensive and I need more eyes to ensure that I didn't change the functionality of powers or omit power feat boxes.
This is a very extensive update, as you can see from the number of highlighted cells. The changes were largely based on the feedback that Vic provided and fall into the following categories:
- Rearranging powers so that the timing is up front.
- Banish =/= Return to the vault; Bless =/= Add a die
- Standardization of "add your [Skill] skill" and "use your [Skill]"
- "...a/the location..." > "...your location..."
I wouldn't be surprised if I missed some powers, but I'm confident that y'all will point out any that I missed. ;)
The only exceptions to the rearrangement of powers were those where a power included a complex combination of purposes and/or outcomes (where the same type of card play is used at different times for different reasons). Sometimes the base character version of the power could be rearranged, but the power feats for one or both of the roles became too complicated. In these instances, I left all three in the original format. For example, Alchemist CD Mother Myrtle Preservationist 6:
□ You may recharge a card to add 1d4 (□ 1d6) to a Wisdom (□ or Knowledge) check by a local character (□ or add 2d4 to their check against an Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin card).
The alternative to leaving the powers as they are is to separate them into separate powers (which will require careful work to ensure that we don't change the number of power feats). For example, the above power could be broken down as follows:
□ On a local character's Wisdom (□ or Knowledge) check, you may recharge a card to add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
□ On a local character's check against an Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin card, you may recharge a card to add 2d4.
The problem this creates is that the forced sequence (power against a Wisdom check) is lost. This problem only exists in cases where the current power is initially a power feat (rather than being a base character power).
Now that I think of it, another alternative is to break it down within the same power:
□ On a local character's Wisdom (□ or Knowledge) check, you may recharge a card to add 1d4 (□ 1d6). (□ On a local character's check against an Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin card, you may recharge a card to add 1d4.)
This has its own drawbacks in that players might not make it all the way through such wordy powers. We could actually do both, using the first option when sequencing of power feats isn't a problem (i.e., when a base character power is being expanded) and using the second option when sequencing of power feats matters. I guess that will be part of the next go around. ;)
I think I came up with a solution to the problem of Ekkie's first power:
For your check that has or is against a card that has the Animal or Basic trait (□ or has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario), add 1d4 (□ 1d6) to your check.
On your check that invokes the Animal trait or that has or is against a card whose level is 0 (□ lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
The only problem this creates (I think) is that character and role cards are both level 0, so any check that a character makes will have or be against a level 0 card. The solution there would be an errata that says that character/role cards are not included when determining if a check has or is against a level 0 (or level < #) card.
I took the liberty of implementing the suggested solutions to those powers that were impacted by the addition of recovery. Our purpose is to preserve functionality, so those implementations were in line with that purpose. We can always undo those changes if the powers that be tell us to.
For those powers where a character gains the Arcane or Divine skill, I retained the section about also gaining the corresponding proficiency (see Core Set Harsk Warden role). The wording was adjusted to "...you are proficient with..."
On the issue of banish/return to the vault, my assumption is that recovery only matters if the card is being played for its power. If the "banish" play is from a character's power (e.g., Rise of the Runelords promo Tup):
For your combat check, you may banish a card to use Arcane + 1d8 (□+1) and add the Attack, Fire, and Magic traits. This counts as playing a spell.
So if Tup used the above power to banish a spell (perhaps he has one that isn't as useful in combat), the card would be returned to the vault even if it has a During Recovery power. If this assumption is incorrect, then we'll have to go through and change a lot of "banish" instances to "return to the vault" in order to avoid any unintended (by the developers) recovery attempts.
I may have forgotten the initial power feat box on some of the powers when I was re-wording them, so feel free to point them out if you see any.
My current effort is to go through the other feedback that has been provided and see if any of it still applies (and reword the complicated powers I described above).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
[!] Repeat types to prevent ambiguity. For example: “□ When another character encounters a Cultist monster or Demon monster..."
Traits function as adjectives, not nouns, so "Cultist or Demon monster" isn't ambiguous: there's only one noun that Cultist could modify. There definitely are situations where your advice is good, though.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
With the logic that "banish" and "return to the vault" are functionally different, my assumption is that "bless" and "add a die to the check" are also functionally different, so I'll make those changes, too.Checking on that.
I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be that when a blessing adds a die, it counts as blessing the check.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes the base character version of the power could be rearranged, but the power feats for one or both of the roles became too complicated.
Welcome to my world! Quite a few character powers have unusual wordings because we had to back into them from their role cards.
On your check that invokes the Animal trait or that has or is against a card whose level is 0 (□ lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).The only problem this creates (I think) is that character and role cards are both level 0, so any check that a character makes will have or be against a level 0 card. The solution there would be an errata that says that character/role cards are not included when determining if a check has or is against a level 0 (or level < #) card.
Unless I've missed something, the game doesn't have a definition for checks having cards, so this wording either doesn't work or is entirely up to player interpretation. That seems not ideal.
The "has or is against" terminology has been used in legacy cards.
□ For your that has the Firearm trait, gain the skill Ranged: Dexterity +2 until the end of the encounter.
For your that has the Finesse trait, you gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1.
And we can't forget the legacy wording of the power in question...
For your that has the Animal or Basic trait (□ or has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario), add 1d4 (□ 1d6) to your check.
The previous usage further identified specific traits, and that usage was later simplified to the "invokes" terminology. Nevertheless, the precedent has been set that the "has or is against" terminology is (was?) valid in applying to cards. Since the power in question is about the card's level (vice traits), we can't use the "invokes" terminology because that is specific to traits; so we're stuck with the longer verbiage unless/until some simplified term is decided upon (developer prerogative).
Admittedly, the problem with the "...has...a card whose level is 0..." is that the rulebook has only ever focused on how this works with traits, not the level of the card. I've already identified how this doesn't mesh with the character/role cards (now level 0) in the discussion column of the spreadsheet. In addition, there is the issue of which cards played on a check count for the "has" portion. Since we haven't dealt with this before, the simple (yet unofficial) answer in my mind is that any card that applies its traits to the check (except character/role cards) is counted for the "has or is against" terminology. This aligns with the legacy wording of the power, and largely mirrors "invokes" (which is good for simplicity). We'll need official ruling on that, though.
I would love to see a simplified term (similar to "invokes") for this kind of power, but lacking one, we are left with the clunky "has or is against" phrasing.
We're also lacking the image of Seltyiel that was used on the S&S and Magus CD cards. The iconic Eldritch Knight image is available as part of the Community Use Package, but not the new image (a small version of that image is in one of the blog posts, but that one is not good for larger applications).
There are also a number of logos that are needed: PACG Core Set, Curse of the Crimson Throne (the one used in the PACG AP differs from that which is in the package, which I think derives from the original PFRPG AP), the #2 versions of Hell's Vengeance and Occult Adventures (re-colored from those that are in the package and which were used for the #1 decks), and all of the Ultimate Add-On decks.
And in the spirit of the legacy decks, the deck indicators for the Core Set cards and the Curse of the Crimson Throne cards would also be great additions. And maybe the one for We Be Heroes? would help, too.
The "has or is against" terminology has been used in legacy cards.
□ For your that has the Firearm trait, gain the skill Ranged: Dexterity +2 until the end of the encounter.For your that has the Finesse trait, you gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1.
I've always thought these powers were meant to be parsed like:
□ For your check that has the Firearm trait, gain the skill Ranged: Dexterity +2 until the end of the encounter.
For your check that has the Finesse trait, you gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1.
That is to say, that they're referring not to a check that has a card that has a trait, but to a check that has a trait (or a check that is against a card that has a trait).
Of course, I've only now realized that if that interpretation is correct, then the very power we're looking at is a bit nonsensical:
For your check that has the Animal or Basic trait (□ or has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario), add 1d4 (□ 1d6) to your check.
A check with an adventure deck number? Bull.
Of course, if that is the case, then the wording will end up being easier, since we can just use the same structure (possibly with some tacked on the end to cover the check having the Basic trait.)(Or there's the possibility that my interpretation was correct and whoever wrote this power in the first place goofed.)
We may need Vic's input on this one.
Jenceslav, I'm 100% agreed with you on powers that only involve invoking traits. The problem is that this Ekkie power doesn't; it also involves the adventure deck number of cards, and so we need to be sure exactly which cards it refers to. So if my (and your) interpretation is correct, then this works:
On your check that invokes Animal (□ or is against a card with level lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
But, if Brother Tyler's interpretation is correct, the same power becomes:
On your check that invokes Animal (□ or has or is against a card with level lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
And it only gets worse when we add Basic back in.
If Tyler's interpretation is correct, then his phrasing should work, no problem. It works exactly as it used to.
On your check that invokes the Animal trait or that has or is against a card whose level is 0 (□ lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).If my interpretation is correct, the power should be:
On your check that invokes the Animal trait, that is against a card whose level is 0 (□ lower than #), or on which you play a level 0 card to determine which skill you're using, add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
(The last section needs to be there because such cards would add the "basic" trait previously, and can't simply be included by the "has or is against" construction. It doesn't need the "level lower than #" power to affect it though as cards don't add their level to checks, and as checks can't "have" cards, the old wording of the power didn't affect such cards.)
Or, in the worst case where my interpretation is correct, but this power was originally intended to add the bonus when playing a card of level lower than # anyway (and was always worded incorrectly), it becomes this mess I posted previously:
On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or on which a card you play to determine the skill you're using or the card the check is against is of level 0 ([] or level less than #), add 1d4 ([] 1d6).
Does that make sense? And are we agreed that ONE of these should work - even if we're not sure which one?
However, in your suggestion, there is one "or" missing (plus some styllistical suggestions):
On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or that is against a card with level 0 (□ lower than #), or on which you play a level 0 card to determine the skill you're using, add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
I was about to say you're right but then I looked at the newer characters and...
(□ Then you may recharge a new Arcane Attack spell whose level is 0.)
On your check to recharge an Alchemical item whose level is lower than #...
So... I guess "whose" is correct.
You're right about the "or" though. I think there maybe should also be an "or" before "lower than #".On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or that is against a card whose level is 0 (□ or lower than #), or on which you play a level 0 card to determine the skill you're using, add 1d4 (□ 1d6).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
For your check that has or is against a card that has the Animal or Basic trait (□ or has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario), add 1d4 (□ 1d6) to your check.
That breaks down to these three things:
• For your check that has the Animal or Basic trait, add...
• For your check that is against a card that has the Animal or Basic trait, add...
• For your check that is against a card that has an adventure deck number less than the current scenario, add...
(That assumes the quoted text was what the card said—I can't easily verify at the moment.)
Something I forgot to mention in yesterday's update: any instance of "add an additional" was changed to "add another" (per the template of the Core Set characters).
Here are my actions/responses to foxoftheasterisk's and EmpTyger's recommendations. As before, any suggestions that I implemented were deleted. There were also some suggestions that were no longer relevant after the updates I posted yesterday (often, they were right in line with the changes that I made), and these are also omitted here. All you see are those that require further discussion or that I disagree with (I've provided counterpoints in those cases).
foxoftheasterisk:
WotR Seelah: The wording in Discussion seems correct. However, is this power supposed to refer to cards on which the Corrupted trait has been removed, rather than ones that never had the trait?
If that were the case, I think they would have used the word "Redeemed." So far, no one is opposed to the alternate wording that Jenceslav suggested, nor do I see any reason to not implement that wording (I'm still holding off in case there is anyone waiting to respond).
RCD Arabundi: I think the timing being "before you reset your hand" works perfectly fine, actually. That's after recovery, so it works exactly the same as it used to.
We still need to parse through this one.
MM Reepazo: I don't know that we should be trying to address issues that already existed in the previous versions of these characters. (Anyway, worst case she can discard them to draw something else.)
True enough. This power is marked for the developers, though. If they don't provide a response, the assumption is that the issue won't be addressed.
GB Poog: Whether it was intended or not, Poog doesn't eat the frogs when they hop onto other characters' decks (maybe they just escape?) and that should probably remain the case. So no "reload".
But he eats them when they hop into (recharge) their decks? The more likely reason is that there wasn't a "reload" type of play in legacy rules. Regardless, it's up to the developers for adjudication.
GB Zibini: The role additions to her character powers should both refer to "stack", not "deck".
The word "stack" isn't used in any character powers. It's only used in the rules to describe things (e.g., a characters "discards" is a stack of faceup cards next to their deck). All other instances of similar powers use "deck" for general purposes.
WCD Kasmir: She doesn't need to add Divine proficiency against Healing cards; she's already proficient with Healing!
Yes, he has the Healing proficiency, and that works fine for items. For spells, though, the appropriate proficiency is required. Besides, the inclusion of the proficiency when gaining the skill is part of the basic template.
EmpTyger:
Some official FAQ errata are missing.
Thanks! I've gone through the FAQs and updated all of the powers that I missed, as well as the updated (i.e., Core Set version) of the corresponding rules. These have all been highlighted with notes in the Discussion column for a sanity check.
Change “reload to” to “reload into”. Likewise for “recharge to”.
I used "to" vice "into" to distinguish that reloaded/recharged cards are going to the top/bottom of the deck, rather than into the deck (shuffling). I can see how the "recharge to" and "reload to" verbiage might create some tiny bit of confusion, though the "to the/your deck" verbiage should clear that up. This is a minor stylistic choice, though, so if the consensus (or developer guidance) is that "into" should replace "to" I'll make that change across the board (for reload/recharge).
Repeat types to prevent ambiguity.
Vic already covered why this isn't necessary (and is, in fact, undesirable because it will create word bloat).
Consider splitting skill and proficiency into 2 sentences, for grammatical agreement.
The single sentence structure is used on the official character sheets (see Core Set Harsk Warden role).
Consider consistency for introducing optional powers with “you may”.
Accurate translation from legacy to updated wording is key. If we think that a power should have the "may" verbiage added, we can identify that to the developers (unless there is a preponderance of evidence in the Core Set characters to compel implementing this change). Practically speaking, there are quite a few powers that should have the "may" verbiage added (especially considering areas where you don't necessarily want to blow a bane to smithereens, desiring instead to succeed at the check while getting as close as possible to the requirement, such as in the Mummy's Mask AP).
Suggestion for note on MM Alahazra Seeker 5: “You may recharge a blessing to examine the top 2 (□ or 3) (□ or 4) cards of any location (□ or any deck) and put them back in the same (□ or any) order. You may not use this power during an encounter.”
I used a semicolon to achieve the same effect.
Opinion: Do not change power options to move after closing a location, so long as they are still applicable in some pre-Core Adventure Paths. Already there is precedent that not all character powers are relevant in all Adventure Paths.
The difference, I think, is that characters that have AP-specific powers are designed with that intent in mind, so they are balanced around being better in their AP and less potent in other APs. The issues we're identifying, though, are not AP-specific, so they reduce a character's potency overall. Regardless, this has already been elevated to the developers for their decision and guidance.
WotR Crowe 5: Is this intended to be optional or mandatory?
“When you defeat a monster, you may move or reload the bottom card of your deck, then end your turn.” (especially considering Spellrager’s power to add “or acquire a spell”?)
I'm pretty sure that this is intended to be optional, aligning with his other power to recharge an Attack spell - the combination of the two effectively allowing him to reload an Attack spell. Of course, he could recharge a number of cards and the power would work just as well (staff of healing, etc.).
S&S Lem 8 Freebooter: How does this power work with sequential checks? Also, “the bane” should be deleted since ships are not banes.
“□ When you encounter a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6 to the check to defeat the bane.”
I won't speak to how this works with sequential checks. "Bane" has to stay, though, because there are Pirate boons and the power isn't intended to work against those cards.
WotR Seelah 5: What’s the timing on the draw? How does this power work with sequential checks?
“You may discard the top card of your deck to add 1d6 (□ +1) to any check by a local character. (□ If they defeat a monster on that check, they may draw a card.)
I won't speak to how this works for sequential checks. I'm not sure why there's a question about the timing on the draw. The power is about defeating a monster, not succeeding at a check against a monster. The way I see it, if Seelah discards the top card of her deck to add 1d6 (□ +1) to any check to defeat the monster, the character is entitled to draw a card.
MM Drelm Vaultkeeper 7: This presumably cannot be given if the check to acquire fails? “□ Add 1d6 to your check to acquire a boon (□ then you may give it to another character) or your check to close a location. (□ You may automatically fulfill the requirements to temporarily close your location.)”
My own opinion is that a failed check means that the card is banished, as normal, and is not available to be given to another character (that would be an impossible portion of the power's instruction).
For both of the above questions about sequential checks, the only similar issue I've found is for Radillo in the Wizard Class Deck FAQ (short answer: the played card(s) only affects a single check, but the power doesn't prevent you from playing a card(s) on each check). I don't necessarily know that the answer for Radillo applies in either of these instances, though, so I'll defer to higher authority.
WotR Champions of Mendev: (I know, not a character.) Grants Melee/Ranged/Fortitude/Knowledge/Divine/Arcane until end of turn. Does it also grant proficiency with Divine/Arcane? All 6? Does the proficiency persist into recovery?
I can't answer this question, but for what it's worth, I intend to cover cohorts and other support cards after we're done with characters. My original intent was to focus on the character-based cohorts (e.g., Jinfu, Donahan, Magus Arcana), but other cohorts will be right after that.
In addition, as a result of Vic's response that During Recovery rules are only activated when a card is used for its power (i.e., a character/role power that instructs you to banish a card means that the card doesn't go into the recovery pile - it goes back to the vault), I reverted the wording of applicable powers back to "banish" in order to maintain brevity.
On the issue of the "has or is against" wording (Ekkie), this is an issue that I think needs to be adjudicated by the developers. All of our solutions are imperfect in their own ways, and all really require some (small?) adjustments to the rules for final implementation.