Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

D'oh! I thought the suggestion was about the first instance of "bane." I agree, we can remove the last "the bane" portion.

Presumably you're talking about WotR Seelah. Your argument isn't making sense to me, though. The wording doesn't say "defeat[ed] the check." It says "defeat a monster on the check," and that wording is carried over from legacy. The reason it says that is because the base power allows Seelah to add the d6 to a local check, but the ability to draw a card is only activated if they defeat a monster - a local check isn't necessarily to defeat a monster. That was part of the original power, so it's not within our remit to remove. As for the last part, the "top card" portion makes it clear (hopefully) that it refers to the top card that Seelah discarded to activate the base power. At least, that's the logic that I think that the developers followed when they worded the power in the first place. Was there any confusion about how the legacy power was worded? We could probably look through the forums here and at the BGG to see if the sequencing of the power created any confusion. If there was any previous confusion, or if there is a consensus that the sequencing is confusing, we can explore rewording things [as long as we're not changing the functionality].

The solution that you and foxoftheasterisk hammered out assumed that the Basic trait > level 0 portion of "has or is against" (invokes) only applies to cards that determine the skill that is being used. It ignores other cards that might be played on a check that would contribute their traits (there are a number of boons that, when played on a check, add their traits). It also ignores level 0 monsters, which would invoke the Basic trait (in legacy parlance). As I stated, though, this is an issue that really requires the developers to weigh in on. Revising the wording to translate "invokes the Basic trait" into Core Set language would create a lengthy power, and I'm fairly certain that the developers can craft a solution that will simplify things considerably.

My current thinking on translating "has or is against/invokes the Basic trait" into Core Set terminology might be as simple as expanding the definition of "invokes." The current definition for invoking traits is sufficient, but it could be expanded to including invoking a level (0 for Basic, 1-3 for Elite). It could be as simple as saying something like:

Quote:
A check invokes a level if it has or is against a card that has that level. A card invokes a level if it has that level and it determines the skill being used for the check. Character and role cards never invoke a level.

Or something like that (even if that is close, I'm sure it could be word-smithed for accuracy and clarity).

Something like that would enable powers to be worded much more succinctly (just as the creation of "invokes" allowed traits to be covered more succinctly). It would also build towards forward compatibility, allowing the concept to be applied to future powers and rules. From a rulebook presentation perspective, there is easily space on page 9 to add such wording to the callout box for RULES: INVOKES.

Another alternative is for Ekkie's power to be revamped, changing its functionality in the interest of better meshing with Core Set rules wording. This, though, is a decision that would have to be made by the developers (and the resulting power would have to be developed by them, too).


Yes, I was talking about that version of Seelah (and did not check how you rewritten it, sorry for that - this might have led to the misunderstanding about "the last part" and your comments on the "top card" I never intended to discuss).

WotR Seelah 5 wrote:

You may discard the top card of your deck to add 1d6 (□ +1) to any check by a character at your location. (□ If that character defeats a monster on that check, he may draw a card.)

=>
On any local check, you may discard the top card of your deck to add 1d6 (□ +1). (□ If they defeat a monster on that check, they may draw a card.)

The intent of the "defeat a monster on that check" is unclear to me, as monsters are defeated multiple steps after the check itself (not counting successive checks). And I've just read through the WotR rules - the only thing that comes close is "If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it." It is check to defeat, but you do not defeat a monster on that check.

The question is if the intent was "after the monster is defeated and you used this power to at least one check to defeat" or "if you succeeded at one check to defeat against a monster using this power". That's the essence of it.

Ad Ekkie - do you know of any card that specifically adds the Basic trait to a check with its power (like e.g. the old Magic Weapon adds Magic trait)? I don't know any and it seems like a very strange and useless thing. So in general the "invokes Basic trait" part reduces to "check against a card that has Basic trait (level = 0)" or "check where you used a card with a Basic trait to determine the skill you are using" - as the latter is the only way how a played card automatically applies its traits to a check.
There are some cards I believe that add traits from a generic boon into a check (e.g. OA Mavarro's power), but are these anywhere else than on character cards? Even if they were, the possible interaction leading to Basic trait being added is so corner-case that we might just ignore it.
Huh, I did not consider Basic monsters at all, but they fall under "card with level 0" - as we are told to replace "Basic" with level 0. Let's ignore Veterans now and Basic banes from AD1 (e.g. S&S), because this is what Conversion guide tells us to do.
In the end, I do not see any problem or "missed part" in our suggested wording.


Another batch of green-coloured class decks:

A few suggestions wrote:

Updated Mag Talitha 6 - do not force the positioning timing/conditions to the front everytime; In this case the powers are ~ separated and don't support each other, so split is fine. "On YOUR CHECK, you may recharge a buried blessing to reroll ([] or reroll 1 die)." "[] On your check to recharge a spell, you may recharge a buried blessing to succeed."

OA1 Estra Tetherer 8 - "ANY damage a local ..."
OA1 Meligaster Egotist 7 - "from the vault" is redundant after "new ally". Just curiosity - why did you change the position of "instead" - it works both ways IMHO?
OA1 Meligaster Egotist 8 - ", add 2 (4),..." as there was no mention of "you may" in the original power regarding the bonus; and is in line with other power that add dice/static bonus. See Core_Harsk
OA1 Rivani 4 - "When you attempt a Perception or ..." - For is reserved for "determine the skill you are using" and this would mean that on Ranged checks, you may not use weapon!
OA1 Rivani 5 - I am strongly against splitting. You have upgrades to the cost and to the effects, so splitting it increases the number of power feat boxes and destroys original sequence of upgrades. Leave the original
OA1 Rivani Psychic Duelist 7 - "if you succeed at the check" may be, I think, shortened to "if you succeed"
OA2 Mavarro Hoarder 6 - "when you acquire a favored card, draw ..."; per Vic's clarification, you may also leave banish here instead of "return to the vault".
PT Radovan Pitbound Guardian 6 - "([] or damage by a summoned bane)" for consistency with wording of power 4
PT Radovan Sczarni King 7 - the question of the sequential checks again: do you bury to add only to one check (when a local character encounters, ...) or is the intent that on each check you may bury a card to get the bonus (i.e. potentially as many buried cards as the number of checks)? If the latter (and there is essentially no gain in power of this power compared to the former), "On a local check to acquire weapon or ..., you may bury ... to add 1d6." - it looks cleaner, doesn't it?
UC Hayato Ronin 8 - "On your check, " is also possible; for consistency, similar wording should be for Yojimbo 6
UE Reiko Ninjutsu Master 6 & UI Red Raven 5 - "invokes the XYZ trait" should be "invokes XYZ"
UI Red Raven Masked Avenger 7 - lacks a power feat box in "([] or recharge)"
UM Enora 5 - lacks a quite significant word "another", with the proposed wording you can recharge the spell you just played, but you should not. Expansion of the White Mage power 5 for other players' recovery pile is unwarranted and should be just "from their discards)." - I would also mark this as a Developers' input needed just because of the inclusion of recovery pile in base power.
UW Zova 4 - this needs timing resolved due to imprecision about banish & go to recovery pile - Golden rule says "cards trump rules" and we have two replacement effects. One: Banish & the card has During Recovery => into the recovery pile. Two: Banish Animal spell => recharge. Does Zova recharge it right after playing it or after going to the recovery phase and seeing "Oh, I'm not proficient - banished you are!"? I'm leaning toward the latter and would recommend "When you would banish an Animal spell during recovery ([] or discard an Animal ally for its power), ..."
UW Zova Weretouched 7 - you might remove "the" and "trait" to get "invokes Animal or Lycanthrope", but it might as well stay as it is to prevent confusion
side comment for Zova's Elemental Shifter 8 - one of the goblins in We Be Heroes? (Siathorn Treemugger) has an interesting solution how to get rid of multiple "or" in upgraded power - puts it in front of the list. Might be useful for RotR Ezren Evoker 7: "On your ([] Acid, Cold or)([] Electricity, Fire or) Force Arcane check, add 2."

If I have time, I will start going through the AP characters again.


Brother Tyler about Zibini wrote:
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.

Perhaps true, but with Core one of the changes made is that "deck" now refers only to character decks. So not just Zibini but any power that refers to multiple types of decks should now refer to stacks instead.

Brother Tyler on Kasmir wrote:
Yes, he has the Healing proficiency, and that works fine for items. For spells, though, the appropriate proficiency is required.

No? Spells also use the wording "if proficient", and you're proficient with a card if you're proficient with any of its traits. So, he's proficient with Healing spells.

Brother Tyler on Kasmir, again wrote:
Besides, the inclusion of the proficiency when gaining the skill is part of the basic template.

Yeah, but having an FAQ entry in the conversion guide overrides that, I should think.

Brother Tyler on reload/recharge wrote:
...if the consensus (or developer guidance) is that "into" should replace "to" I'll make that change across the board (for reload/recharge).

I believe all Core-era powers that do this use "reload/recharge into".

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

foxoftheasterisk wrote:
Brother Tyler about Zibini wrote:
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.

Perhaps true, but with Core one of the changes made is that "deck" now refers only to character decks. So not just Zibini but any power that refers to multiple types of decks should now refer to stacks instead.

Not true. When the game refers to a deck, with no other descriptors, it's a character deck, but there are still many many instances of other types of decks being referred to, such as "siege deck" and "scenario deck" and others.


cartmanbeck wrote:
foxoftheasterisk wrote:
Brother Tyler about Zibini wrote:
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.

Perhaps true, but with Core one of the changes made is that "deck" now refers only to character decks. So not just Zibini but any power that refers to multiple types of decks should now refer to stacks instead.

Not true. When the game refers to a deck, with no other descriptors, it's a character deck, but there are still many many instances of other types of decks being referred to, such as "siege deck" and "scenario deck" and others.

Oh? My mistake. The point still stands though, that "deck" by itself refers specifically to character decks, and should not be used to refer to the more general category of stacks.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

Any recommended changes that were implemented aren't commented upon.

Jenceslav

Quote:
OA1 Rivani 4 - "When you attempt a Perception or ..." - For is reserved for "determine the skill you are using" and this would mean that on Ranged checks, you may not use weapon!

Your conclusion doesn't align with the wording of the power or the rules. Rivani would have to use a weapon with the Ranged trait in order to make the combat check a Ranged check in the first place, setting up the timing of the power. Her character power, though, would allow her to use her Knowledge skill (as a result, adding the Intelligence and Knowledge traits to the check) instead of Ranged. Some Ranged checks can be non-combat, though (e.g., usually checks to acquire Ranged weapons, but there are a few other Ranged boons out there).

Is the legacy > Core translation inaccurate?

Quote:
OA1 Rivani 5 - I am strongly against splitting. You have upgrades to the cost and to the effects, so splitting it increases the number of power feat boxes and destroys original sequence of upgrades. Leave the original

I agree with this. This one can't be split without screwing up the sequencing.

Quote:
PT Radovan Pitbound Guardian 6 - "([] or damage by a summoned bane)" for consistency with wording of power 4

Actually, I found other Core characters that used "from" instead of "by" in their wording, so I modified your suggestion a bit.

Quote:
UC Hayato Ronin 8 - "On your check, " is also possible; for consistency, similar wording should be for Yojimbo 6

I think you were suggesting rewording Hayato Ronin 8 to mirror Hayato Yojimbo 6. I reversed that for a similar effect (I think).

Quote:
UW Zova 4 - this needs timing resolved due to imprecision about banish & go to recovery pile - Golden rule says "cards trump rules" and we have two replacement effects. One: Banish & the card has During Recovery => into the recovery pile. Two: Banish Animal spell => recharge. Does Zova recharge it right after playing it or after going to the recovery phase and seeing "Oh, I'm not proficient - banished you are!"? I'm leaning toward the latter and would recommend "When you would banish an Animal spell during recovery ([] or discard an Animal ally for its power), ..."

Using S&S Damiel as an example, the power might be changed to:

Zova wrote:
During Recovery, you may recharge Animal spells (□ and when you would discard an Animal ally for its power, you may instead recharge it).

This might require developer approval, though, since it's not a straight translation of the legacy wording. Now that I think of it, there might be a few other character powers that might be similarly reworded.

foxoftheasterisk

The rulebook still refers to them as "location decks" in multiple places. Besides, "deck" isn't used by itself. Both powers in question are worded in a way that "deck" might mean a location deck (if the corresponding feat box is checked) - you (The Great) shuffle any non-villain cards you examined into another deck of the same type (a character deck or a location deck, whichever was examined), or (And Gobbly) shuffle that deck (meaning the [character] deck or the location that was examined). There's no precedent for using "stacks" or "piles" in the wording of powers. Without that precedent, we won't use "stacks" or "piles" without guidance from higher authority. The alternative I can think of is to say something along the lines of:

The Great wrote:
When a local (□ or any) character discards any number of cards as damage, you may examine the top card (□ or 2 cards) of their deck (□ or location) (□ and you may shuffle any non-villain cards you examined into another deck or location, whichever type was examined).
And Gobbly wrote:
When a local (□ or any) character discards any number of cards as damage, you may examine the top card of their deck (□ or location). (□ Then you may shuffle that deck or location, whichever was examined.)

Both of those look clumsy to me, so they can definitely be refined (assuming we don't get guidance to change "deck" to "stack" or similar).

As for Kasmir and the Divine proficiency, it simply becomes superfluous since he already has the Healing proficiency, but remains consistent with the established template. Again, refer to Core Set Harsk for the example. Admittedly, this is a power that doesn't need the Divine proficiency added in order to retain its legacy functionality, but the added proficiency doesn't change anything (i.e., it doesn't further enhance Kasmir). If there's developer guidance to omit the proficiency portion, I don't see the harm. It doesn't harm us to retain it, either.

None of the characters post-Core Set (Core Set, Curse of the Crimson Throne, We Be Heroes?) say "reload/recharge into" (none of the powers is worded in a way that they need to, though). Are there any boons that use the recharge/reload verbiage when the card goes somewhere other than the character's deck? If we can find some precedent, we'll follow that. If we can't find a precedent, we can go by consensus/higher authority guidance. I'll start going through Core Set and Curse of the Crimson Throne cards, but if anyone can find any before me, that would help us figure out which way to go on this.


Reload / recharge into - focus on magical weapons and Symbol of <XYZ> barriers. Maybe some spells do that as well. Definitely some monsters get reloaded when you don't defeat them.

Ad Kasmir - well, if it is not needed for that function, then it might be omitted to conserve space, even though it deviates from other templates.
NOTE: There seems to be a lot more of Healing Arcane spells now, which Kasmir cannot recharge easily with only Divine sklil added (he only discards them, as he is proficient) and that should stay as it is.

Hayato - I am OK with any of the two versions being used, as long as they are consistent in both mirrored powers. :)

Rivani 4 - I get the intent, but as Vic said in the discussion about Quinn, "for" at the start of the power strongly suggests that it will be the "power to determine the sklil you are using". Apart from Quinn, also one goblin features this weird thing "For …, you may use XYZ instead of YXZ" that does not follow template given in the rulebook.
See Vic's comment here

Rulebook, p. 11 wrote:
Other powers allow you to use one skill instead of another. These powers say things like “when you attempt a Perception check, you may use Knowledge” or “use Strength instead of Diplomacy.”


CoCT barrier 1 Concealed Hatch
CoCT weapon 0 Bolas, Scythe
CoCT spell 0 Sanctuary

Core barriers 2 - Invisible Wall, Guardian Door, 3 - Summoning Trap, Wyvern Blade Trap

all reload into a location


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Copy all on the reload/recharge into verbiage on the cards. I'll go through and make all of those changes.

If I'm understanding your suggestion on Rivani correctly, you're talking about the "on/for" difference. Looking at a number of other characters, there are also similar powers that use "when" phrasing. I'm going to go through and mark all of these. There may be some slight differences, so if we can determine what category each falls into, we can then implement consistent wording.


It took me some time to go through RotR and S&S characters, but here are my subjective suggestions for these characters.
Ad "Invoke XYZ" vs. "Invoke the XYZ trait" below - Core sheets are inconsistent; cf. Fumbus, Quinn, Varian (lack "the ... trait") and Harsk, Lini, ... ("the ... trait")

RotR wrote:

Amiri Juggernaut 6 - it can be shortened to "([] or any)"

Lem Virtuoso 4 - maybe "On ([] your) or another local character's..."?
Lem 5 - I am somewhat OK with this proposed change, but flag it for developers' approval, please. Fortunately, he has both Divine + Arcane; if he had only one, it may allow playing one that would be banished and then exchanging it for the one that he might be able to recharge. !! S&S Feyia, WotR Enora, UM Enora HAVE that problem !! So we should add something like "or, if proficient (with the spell), from your recovery pile." in these three cases. Also, what about Charm Person and other spells to be buried during recovery?
Lini 2 - lacks power box before Weapon proficiency for base character + both roles!
Lini Wild Warden 7 - I propose rearranging so that the Divine "condition" is in front: "When playing or recharging a DIVINE spell, add 2 ([] 4) to THE check."?
Merisiel Acrobat 6 - "your location" vs. Thief's "a location"; make them the same, please; Also, Thief has the barrier mentioned, which she should not have in that role
note on Merisiel Thief 9 - this power is even less useful post-Core than before (and that is really something), with most involved cards requiring proficiency before recharge check. I do not propose to change it.
Seoni 5 - it was a suggestion to prevent potential confusion; most items now have check-to-recharge only if proficient - and Seoni is proficient only with Arcane, so any misunderstanding does not broaden her power anyway; also - Core Seoni has it spelled out
Seoni Abyssal Sorcerer 6 - "suffer ([] Acid, Cold or) Fire damage" - it also has the benefit of being alphabetical :-D
Tup Bale-Flame of Naughtiness 7 - "invokes Fire"; "another" is redundant, as there is nothing added before this 1d8
Tup BFoN 9 - it might be construed as similar situation to Lem, Enora&Enora and Feyia with the recovery pile; if you suggested that, then you really must add something about the fact that the "any character" must be proficient with that Fire card. Which, on the first (and second, and third) reading would seem non-sensical in here.
(note) S&S Alahazra solution to this might be the best option to prevent shenanigans or add proficiency requirements. That is, exchange "at the end of your turn" with "after recovery"; however, that option has another unitentional consequence - if it were "at EoT", effects that end your turn prevent you from using such power, but recovery is NOT affected by this and you could use these powers. Needs more discussion!
Valeros Weapon Master 6 - "instead of" instead of "in place of" (pun intended)

S&S wrote:

Alahazra 5 (Stargazer 7) - discussion needed (see above)

Alahazra Tempest 8 - There are some problems with the proficiency, so I suggest deleting the whole proficiency part and adding "You are proficient with Attack spells" (something we can do now, see Core_Sajan with "Ranged weapon"). Reason? To prevent recharging of Arcane ITEMS and non-Attack spells during recovery. That leads to another thing - is there another character that gains temporary proficiency in something? The way it is written now, during an encounter in which Alahazra cast an Arcane attack spell she may use hypothetical item that has Arcane trait and power "If proficient, banish to add 3d12" or advanced power of RotR Wand of Enervation - and that is not the intent. Proficiency with Attack spells seems to solve these problems without creating other. What do you think?
Bikendi Otongu 8 - it would be better to have "or if your character would die" - RAW it implies you die first (discard > bury) and then you cannot "revive"
Damiel 2 - mechanically, there seems to be no reason for him to have Alchemical proficiency (auto-recharge of Alchemical boons without check is better than having to pass checks); thematically, of course he should have Alchemical; to more closely correspond to his original powers, I would prefer "non-Attack Spell" as his proficiency instead of Spells (as I discussed when the conversion was first shown)
Damiel Grenadier 4 - part of the power is missing. "the ([] Acid, Cold, Electricity, Mental,) Poison or Fire trait"
Damiel 7 - (minor suggestion) some reordering might be possible; Grenadier: "an Alchemical, ([] Firearm,) or Liquid boon"; Chirurgeon: "an Alchemical, ([] Healing,) ([] Fire, Poison) or Liquid boon; the indefinite article really throws things askew, otherwise I would put it in front
Feiya 5 - allows for returning Divine spells from recovery! "or, if proficient with that spell, from your recovery pile." + still does not prevent drawing Charm Person/Animal! In Charm Animal's case, it is a possibly infinite loop that ends only if Feiya draws all Animals in the vault. Better leave out the recovery pile...
Jirelle 4 - "invokes Finesse" is enough
Jirelle 5 - "On your check that has the Swashbuckling trait ([] or a check to defeat a ship), you may"
Jirelle Duelist 7 - discussion needed for multiple-check monsters. Adelita Doloruso FAQ leads me to suggest: "... your turn, and any check to defeat invoked Swashbuckling, ..."
Jirelle 10 - "On your check, after the roll, if any die rolled is an 8 or higher, add 1d4." ~ Core Lem
Lem 4 - "On A local check", similarly in Lini Aquamancer 9 "to A local"
Lem 6 - "invokes Finesse" (or "invokes THE Finesse trait" :) )
Lem Freebooter 7 - "invokes Firearm"
Lem Freebooter 8 - one check? all checks to defeat the bane? I suggest "On any check to defeat a Task ...; for each ally recharged, add 1d6" as it is probably what was intended and does not increase Lem in power. Flag for developer's approval, please.
Lini 5 - based on Core Lini, the original order is acceptable - and "for" implies bad things, i.e. determine the skill you are using.
Lini Aquamancer 7 - "ElEctricity"
Lini Aquamancer 8 - "On A local combat check against an Aquatic card ([] or a ship), ..."
Merisiel 6 - "invokes Finesse"
Merisiel Sumggler 4 - maybe shorten to "encounter ([] and if you encountered a Pirate or Swashbuckling card, ..."
Oloch 4 - "On another character's check, ..."
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 7 - definitely not "guard"; also, why not "draw a new plunder card"? :)
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 9 - why not? "draw a new plunder card"
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 10 - "YOU MAY discard ...", also add it to Wrecker 7 "you may recharge" (there could be other instances where I did not notice this)
Seltyiel 4 - "On your combat check, you may choose"; "WHEN YOU play one, you MAY recharge the other" - the way you wrote it sounded like it is a mandatory action, which it is not. "You may play one and recharge" is also OK, I think
Seltyiel 5 - the FAQ changed it so that the power happened only once per turn, which is covered now; I prefer "At the end of your turn" as it is stopped when a bane tells Seltyiel to end his turn (thematical); he should be able to attempt this for a "spell you are proficient with". I am still not convinced that the "may attempt to recharge" is precise enough.
Seltyiel Marauder 9 - "recharge the blessing instead of discarding it"? It doesn't seem right for Bury-type spells like Lamashtu, Geryon and Asmodeus (available at that time)
Seltyiel Spellblade 9 could be considered as another case "draw a spell from discards & recovery pile" - I am strongly against this, but pointing that out anyway.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
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.

The Transition Guide in the rulebook says '“Location decks” are just locations, and the “blessings deck” is the hourglass, so deck now refers only to character decks.'

Groupings of cards are now either stacks or piles. So what's the difference between those two?

The Dealing With Cards sidebar on page 8 says "When you draw a card from a facedown stack, such as a character’s deck, a location, the hourglass, or any other stack the game tells you to create, draw from the top of the stack. When you draw a card from a faceup pile, such as your discards, the hourglass discards, or any other pile the game tells you to create, draw a card of your choice." On that same page, the last paragraph of Playing Cards says "Don’t shuffle any stack of cards unless you’re instructed to."

So we use the term "stack" for a grouping of cards that's kept facedown (and in a generally immutable order), and we use the term "pile" when we want that grouping to be faceup (and in which order doesn't generally matter).

(Although we appear to have messed that up with the siege pile—it's really a stack.)

The powers on Zibini you're talking about need a collective term that applies to both decks and locations. They're both stacks, so that change would be appropriate.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
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).

We do use "into" for both, but only when it's going somewhere other than your deck.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
Consider consistency for introducing optional powers with “you may”. (Especially where inconsistent across the same character, for example, S&S Valeros Corsair 9 vs S&S Valeros Tactician 6)
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).

We did a deep dive on character power optionality when adding the Active and Optional Powers sidebar, and issued FAQ entries for everything we felt needed adjustment. Anything that still doesn't say "you may" should not have it added.


Vic Wertz wrote:
We did a deep dive on character power optionality when adding the Active and Optional Powers sidebar, and issued FAQ entries for everything we felt needed adjustment. Anything that still doesn't say "you may" should not have it added.

Thank you for clarification, Vic - I have one question to that: was there FAQ made for promo characters, specifically Ranzak?

Ranzak Kleptomaniac wrote:
□ Discard a card from the blessings deck to explore your location.

If this one did not have "you may", then he has to do it if there cards in his location, right? Probably not something anyone would ever pick.

Ranzak Wrecker wrote:
□ Recharge a card to add 2d4 to your check to defeat a barrier or a henchman, then discard the top 1d4 cards from your deck.

Similarly, this power forces him to recharge a card and discard cards from his deck every time he makes a check against a barrier or henchman.

Both powers have the template: "do something to get some bonus", and if this were MtG, they would be written as activated power, i.e.:
Do something:get some bonus
(which doesn't have to be activated).
So are we safe to assume that both these powers should be "you may" and Ranzak doesn't fail the scenario for the entire party if there is a bane in his location that gets always shuffled in - or doesn't kill himself by running into several barriers and/or henchmen in sequence? Zombie Nest says hello!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Erm... I take it back—I located a to-do list that hasn't been done yet. There are a bunch of these that still need "you may" added via FAQ.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

Any recommended changes that were implemented aren't commented upon.

Quote:
Lem Virtuoso 4 - maybe "On ([] your) or another local character's..."?

I've marked this for discussion so that we can standardize similar powers by consensus.

Quote:
Lini Wild Warden 7 - I propose rearranging so that the Divine "condition" is in front: "When playing or recharging a DIVINE spell, add 2 ([] 4) to THE check."?

Are there any places where changing it from "your" to "the" check would take place?

Quote:
Merisiel Thief 9 - this power is even less useful post-Core than before (and that is really something), with most involved cards requiring proficiency before recharge check. I do not propose to change it.

I had to reformat it, though. ;)

Quote:

Tup BFoN 9 - it might be construed as similar situation to Lem, Enora&Enora and Feyia with the recovery pile; if you suggested that, then you really must add something about the fact that the "any character" must be proficient with that Fire card. Which, on the first (and second, and third) reading would seem non-sensical in here.

(note) S&S Alahazra solution to this might be the best option to prevent shenanigans or add proficiency requirements. That is, exchange "at the end of your turn" with "after recovery"; however, that option has another unitentional consequence - if it were "at EoT", effects that end your turn prevent you from using such power, but recovery is NOT affected by this and you could use these powers. Needs more discussion!

The most accurate (to the legacy wording) is to change "At the end of your turn" to "After recovery" wording.

Quote:
Alahazra Tempest 8 - There are some problems with the proficiency, so I suggest deleting the whole proficiency part and adding "You are proficient with Attack spells" (something we can do now, see Core_Sajan with "Ranged weapon"). Reason? To prevent recharging of Arcane ITEMS and non-Attack spells during recovery. That leads to another thing - is there another character that gains temporary proficiency in something? The way it is written now, during an encounter in which Alahazra cast an Arcane attack spell she may use hypothetical item that has Arcane trait and power "If proficient, banish to add 3d12" or advanced power of RotR Wand of Enervation - and that is not the intent. Proficiency with Attack spells seems to solve these problems without creating other. What do you think?

That would remove the Charisma +2 portion. If anything, we need to discuss the power to figure out the most accurate (and rules-compliant) wording.

Quote:
Damiel 7 - (minor suggestion) some reordering might be possible; Chirurgeon: "an Alchemical, ([] Healing,) ([] Fire, Poison) or Liquid boon; the indefinite article really throws things askew, otherwise I would put it in front

The addition of the comma after Alchemical throws the wording off if no power feats are taken.

Quote:
Feiya 5 - allows for returning Divine spells from recovery! "or, if proficient with that spell, from your recovery pile." + still does not prevent drawing Charm Person/Animal! In Charm Animal's case, it is a possibly infinite loop that ends only if Feiya draws all Animals in the vault. Better leave out the recovery pile...

I've marked this one for discussion.

Quote:
Jirelle Duelist 7 - discussion needed for multiple-check monsters. Adelita Doloruso FAQ leads me to suggest: "... your turn, and any check to defeat invoked Swashbuckling, ..."

I've marked this one for discussion.

Quote:
Lem Freebooter 8 - one check? all checks to defeat the bane? I suggest "On any check to defeat a Task ...; for each ally recharged, add 1d6" as it is probably what was intended and does not increase Lem in power. Flag for developer's approval, please.

I'm not sure on this one. There are some cards of the type covered by the power that have multiple checks, allowing other characters to potentially make one of the checks. The key to the timing here is when "you" (Lem) encounter the card. He can can recharge any number of allies to add 1d6 per for any check (recharged allies only count for one check, though). I've marked this for discussion as there might be ways to reword it without changing the functionality.

Quote:
Lini 5 - based on Core Lini, the original order is acceptable - and "for" implies bad things, i.e. determine the skill you are using.

"For your X check" definitely means to determine the skill you are using. "For your X die" doesn't mean the same thing. Granted, I don't know that the current wording is "good," but we don't know that it's bad, either. What it does is set the timing up. I've marked this for discussion.

Quote:
Ranzak Kleptomaniac 7 - definitely not "guard"

While I tend to agree with you, this just needs official verification (unless there's already some guidance that I've missed).

Quote:
Seltyiel 5 - the FAQ changed it so that the power happened only once per turn, which is covered now; I prefer "At the end of your turn" as it is stopped when a bane tells Seltyiel to end his turn (thematical); he should be able to attempt this for a "spell you are proficient with". I am still not convinced that the "may attempt to recharge" is precise enough.

The FAQ changed it to "at the end of your turn" in order to clarify that the power could only be used once per turn because the original wording "before you reset your hand" didn't impose that limit. Under the Core Set rules, though, the legacy functionality is reduced. Preservation of that functionality requires that the power take place after recovery. What we can do is make it "At the end of your turn, after recovery" to get the timing correct. Alternatively, we can get guidance for some other solution (that may adjust the functionality from legacy).

Quote:
Seltyiel Marauder 9 - "recharge the blessing instead of discarding it"? It doesn't seem right for Bury-type spells like Lamashtu, Geryon and Asmodeus (available at that time)

That changes the functionality of the power.

Quote:
Seltyiel Spellblade 9 could be considered as another case "draw a spell from discards & recovery pile" - I am strongly against this, but pointing that out anyway.

What would be wrong with him drawing a spell from his recovery pile? It preserves the functionality from the legacy power. I've marked this one for discussion.

And with Vic's guidance to follow the recommendation to change a few instances of "decks" (when the term isn't limited to character decks) to "stacks," I've made that change, too. The only one I could track down was Zibini, so let me know if there was anyone else.

So I guess we need to go through the powers that *might* need to have "you may" added. And we also need to figure out of all of the "for your"/"on your"/"when you" wordings are correct and standardized.

And since Jenceslav only posted through S&S, I'm guessing there's more coming. ;)


Well, there is more coming once I get some spare time and get through it.
Some comments to your comments to my comments :) follow:

Lini Wild Warden might be indeed reworded to include "you". My feeble attempt on wording is not perfect, I just wanted to put the Divine in the conditions.

Ad After recovery / At the end of the turn: my "feel" is that those recharge powers are something the character has to actively do rather than it being automatic. That's why end-your-turn effects from banes should stop it (I think).

Alahazra - I propose only changing the proficiency, not removing Charisma+2. Skill and proficiency are now separate. Something like (another feeble attempt): "□ When you play an Attack spell and on your check to recharge it, gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2 (for that check). You are proficient with Attack spells." See my intent? Giving her proficiency with Arcane allows Arcane non-attack spells, items and other crazy stuff.

Lem Freebooter - hmmm, maybe I should have written it "On YOUR check against a …", which I intended. Thank you for pointing out my mistake in writing.

Seltiyel Marauder - I know it "changes" the power, but to me it seems wrong. He can just recharge any blessing regardless of its original word? Similar to Sarenrae recharging (WotR Kyra), but here it really affects many powerful blessings. I don't think that was intended, that's why I am pointing that out.

Legacy character's powers affecting recovery pile in general are very dangerous, possibly allowing many ugly things like I mentioned above. That's why I am against such changes (which need approval from developers) even if that makes the character slightly less powerful.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

There was some talk of "if" vs. "when." We used to use "if" in a lot of places that would be "when" today.

In general, "if" should be used when you're checking to see whether or not a condition is true: "if you have the Arcane skill," "if the card you examine is a spell," "if you are the only local character."

"When" should be used to tell you the time at which something should happen: "when you play a card," "when you encounter a barrier."

"If" does not care when a condition begins; only that it exists. If an effect is supposed to happen the moment that a condition changes, you probably want "when": "when defeated,""when you suffer a scourge."

Even given the above, there are still situations where both "if" and "when" seem equally workable. In these cases, you should generally go with "when," especially if the effect doesn't already contain a "when."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Vic. We'll see if we can identify any that need to be changed.


S&S Alahazra: Proficiency with Attack spells opens up the ability to use Divine Attack spells, so we should make it proficiency with Arcane Attack spells. The timing for gaining the skill works the way it is in the spreadsheet though. (So, "□ You are proficient with Arcane Attack spells. When you play an Attack spell or during recovery, gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +2.")
Although, actually, the original power would allow her to play and recover Arcane items, if she first played an Arcane spell. So maybe we shouldn't worry so much about preventing that? (Although it obviously wasn't intended, so...)

Also, on power 1, I don't think "character deck" is a game term anymore. It should either just be "any deck" or, for more clarity, "any character's deck".
Similarly, Stargazer power 3 should be "□ When you use the above power to examine a card from a character's deck, they may recharge it." (That needed to happen anyway, so that "they" has something to refer to.)

Virtuoso Lem et al: The closest post-Core power I found is Varian's final Scion of Cheliax power.

Scion of Cheliax wrote:
□ On another character’s check (□ or your check)...

Obviously we would have to add "local" to that, but otherwise this should be the most correct wording.

S&S Feiya: Power 4 can be simplified to "...you may recharge a card to reduce the check's difficulty by 1 (□ 2) plus the card's level." I'm sure there are other instances where we can simplify "the recharged card" as well.

S&S Lini: Power 4 has two instances of "instead", we can remove the first.

S&S Ranzak: The transition guide has this to say about closing:

Core Rulebook transition guide (emphasis mine) wrote:
If an effect on an older card references a check or other requirement to close a location, treat it as referencing guarding as well as closing.

Since this is not a requirement, but a trigger, it does not by default reference guarding as well as closing. So we can change it (and any other triggers) back without developer input.

Ekkie: That seems like the most extreme of corner cases, but we could use:

NO LOOPHOLES wrote:
On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or that is against a card whose level is 0 (□ or lower than #), or on which a level 0 card adds its traits to the check, add 1d4 (□ 1d6).

...That actually is a little more elegant than the previous wording. And that should cover all bases, barring any cards that specifically add the Basic trait... which I don't believe exist, and if they did, they would need their own FAQ entries, since the trait doesn't exist anymore.

WotR Alain: Based on this thread, I believe his power would be best worded as "On your check to defeat a non-villain monster, you may discard a card. If you do, add 1 (□ 2) plus the card's level; if the monster is undefeated, reload it to its location. Other characters may not play cards or use powers on this check." (The existing wording would make the reload and other character restriction not dependent on the discard, which is no good.)

The reword in the discussion of his Glory Hound power 7 looks good, except that the original power might not be optional? That's probably one that Vic will get back to us on, though.

WotR Enora, et al: I still disagree with the addition of "or recovery pile" to these powers. Previously they would only effect spells you had already failed to recharge, so it's changing either way. I can see the argument for ones that draw, but for anything else, I feel it's more of a change to add the recovery pile. Especially when you consider spells that have different costs than the standard discard/recharge.

WotR Harsk: Power 4 should read "When you encounter an Animal or Vermin (□ or Demon) bane, you may evade it; otherwise, add 1d4 (□ 2d4) to your checks against it."

WotR Kyra: Should be "...to use Divine + 1d8..." (You "use [skill]", you "add your(or, occasionally, their) [skill]". In neither case is the word "skill" appended.)

MM Alahazra: Power 4, I believe should be "When you play a Fire Attack (□ or Poison Attack) spell...". Also, I think "On any check" is necessary, as otherwise it could lead to you attempting to, for example, add 1d8 (to what???) when playing Fiery Glare to banish a boon.
Seeker power 5: It should either be "(□ or any stack)" or "(□ or any deck or the hourglass)". I believe "(□ or any stack)" is a more accurate representation, although in the conversion guide a spell that previously said "any deck" now says "a deck, a location, or the hourglass", so that version has precedent.
Recursor Power 6 is missing the "local" conversion.

ACD Mother Myrtle: Power 4 should probably actually be "When you attempt an Arcane (□ or Divine) check, you may use Wisdom (□ +1d4)." (Not "For", because that would prevent its use with combat spells and the like.) But we might want to wait on developer feedback, given the other wording came from the conversion guide.
Power 6 I think should be "□ On a local Wisdom check, you may recharge a card to add 1d4. (□ On a local check against an Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin (□ or Outsider or Undead) card, you may recharge a card to add 2d4." I'm very much not sure though, because of the thread I linked earlier. (I'm not sure what qualifies as a condition, as far as that goes. Would it work better as "On a local check, if it is a Wisdom check.... (□ If it is against....)"? Would that be worse? I have no idea!)

DCD Gronk: Woodwose power 8 can be just "When rebuilding, you may treat Animal allies as armors or items (□ or blessings)."

DCD Maznar: You've mistakenly added "(□ or discard)" to the Green Faith Acolyte version of power 4.

GB Mogmurch: I think the proposed shorter wording would work; the only issue is if things trigger when they're banished. (Recovery isn't an issue, but other banish triggers could be.)
Power 6, I don't think the "during recovery" clause is necessary.

GF Chuffy: Master of Toads power 8 could be "...you may examine the top card of a local character's deck. ..."
Master of Toads power 9 should be "...to examine the top card of a distant location."

GF Reta: Runaway Bride power 8 could be "□ When there is another local character, on your or their check, you may recharge 1 card each to add 1d8. (□ If the character fails the check, you may both discard the cards to reroll.)" I think. It's kind of an awkward one.


foxoftheasterisk wrote:
S&S Alahazra: Proficiency with Attack spells opens up the ability to use Divine Attack spells, so we should make it proficiency with Arcane Attack spells.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alahazra already have proficiency with that? :-D I played quite a few Fireblades with Alahazra. Not to mention her power that adds static bonus to Attack spells. Of course we can limit her added proficiency to Arcane Attack spells, but one overlap does not hurt anybody, right?


Jenceslav wrote:
foxoftheasterisk wrote:
S&S Alahazra: Proficiency with Attack spells opens up the ability to use Divine Attack spells, so we should make it proficiency with Arcane Attack spells.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alahazra already have proficiency with that? :-D I played quite a few Fireblades with Alahazra. Not to mention her power that adds static bonus to Attack spells. Of course we can limit her added proficiency to Arcane Attack spells, but one overlap does not hurt anybody, right?

Ahaha. I have contextual awareness, yup, definitely... Attack spells is fine, then.


Based on a new update to Conversion Guide here, the powers that temporarily grant Melee or Ranged also give you proficiency. Huh, OK.
S&S Jirelle, Lem - unaffected, already have weapon proficiency (or are there any non-weapons with Melee trait that care about proficiency? Even then, it should not matter, because these would have to have Finesse trait as well. Highly improbable)
S&S Merisiel - affected if she hasn't already taken weapon proficiency. "During that check, you are proficient with Melee."?
Bard Bekah - unaffected, proficiency with Weapons
GobFght Chuffy ~ S&S Merisiel
GobFght Reta - unaffected
Gunslinger Angban - unaffected
HV2 Emil - unaffected
Inq Salim - unaffected
PT Varian - unaffected
Rog Lesath - unaffected
Rog Wu Shen ~ S&S Merisiel
UE Reiko - unaffected
UI Red Raven - unaffected

Ranged
S&S Lem - unaffected
S&S, Magus Seltyiel - unaffected

I don't think the unaffected characters need any additions, so just ignore the Melee proficiency gain, as it would just add unnecessary text. The three affected characters should gain proficiency temporarily (~ S&S Merisiel).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

Any recommended changes that were implemented aren't commented upon.

Quote:
S&S Feiya: Power 4 can be simplified to "...you may recharge a card to reduce the check's difficulty by 1 (? 2) plus the card's level." I'm sure there are other instances where we can simplify "the recharged card" as well.

I think that portion is in there to make it clear that it is the level of the recharged card (and not the card against which the check is being made) that is added.

Quote:
...Ekkie...

Character cards and role cards both add traits to a check, but weren't covered under the legacy power.

Quote:
...Alain...

I've modified your suggestion a bit.

Quote:
ACD Mother Myrtle: Power 6 I think should be "? On a local Wisdom check, you may recharge a card to add 1d4. (? On a local check against an Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin (? or Outsider or Undead) card, you may recharge a card to add 2d4." I'm very much not sure though, because of the thread I linked earlier. (I'm not sure what qualifies as a condition, as far as that goes. Would it work better as "On a local check, if it is a Wisdom check.... (? If it is against....)"? Would that be worse? I have no idea!)

The power feat adds a different condition/timing, so this one can't be reworded to the standard timing/condition, action, effect pattern.

Quote:
GF Reta: Runaway Bride power 8 could be "? When there is another local character, on your or their check, you may recharge 1 card each to add 1d8. (? If the character fails the check, you may both discard the cards to reroll.)" I think. It's kind of an awkward one.

I've modified your suggestion a bit.

I've also implemented an initial batch of "you may" additions (we'll have to see if there are more). I haven't gone through to look at the on/for/when issue.

As far as the powers where "after recovery" or "recovery pile" was added, I see this as a basic element of translating a legacy power accurately. Clearly, we have to ensure that we don't add any imbalances. If there are imbalances in the legacy wording, we need to identify those for the developers to weigh in on, but I see it as outside our remit to adjust powers on our own (except where the changes to the rules prevent impose those changes without any recourse to converting them accurately). We don't want to add any exploits, of course; and any exploits that already existed should be identified to the developers for an official solution (we are merely translating - the developers are fixing). If the developers tell us that any/all should not be converted in this way, we can easily remove those changes. If there are any perceived problems that are created by the conversions, we need to work to tweak the wording to prevent those problems while still translating the powers so that they continue to function as closely as possible to their legacy versions.

With regard to the recent clarification on proficiencies, my take is that since the rules provide the proficiencies hand in hand with the skills, we don't need to add them (despite the precedent with Core Set Harsk Warden role). I haven't removed them from the spreadsheet yet in case there is any discussion on it (I don't want to remove them now only to add them later if the decision/guidance is to retain the wording).


The way I see it with the proficiencies, they are better spelled out, because post-Core, Arcane skill and Arcane proficiency are different thing. And if powers pre-Core grant Arcane, they should be explicitly stated so to prevent confusion. That's if I understood your last paragraph correctly :)
I will continue checking with WotR and MM in the newest version...


Ugh, this took longer than I expected, but here are some suggestions for WotR and MM - the remaining powers are usually clear, precise or very cleverly translated into Post-Core by Brother Tyler.

Murder, she wrote:

WotR

Adowyn Pack Leader 8 - timing is not correct - it checks for Combat damage, and second part is about any damage. "When you would suffer damage, ... recharge an Animal card to reduce COMBAT damage by 2... any damage to 0"
Alain 4 - why has the base character different wording than both roles? Roles have better-looking wording.
Alain Glory Hound 7 - discard a card to ... sounds a little better
Arueshalae Redeemed 8 - "INto the location."
Balazar 4 - I'd prefer "return it to the vault", but this might work
Balazar Tyrannomancer 7 - lacks [] before the power
Ekkie 4 - I don't like the "has or", as it does not make any sense (to me); I prefer adding "or on which a level 0 card was played to determine the skill you are using" after the bracket.
Ekkie Guttersnipe 7 - "you may discard ..." unless it was meant for her to always be sneaky sneaky even when she doesn't want to
Enora 5 - I am against including recovery pile without qualifiers. Divine spells, Bury-after-playing (now Bury-during-recovery) should NOT be rechargeable, as they originally would never end in discard pile (pre-Core). Serious issue, I think. Mark red!
Enora Eldrich Savant 8 - you can put the ([] Acid, Electricity, Force,) before the Cold or Fire
Harsk 4 - maybe "; otherwise, ..."
Imrijka Wandering Judge 6 - are the last two boxes part of a sequence or not? "). ([] " If they are not, maybe make the next-to-last power a separate sentence so that the dot can be included within brackets.
note on Kyra Dawnflower's Flare 6,8 - recharging blessing without conditions (e.g. "instead of discarding") seems too powerful
Seelah 5 - "On a local character's check, ..." because of "If they defeat...", where they is not defined
Seelah Inheritor's Blade 7 - lacks a power box "[] When"
Seoni 4 - similar to Enora, here I don't mind as much due to cost incurred. Mark red! "or, if proficient and the card allows a check to recharge, from your recovery pile." Wordy, but hopefully with no loopholes. May be possibly inserted into Enora and other additions of "do something with recovery" - you may omit the proficient part for Lem, though :)
Seoni Element Master 8 - "mastered card" like 6 and 7?
Shardra Visionary 7 - the last power box gives Divine skill - should it give Divine proficiency as well?
Shardra Spirit Guide 8 - another power that somebody would argue should include recharging from recovery pile (I am not in favour of that)

MM
Ahmotep 6 - what about moving the Fire trait? "On your combat check, you may recharge a Staff card ([] OR A SPELL) to add ([] the Fire trait and) 1d8 ([] 1d12)." - also, the spell was missing for Staff Magus
Ahmotep Eldritch Scion 8 - another power that someone beside me could be inclined to improve to "or recovery pile". All necessary conditions ~ Enora, Seoni et al.
Alahazra 4 - it was written that way for some reason so unless we know what reason, I suggest to keep "on any check" there. Maybe it is a reminder - and is useful even more today with all the Heat Metal type spells (its 2nd power)
Alahazra Seeker 5 - "...([] or 4) cards of any ([] stack or) location ([] and put..."
Alahazra Seeker 7 - "your ([] or any local character's) check"
Channa Ti 4 - maybe reorder a little? "invokes ([] Electricity, Poison,) (([] Fire, Liquid,)) Acid or Cold, you ..." shorter, isn't it?
Damiel 4 - cosmetic change in Toxicologist "a card) ([] or you may ...it)." - there would be two dots :)
Damiel 6 - "if THE card" maybe? Invoke without "the" and "trait" is also possible. On Toxicologist maybe also reorder to "invokes ([] Cold, Electricity,) Acid or Poison"
Estra Speaker to the Dead 4 - maybe change "); ([] then ... )." to "). ([] Then ... location .)" It still is connected in power and non-sequentiality might be more evident.
Ezren Spell Sage 7 - the result of this power pre-Core (+1 spell you may play on a check compared to normal situation) is, by my opinion, best translated by "[] On any check, you may play 1 spell freely. Only 1 power that determines the skill used for the check may be played." The second sentence, which I slightly modified, is a reminder and might be omitted. I changed it to "power" (instead of "spell"), because when weapon is used, some might interpret this ability as "I may play one spell that determines the skill" in that case. :)
Ezren Spell Sage 8 - this power might be problematic if we are talking about Divine Attack spells, Divine non-Attack spells are OK. The loss in power is rather small, as huge percentage of Divine Attack spells are also Arcane spells. I suggest keeping it with a small loss of power to Ezren.
Mavaro 3 - I would seek the developers' opinion, but in light of the recent update to gaining proficiency, you might delete the Arcane and Divine (see the next line)
Mavaro 5 - while thinking about it, Mavaro cannot attempt to recharge spells easily, as he loses the displayed cards BEFORE recovery even starts. Thus, I suggest "After recovery, recharge the displayed cards." Also, he should get proficiency not only in Arcane and Divine, but also Melee or Ranged due to gaining skills - the recent FAQ. If you agree with this suggestion, mark it for developers' approval, please: (insert before the last sentence) "When those skills include Arcane, Divine, Melee or Ranged, gain proficiency with the corresponding trait." I would not include Melee or Ranged, as he doesn't seem to be a fighter type, but FAQ says differently, sadly.
Mavaro 5 roles - lack one word: "acquire FOR that card"
question on Mavaro Channeler 6 - should only the item have Magic trait or is that "(weapon, armor or item) that has the Magic trait"? Now I am not sure :)
Mavaro Channeler 7 - should stay the same even if we apply the explicit gaining of proficiency in Mavaro 5. He could have only one spell in hand => no Arcane or Divine boons to display => wouldn't be proficient.
Simoun Lightning Thief 7 - the new wording (first bracket) is somewhat clumsy, but I do not see a way to improve it :)
Yoon Pan-Elementalist 7 - maybe invoke without "the" and "trait"?
Yoon Pan-Elementalist 3 - should she be proficient with Acid, Cold and Electricity (or gain that proficiency with some power, e.g. 4/7)? That way there might be some symmetry :). Up to developers, not us.
Zadim 5 - "invokes ([] Acid, Undead, or) (([] Obstacle, Trap, or)) Poison, you ..."? That also avoids the changes in sequence for Outrider if we omit the "trait"
Reepazo 4 - UGH :( so ugly and complicated; I suggest splitting into two (or, for roles, more) parts like S&S Alahazra Stargazer. 1st part: "When you encounter a card, ... add the Vermin trait to your checks."; (optionally 1.5th part - extract from the text to make it more easily read: "[] You may recharge a card displayed by the above power to evade your encounter.") 2nd part: "After any encounter, you may recharge all cards displayed by the above power."; 3rd part (Beetle Broker): "[] After any of your checks, you may draw cards displayed for the above power.", 3rd part (Verminator): "[] On your checks, add 1d4 for each card displayed by the above power.", 4th part (Verminator): " ([] When you defeat and would banish a Goblin, Swarm, or Vermin BANE, you may display it for the above power. Goblin, Swarm or Vermin banes in your hand count as Divine boon for the above power)". Such proposed changes (well, the last one) require developers' approval. What do you think about it?
Reepazo 5 - "invokes Poison, Swarm or Vermin, add ..."? Additionally, Beetle Borker has a broken sequence (thematically) - see the last power "If you do, add another 1d6": if you do what exactly? Add 1d6, which is not optional? Then it would be 1d6 (2d6). It clearly relates to drawing a card, but due to a "). ([] ... " the powers are "not in sequence". I suggest: "1d6. ([] Before the roll, you may draw a card) ([]; if you do, add an additional 1d6)." Also, Verminator has a surplus "a" in "your ... A check that invokes ..."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Jenceslav wrote:

The way I see it with the proficiencies, they are better spelled out, because post-Core, Arcane skill and Arcane proficiency are different thing. And if powers pre-Core grant Arcane, they should be explicitly stated so to prevent confusion. That's if I understood your last paragraph correctly :)

I will continue checking with WotR and MM in the newest version...

You might find value in these FAQs (posted this past Friday):

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nrupch3g#v5748eaidgsox
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nrupch3g#v5748eaidgsow

I would suggest that when a character specifically gains the Arcane, Divine, Melee, or Ranged skill, you should explicitly state that they gain the corresponding proficiency. If there's a case where they can gain skills including but not limited to those skills, I wouldn't state it; instead, rely on the rule from the first FAQ entry above. (I didn't check to see if any character powers can cause such a state, but the Curse item Lost Harrows can.)


Thank you very much, Vic, for the direction about proficiency (include / don't include) we should take. I was aware of this change, and that is why I pointed out the characters that might be affected by gaining Melee / Ranged skill => proficiency.
Do we have to spell it out even if the character is proficient with weapons to start with? Unless there is a Melee / Ranged non-weapon boon that cares about proficiency, the "you are proficient with Melee" sentence does exactly nothing (based on my sometimes imperfect understanding).
What about the characters that gain the skills only with specific types of boons (like Finesse)? Should they be proficient with Melee or directly with Finesse?
E.g.:

S&S Merisiel possibly wrote:
On your check that invokes Finesse, gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1. During that check, you are proficient with Melee.

or

S&S Merisiel alternatively wrote:
Proficiency: [] Weapon Finesse

Could you please tell me if either of the suggestions has any problem from developers' perspective? Thanks


Wow this is great. Props to everyone helping to put this together. Im just starting to read though it, but I have a comment:

Cogsnap updated power that reads "After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item."

Shouldnt this read: "After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item from the box/vault."

Its my understanding that when you "draw" its always from your deck unless otherwise specified.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:

Cogsnap updated power that reads "After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item."

Shouldnt this read: "After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item from the box/vault."

Its my understanding that when you "draw" its always from your deck unless otherwise specified.

"new" overrides that already, because a 'new' card always comes from the vault.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

Any recommended changes that were implemented aren't commented upon.

Quote:
Alain Glory Hound 7 - discard a card to ... sounds a little better

I'm just holding off on this to see if there are any arguments against making this change.

Quote:
Enora Eldrich Savant 8 - you can put the ([] Acid, Electricity, Force,) before the Cold or Fire

Other than putting Acid before Cold and Fire, though, it does nothing (i.e., it doesn't give us alphabetical order for the traits).

Quote:
Imrijka Wandering Judge 6 - are the last two boxes part of a sequence or not? "). ([] " If they are not, maybe make the next-to-last power a separate sentence so that the dot can be included within brackets.

It looks like the period breaks any sequence and that making the change you're suggesting would make the two power feats sequential.

Quote:
Seoni Element Master 8 - "mastered card" like 6 and 7?

Yes, the "mastered" term is defined in her power above.

Quote:
Ahmotep 6 - what about moving the Fire trait? "On your combat check, you may recharge a Staff card ([] OR A SPELL) to add ([] the Fire trait and) 1d8 ([] 1d12)." - also, the spell was missing for Staff Magus

That removes the "you may" portion from the Fire trait addition. As it is, the comma separates the two power feats, breaking the sequence (following the legacy lack of sequencing).

Quote:
Channa Ti 4 - maybe reorder a little? "invokes ([] Electricity, Poison,) (([] Fire, Liquid,)) Acid or Cold, you ..." shorter, isn't it?

The pattern, though, is to include the Oxford comma. The reorganization you've suggested would lack that comma.

Quote:
Estra Speaker to the Dead 4 - maybe change "); ([] then ... )." to "). ([] Then ... location .)" It still is connected in power and non-sequentiality might be more evident.

If I'm interpreting that power correctly, you may only shuffle that location on the condition that you Estra examines an Undead card, which the semicolon preserves. Making the last power feat a separate sentence would break that condition requirement.

Quote:
Mavaro - Also, he should get proficiency not only in Arcane and Divine, but also Melee or Ranged due to gaining skills - the recent FAQ. If you agree with this suggestion, mark it for developers' approval, please: (insert before the last sentence) "When those skills include Arcane, Divine, Melee or Ranged, gain proficiency with the corresponding trait." I would not include Melee or Ranged, as he doesn't seem to be a fighter type, but FAQ says differently, sadly.

Refer to Vic's last post.

Quote:
question on Mavaro Channeler 6 - should only the item have Magic trait or is that "(weapon, armor or item) that has the Magic trait"? Now I am not sure :)

The articles separate the requirements. If the original phrasing was "...a weapon, armor, or item that has the Magic trait..." then the Magic trait would apply to all three types of boons. Since the articles a/an separate each type of boon, the Magic trait only applies to item. If the developers tell me I'm incorrect in this, I'll change it (but that will affect *a lot* of cards and how they are translated).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Jenceslav wrote:
Do we have to spell it out even if the character is proficient with weapons to start with? Unless there is a Melee / Ranged non-weapon boon that cares about proficiency, the "you are proficient with Melee" sentence does exactly nothing (based on my sometimes imperfect understanding).

Like you say, there's currently no value it it... but you did also describe a theoretical card that would give it value, so you could justify it. My opinion is adding that many words to cover a potential edge case is not worthwhile (especially when it comes to characters and roles, which tend to hover near maximum word density anyway).

Jenceslav wrote:
On your check that invokes Finesse, gain the skill Melee: Dexterity +1. During that check, you are proficient with Melee.

I would let the new "If a character gains the Arcane, Divine, Melee, or Ranged skill, they gain proficiency with the corresponding trait" rule cover that.


Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
Enora Eldrich Savant 8 - you can put the ([] Acid, Electricity, Force,) before the Cold or Fire

Other than putting Acid before Cold and Fire, though, it does nothing (i.e., it doesn't give us alphabetical order for the traits).

Quote:
Channa Ti 4 - maybe reorder a little? "invokes ([] Electricity, Poison,) (([] Fire, Liquid,)) Acid or Cold, you ..." shorter, isn't it?

The pattern, though, is to include the Oxford comma. The reorganization you've suggested would lack that comma.

I think the gain that Jenceslav is looking at with these two is to remove some grammatically-redundant "or"s. However I would opine that it's better to keep the initially-active powers in front and retain the extra "or"s, for ease of reading.

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
Imrijka Wandering Judge 6 - are the last two boxes part of a sequence or not? "). ([] " If they are not, maybe make the next-to-last power a separate sentence so that the dot can be included within brackets.
It looks like the period breaks any sequence and that making the change you're suggesting would make the two power feats sequential.

We could try "When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may roll d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, (□ you may draw a card; then) explore your location. (□ Add 1d4 to your checks during this exploration.)", in order to split those powers by more than a comma. (Or should that semicolon be a period? I'm still not 100% on how punctuation influences reading of powers. I know it shouldn't be a comma.)

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
Seoni Element Master 8 - "mastered card" like 6 and 7?
Yes, the "mastered" term is defined in her power above.

What Jenceslav is trying to propose is the wording "When you acquire a mastered card or an ally (□ or a spell) you may draw a card."

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
Estra Speaker to the Dead 4 - maybe change "); ([] then ... )." to "). ([] Then ... location .)" It still is connected in power and non-sequentiality might be more evident.
If I'm interpreting that power correctly, you may only shuffle that location on the condition that you Estra examines an Undead card, which the semicolon preserves. Making the last power feat a separate sentence would break that condition requirement.

Actually, I don't think it would (although I'll be the first to admit it's unclear). However, we could move the "ignore examined" text back to before the encounter text - and we should, because the current order implies you can ignore the examine effects only on cards you choose to encounter, not all undead.

Further, the original power looks to me like the shuffle effect would take place only if Imrijka chose to encounter an undead card, not if she examined one but chose not to encounter it. If that interpretation is correct, then there should be no punctuation between "you may encounter 1 of them" and "then you may shuffle that location." (If not, it's either a semicolon or a period; I remain unclear on that.)

Brother Tyler wrote:
Quote:
question on Mavaro Channeler 6 - should only the item have Magic trait or is that "(weapon, armor or item) that has the Magic trait"? Now I am not sure :)
The articles separate the requirements. If the original phrasing was "...a weapon, armor, or item that has the Magic trait..." then the Magic trait would apply to all three types of boons. Since the articles a/an separate each type of boon, the Magic trait only applies to item. If the developers tell me I'm incorrect in this, I'll change it (but that will affect *a lot* of cards and how they are translated).

I'm pretty sure you're correct. (However, you've omitted "a" before "Magic item".)

I think we should remove the "and" at the beginning of the 'shares a trait' feat expansion, though.


Some clarification are needed (well, fox already correctly identified the intent of my several comments; thank you and congratulations in understanding my twisted and jumpy mind).

Trait reordering is to get rid of excessive "or"s to make a more nicely looking list: A, B, C, D or E. And I don't really care about if you do or don't include comma before "or", that's just minor correction and I don't adhere to that Oxford comma rule (also because in my native language we never put comma before and/or in a list).

Imrijka - I wrote the first part, then the second part of the sentence and the way I planned to say it changed without me noticing. Of course I meant: if they should be in sequence, do it "([] … .) ([] … .)", otherwise try to find a better solution.

Ahmotep - my attempt to limit any confusion about sequence of powers. I did not notice that it lost "you may". Sorry :)

Estra - Huh, I did not notice that you rearranged things a lot. In this case, I strongly second the suggestion of moving the "ignore trigger effects" BEFORE the encounter. It needs a little clarification, but I think Estra should a) ignore Trigger on Undead cards only, b) encounter only an Undead card, c) shuffle only if Undead was examined (not 100% sure about this, but OK).

Mavaro (Magic Item) - I wasn't sure about the intent, so I asked. Indefinite articles are missing in many places in the original powers, so I mostly ignore that. E.g. sometimes it is "a weapon, an armor(,) or an ally", sometimes "a weapon, armor or ally". :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

My understanding of forced power feat sequencing is that adjacent parenthesis force a sequence whereas any intervening words/punctuation breaks a sequence.

So "...(□ power feat 1,)(□ power feat 2)..." requires that power feat 1 must be taken before power feat 2 can be taken, whereas "...(□ power feat 1),(□ power feat 2)..." allows power feat 2 to be taken whether or not power feat 1 has been taken (you can substitute that comma with a period, semicolon, or a word for the same effect).

Quote:
Enora Eldritch Savant 8/Channa Ti 4: I think the gain that Jenceslav is looking at with these two is to remove some grammatically-redundant "or"s. However I would opine that it's better to keep the initially-active powers in front and retain the extra "or"s, for ease of reading.

The pattern that I've seen with the powers and feats is that any combination is supposed to work as a sentence. By that pattern, Channa Ti's power would have the following iterations, depending on which power feats are checked:

Base Character 1: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold, you may discard a card to add 1d8.

Base Character 2: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold or Electricity or Poison, you may discard a card to add 1d8.

Tsunami Caster 3: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold, you may discard a card to add 1d8. If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.

Tsunami Caster 4: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold or Electricity or Poison or Fire or Liquid, you may discard a card to add 1d8.

Tsunami Caster 5: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold or Electricity or Poison, you may discard a card to add 1d8. If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.

Tsunami Caster 6: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold or Electricity or Poison or Fire or Liquid, you may discard a card to add 1d8. If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.

Oasis Caller 7: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold, you may discard or recharge a card to add 1d8.

Oasis Caller 8: On your check that invokes Acid or Cold or Electricity or Poison, you may discard or recharge a card to add 1d8.

Yes, all of those "or" instances are awkward. However, they are necessary to preserve the pattern. Jenceslav has suggested the following (using the Tsunami Caster version):

On your check that invokes (□ Electricity, Poison,)(□ Fire, Liquid,) Acid or Cold, you may discard a card to add 1d8. (□ If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.)

The other part of the patterns I've seen is the inclusion of the Oxford comma. Regardless of how we as individuals feel about the Oxford comma, the game uses them. That would require that Jenceslav's suggestion be modified to:

On your check that invokes (□ Electricity, Poison,)(□ Fire, Liquid,) Acid, or Cold, you may discard a card to add 1d8. (□ If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.)

That works fine when either of the first two power feats are checked, but it fails the initial reading of the power and when only the last power feat is checked:

On your check that invokes Acid, or Cold, you may discard a card to add 1d8. (□ If you acquire or defeat the card, you may recharge a Liquid card or a random card from your discards.)

The comma after "Acid" should not be there. So the awkward "or" instances and the sequencing are there for a reason (I think).

Quote:
Imrijka Wandering Judge 6: We could try "When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may roll d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, (□ you may draw a card; then) explore your location. (□ Add 1d4 to your checks during this exploration.)", in order to split those powers by more than a comma. (Or should that semicolon be a period? I'm still not 100% on how punctuation influences reading of powers. I know it shouldn't be a comma.)

That might work. My only concern would be if it introduces confusion about the exploration - since you may roll a d6, if you roll an appropriate number, you explore (you've already exercised the "may" option in choosing whether or not to roll). So if you take the power feat about drawing a card, you can't draw a card and then choose to not explore. Does moving the drawing a card power feat create the potential for that confusion?


Brother Tyler, I understood your point about ", or" - personally I don't care if there is or isn't a comma. Meaning is important to me and that is clear with or without the comma. My suggestion (optional, as suggestions do) was to get rid of the awkward A or B or C or D.

I agree that punctuation should probably break the sequence, but that's not the point. The point is, if you have some brackets divided by ".", "," or ";", many people might be confused about the sequence, so it is better to avoid that whenever possible. In one occasion, the "." thematically did NOT break the sequence in the original text, so better avoid any ambiguity. :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Current Version for reference (no changes since last update)
.
.
I'd like to tackle some of the easier discussion items before we add more issues to the mix...

1. Skull & Shackles Lem Freebooter 8

Original wrote:
□ When you encounter a bane that has the Task (□ or Pirate) trait (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6 to the check to defeat the bane.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ 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.

Questions have been posed about how this applies to banes/ships with multiple checks to defeat and whether or not the recharged allies would apply to all such checks, or if they would only apply to an individual check.

Several alternatives have been proposed. They combine different variations between: [Lem/others] and [one check/all checks]

If Lem may only recharge allies for his checks, and the benefit only applies to one check:

Proposal 1A wrote:
□ On your check to defeat a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6.

If Lem may only recharge allies for his checks, and the benefit applies to all checks:

Proposal 1B wrote:
□ On your checks to defeat a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6.

If Lem may recharge allies for any characters' checks, and the benefit only applies to one check:

Proposal 2A wrote:
□ On any check to defeat a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6.

If Lem may recharge allies for any characters' checks, and the benefit applies to all checks:

Proposal 2B wrote:
□ On any checks to defeat a Task (□ or Pirate) bane (□ or a ship), you may recharge any number of allies; for each ally recharged, add 1d6.

And we might be able to tweak from there.

So it comes down to the two questions:

1. When Lem recharges allies, does the benefit apply to any/all checks, or would they only apply to a single check?
2. Can Lem recharge allies to improve other characters' checks to defeat (only applies in cases where there are multiple sequential checks or where each/other characters also have to perform a check to defeat), or can he only improve his own checks?

So we either need to agree upon the answers or, better yet, get guidance from higher authority on the answers.

2. Wrath of the Righteous Alain Glory Hound 7

Original wrote:
□ When another character at your location would encounter a monster (□ or a weapon) discard (□ or recharge) a card; you encounter it instead.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ When another local character would encounter a monster (□ or a weapon), you may discard (□ or recharge) a card; you encounter it instead.

The proposal is to change the "...a card; you encounter..." to "...a card to encounter...":

Proposal wrote:
□ When another local character would encounter a monster (□ or a weapon), you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to encounter it instead.

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

3. Wrath of the Righteous Harsk 4

Original wrote:
You may evade a bane you encounter that has the Animal or Vermin (□ or Demon) trait, otherwise, add 1d4 (□ 2d4) to your checks against it.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
When you encounter an Animal or Vermin (□ or Demon) bane, you may evade it, otherwise, add 1d4 (□ 2d4) to your checks against it.

The suggestion is to change the comma preceding "otherwise" to a semicolon:

Proposal wrote:
When you encounter an Animal or Vermin (□ or Demon) bane, you may evade it, otherwise, add 1d4 (□ 2d4) to your checks against it.

Note that the Demonslayer role version of this power does that, though the Abyssal Walker role version doesn't.

Is there any reason not to restructure it that way?

4. Wrath of the Righteous Seelah Inheritor's Blade 6

Original wrote:
When you acquire a boon that has the Corrupted trait, bury it. (□ If it does not have that trait, you may give it to a character at your location.)

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
When you acquire a Corrupted boon, bury it. (□ If it does not have that trait, you may give it to a local character.)

The proposal is to change the "...If it does not have that trait..." to "When you acquire a non-Corrupted boon...":

Proposal wrote:
When you acquire a Corrupted boon, bury it. (□ When you acquire a non-Corrupted boon, you may give it to a local character.)

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

5. Mummy's Mask Damiel 6

Original wrote:
You may recharge (□ or reveal) a card to add 1d6 to your check that invokes the Acid or Poison trait (□ or to your check to defeat a barrier); if your card has the Alchemical trait, you may add another 1d6.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
On your check that invokes Acid or Poison (□ or your check to defeat a barrier), you may recharge (□ or reveal) a card to add 1d6; if your card has the Alchemical trait, you may add another 1d6.

The proposal is to change the "...if your card has the Alchemical trait..." to "...if your card is Alchemical..."

Proposal wrote:
On your check that invokes Acid or Poison (□ or your check to defeat a barrier), you may recharge (□ or reveal) a card to add 1d6; if your card is Alchemical, you may add another 1d6.

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

6. Class Deck Cogsnap Bloodbomber 6

Original wrote:
After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw an item that has the Alchemical or Liquid trait from the box (□ or you may draw 2 and return 1 to the box.)

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item (□ or you may draw 2 and return 1 to the vault.)

The proposal is to change the "...return # of them to the vault..." to "...banish #...":

Proposal wrote:
After you defeat a monster, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to draw a new Alchemical or Liquid item (□ or you may draw 2; banish 1.)

Is there any reason not to reword it that way? The only issue we can conceive is if the "banish" verbiage would trigger different outcomes than the card being returned to the vault. Cogsnap doesn't have any powers that would be triggered in any meaningful way by the "banish" verb.

7. Class Deck Mogmurch Tinderfoot 5
(Note that this is the exact same issue as the Cogsnap issue above, so the outcome will match. Mogmurch doesn't have any powers that would be triggered in any meaningful way by the "banish" verb.)

Original wrote:
When you banish a card that has the Alchemical trait for its power, you may draw a random card of the same type that has the Alchemical trait from the box and (□ put it on top of your deck or) recharge it. (□ You may instead draw 2; return 1 of them to the box.) (□ You may instead draw 3; return 2 of them to the box.)

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
When you banish an Alchemical card for its power, you may draw a new Alchemical card of the same type and (□ reload it or) recharge it. (□ You may instead draw 2; return 1 of them to the vault.) (□ You may instead draw 3; return 2 of them to the vault.)

The proposal is to change the "...return # of them to the vault..." to "...banish #...":

Proposal wrote:
When you banish an Alchemical card for its power, you may draw a new Alchemical card of the same type and (□ reload it or) recharge it. (□ You may instead draw 2; banish 1.) (□ You may instead draw 3; banish 2.)

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

8. Character Deck Meligaster Egotist 7

Original wrote:
□ When you would recharge, discard, or bury an ally from your hand for its power, you may banish it instead, then recharge an ally from the box.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ When you would recharge, discard, or bury an ally from your hand for its power, you may instead banish it, then recharge a new ally.

The proposal is to change the "...then..." wording to "...to...":

Proposal wrote:
□ When you would recharge, discard, or bury an ally from your hand for its power, you may instead banish it to recharge a new ally.

9. Character Deck Rivani Psychic Duelist 7

Original wrote:
□ Blessings that have the Sign trait played on your check add 1d12 instead of the normal die. (□ If you succeed at the check, each character who played any blessing on the check may recharge the blessing instead of discarding it.)

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ Sign blessings played on your check add 1d12 instead of the normal die. (□ If you succeed at the check, blessings played on the check may be recharged instead of discarded.)

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

10. Class Deck Amaryllis 5

Original wrote:
At the end of your turn, after (□ and before) you reset your hand, you may attempt to recharge a spell in your discard pile.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
At the end of your turn, after (□ and before) you reset, you may attempt to recharge a spell in your discards.

The proposal is to add the Arcane trait requirement to the spell (so that Amaryllis can't attempt to recharge a Divine spell):

Proposal wrote:
At the end of your turn, after (□ and before) you reset, you may attempt to recharge an Arcane spell in your discards.

Is there any reason not to reword it that way? Is that addition even necessary?

11. Class Deck Kasmir 4

Original wrote:
At the end of your explore step, you may discard a card to choose another character at your location to shuffle 1d4 (□+1) random cards from his discard pile into his deck. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
At the end of your explore step, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)

The concern is that under the Core Set rules, there can now be multiple explore steps per turn (previously there was only one, with the possibility of multiple explorations). The current wording thus allows this power to be used multiple times per turn, which is probably too powerful. We're seeking ways to limit the power's use to once per turn:

Proposal 1 wrote:
At the end of your explore step, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.) This power may only be used once per turn.

...or...

Proposal 2 wrote:
At the end of your turn, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)

Which alternative do you prefer? Is there any reason you can see to not use either alternative?

Those are the discussion items that I think are the least contentious; we should be able to come to a consensus on them relatively quickly. I've numbered them for easier/shorter responses, for example:

Quote:

1. Do it.

2. Don't do it. Here's why...
3. Do it.
etc.

In most cases, we're looking for arguments against a proposal. If we don't see any, we'll assume that there is a consensus for the change and we'll implement those changes.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1. Since the power was originally triggered when you encounter a bane, I'm inclined to think that it should work for any check to defeat that bane, including those by other characters. But I do think we need developer input to verify this one.

2 - 5. *thumbs up*

6 and 7. I think these should be left with "return to the vault", since banish does have an extra connotation (for removing cards from the game in previous sets, for example). 7 is wordy, but I think it's safer to leave it that way.

8-10. *thumbs up*

11. I prefer just making it an end-of-turn power. Just easier that way. This one we will probably also need dev input on, though.


1. Needs developer guidance. (The wordings for multiple checks aren't correct, though.)

2-4. All good changes.

5. Change is good. It maybe should be "the card" rather than "your card", though.

6-7. In my opinion "Banish" is fine, but I'll agree "return to the vault" is safer.

8. The new phrasing feels weird to me, and I think it's that it sounds like it could be replacing the ally's power, not just the cost. Prefer the first wording or "... you may banish it instead; if you do, recharge a new ally."

9. The new phrasing doesn't lead with timing.
"When a Sign blessing is played on your check, add d12 instead of the normal die. (□ If you succeed at the check, any blessings played on the check may be recharged instead of discarded.)"(or "all blessings", but I think it needs one of those words to clarify not just Sign blessings.)

Or, actually, there are two reasonable interpretations of the timing of this power. I think it's the above, but it could be:
"On your check, any Sign blessings played add d12 instead of the normal die. (□ If you succeed at the check, any blessings played on the check may be recharged instead of discarded.)"

(In other words: does a Sign blessing need to be played to recharge blessings on success? I think so, but...)

10. I might prefer "... a spell you are proficient with in your discards", in case she gains Divine proficiency somehow. But I don't know if it's necessary in the first place. (And that could be enough of a corner case to not bother with.)

11. I like end of turn also, but it is a dev change. (Also, "you may attempt its checks to acquire" sounds like you have to attempt all of them. That's not intended, right?)


Once again I am amazed at the effort yall are putting into this.Bravo!

11. I vote against the end of turn second option. Currently I can attempt to use the heal power, then I still cast a heal on myself to catch the card if I fail the recharge/acquire. By making it an end of turn power you have taken away my ability to address that failure.

I dont have the new rules for Core, is there still a "Close your location step"? Could you put it at the beginning of that step?

Or in the power you could lock out exploring after. Feels that was the intent of the power.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Slacker2010 wrote:
I dont have the new rules for Core...

Here you go. ;)

I'm only addressing the issue of Kasmir's power (#11) in this post.

Quote:
...is there still a "Close your location step"?

It's still there. The verbiage is:

Quote:
Close Your Location: If your character is at a location that has no cards remaining, you may make one attempt to close it at this time (see Closing Your Location on page 15).

That step comes after the Expore step and before the End Your Turn step (see page 6 of the rulebook).

To expand upon Slacker2010's concern, if legacy Kasmir failed the check to recharge the spell and had to discard it, he could conceivably attempt multiple other methods of healing it (Staff of Healing, Shaman, Cure spell, whatever) before shifting to the end of his turn. By moving the power to the end of his turn, you take that away (changing the functionality of the power). In addition, something might cause/allow Kasmir to move prior to the end of his turn (this matters on turns where Kasmir explores more than once). Changing the timing of the power changes the functionality of the power there, too.

Changing the timing to the "Close Your Location" step would change the functionality of the power in the same ways as the proposed "At the end of your turn" timing.

Since "at the end of your turn"/"close your location step" change the functionality of the power, we can't make either of those changes without developer approval.

There are several characters that have the "once per turn" language in a power: Nyctessa, Zelhara, Erasmus, and Radovan; and Sajan has a "once per scenario" power. The first four were part of the later round of character decks, indicating that it's not something that the developers later changed (so it's probably acceptable wording).

Are there any risks/functionality changes with adding the "once per turn" language to the power?

Is any change even necessary?

If I recall correctly, the argument put forth is that each exploration counts as a separate step; and Kasmir can therefore use this power multiple times per turn. However, it's not clear if that separate step is an Explore step or if it's an exploration step in the rulebook (there is no defined "exploration step"). The wording is slightly different from the legacy rule (referring to Mummy's Mask, as the most recent).

Mummy's Mask Rulebook wrote:
Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn, and there is no limit to the number of times you can explore.

versus

Core Set Rulebook wrote:
Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; each exploration is a separate step. There is no limit to the number of times you can explore.

(Emphasis added to the change)

Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? Does the change in the wording signal an actual change in the rules (i.e., that each exploration is a different Explore Step)? Or is it simply a clarification of a pre-existing rule? Is there some developer blog or forum post [that I may be forgetting/missing] that sheds light on this?


Vic Wertz wrote:

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..."

So yeah, each exploration is its own explore step.

I didn't think about the issues with "end of turn". "At the end of your explore step, once per turn" is also a functional change, though, because it allows use between explorations. To get it as close to the original function as possible, I think we would need to do:

Proposal 3 wrote:
At the end of your explore step, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards; if you do, you may not explore again this turn. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)

The "Close your location step" version also works OK, but it brings up the confusion some (newer) players have with the move step (that they're not sure it happens if they don't choose to utilize it; only here it's worse, because it's also triggered, so there's two points of confusion). I'd rather not use that version if we have another choice.


Thanks Brother Tyler for the link.

I will go through it more later but one comment I have been holding on to was about "revealing" armor powers. I didnt see anything in the Core rules that address how new armors appear to all have display text. Then you draw to activate.

In Core, as in the past, reveal was from your hand and then you put it back. So characters that have powers based around revealing armor appear to be taking a hit.

Am I missing something? Is the display/draw thing just the few armors I have seen posted? As you can tell I dont own a CORE set.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

1) Agree that the original power is ambiguous.
2) The original wording with semicolon makes it seem like this was intentionally mandatory. Is it certain that this ability should get “you may” added in?
3-7) Agree.
8) Mostly agree. (“instead” seems like it should go at the end of the clause)
9) Does "may" get the passive voice anywhere else? It seems potentially unclear whether the power should apply to just your played blessings, or to any character's. (Also, shouldn't the wording match, ie, RotR Valeros 8, S&S Oloch 8?)
10) Disagree. For comparison, one of Amaryllis's other powers, which does require the Arcane trait initially, but can be used without Arcane after a feat. So the power in question could have just as easily been limited in a similar way, yet wasn't (presumably deliberately?) and so should stay unlimited. (And as mentioned, the character might gain Divine proficiency.)
11) What about: “At the end of your move or explore step, you may.... Then end your turn.”?

Also, re trait ordering: I'm seeing in the chart a lot of revisions of the "(□ Electricity, Poison,)(□ Fire, Liquid,) Acid, or Cold" type, in which traits are reordered strictly alphabetical with minimal conjunctions. Is that a hypercorrection? Consider Core Seoni, where traits seem to be listed primarily in order of unlocked/featlocked/rolelocked, and then alphabetically: "Attack, Force (☐ or Divine), and Magic". Rather than, "Attack, ([] Divine or) Force, and Magic".


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Quote:
"At the end of your explore step, once per turn" is also a functional change, though, because it allows use between explorations.

"At the end of your explore step" is still part of your explore step, not between explore steps. If it wasn't, the solution you've proposed wouldn't work, either.

Quote:

To get it as close to the original function as possible, I think we would need to do:

Quote:
At the end of your explore step, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards; if you do, you may not explore again this turn. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)

That might work.

Quote:
11) What about: “At the end of your move or explore step, you may.... Then end your turn.”?

That would be a functional change as it would take away the option to close a location and any end of turn things that might be performed otherwise.

I don't think we can settle #11 until we get official guidance on two questions:

1. Is the current "...each exploration is a separate step..." addition to the Core Set rules a substantive change where each exploration now equals a separate explore step where previously there was one explore step with multiple explorations possible during that step; or is it simply a clarification of something that wasn't stated clearly in the legacy rules?

2. Is Kasmir's power intended to be usable only once per turn?

Without knowing those two things, we're shooting in the dark.

Quote:
Also, re trait ordering: I'm seeing in the chart a lot of revisions of the "(□ Electricity, Poison,)(□ Fire, Liquid,) Acid, or Cold" type, in which traits are reordered strictly alphabetical with minimal conjunctions. Is that a hypercorrection? Consider Core Seoni, where traits seem to be listed primarily in order of unlocked/featlocked/rolelocked, and then alphabetically: "Attack, Force (☐ or Divine), and Magic". Rather than, "Attack, ([] Divine or) Force, and Magic".

There are several stylistic changes we've incorporated based on guidance and examples. One of these was listing traits in alphabetical order. There are examples of legacy characters that similarly had power feats added before the portions they were augmenting, but we've definitely increased beyond that. The limitation, though, is that we aren't doing it where it breaks other style elements (e.g., Oxford comma), where the traits can't be alphabetized, or where it breaks the sequencing of power feats. Nevertheless, there should probably be a consensus on this - should we strive to alphabetize where possible even if the sequencing looks off (i.e., if power feat traits appear before the starting traits) or should we structure power feats to come after the starting portions even if they're not in alphabetical order?


My opinion is:
1 - 1A is the best for me
2-4 - all OK
5 - I would modify the suggestion: "; if it is Alchhemical card, …"
6,7 - I am against changing, keep return to the vault :)
8 - I am going to repeat myself, but whenever there is "banish" instead of e.g. recharge for its power, I think about Bound Imp and similar allies. One could argue that you are banishing it for its power (e.g. power on a card that says "if XYZ, discard this card instead of burying" would count as discarding the card for its power, right?). "you may return it to the vault" and then all variants are OK
9 - fox's second proposed wording "on your check" seems the best for me. may + passive does not bother me :)
10 - I would probably choose "spell you are proficient with" over "Arcane" over "no addition", but the question is, if the "you may attempt to recharge a spell" is used anywhere in Core or Curse. That is, if there is still that action. If it was "you may attempt to recover" (again, if there is such thing), then she would definitely need to check proficiency.
11 - the checks to acquire is fine - many cards have "check 1" THEN "check 2"; we can change it to "you may attempt to acquire …" and add at the end "If you fail, discard it." and regarding timing - either fox's Proposal 3 or "This power may be used once per turn" look the least intrusive regarding the power.

Emptyger & ordering of cards - when proposing such changes, I was not motivated by attempts to put it alphabetically, but more to get rid of so many "or" - or combinations "A or B ([] or C or D) ([] or E or F)" Brrrr. I don't think we need to bend ourselves into Pretzels trying to make each trait list alphabetical :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

11. To keep it functionally the same, 'proposal 3' from foxoftheasterisk is the only one so far that works, I think. I just don't know if its worth the extra language. I vote for just making it 'At the end of your turn'. Yes, its slightly different, and it has some disadvantages for Kasmir. But Kasmir already got a boost from the improved cohorts, so I think he can afford the hit.


11. In keeping in line with Vic's comment HERE

Shouldn't the power read:

At the end of your last explore step, you may discard a card to heal another local character 1d4 (□+1) cards. (□ If the discarded card is a spell, you may attempt its checks to acquire; if you succeed, recharge it instead.)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

11 cont'd) Ah, good point. In that case, Proposal 3 seems the best.

Re trait ordering: thanks for the clarification. Although, it still seems like a hypercorrection? Core style seems to be to use the multiple "or"s.
Examples: Core Harsk "against a Giant (□ or Aberration or Dragon) monster"
Core Lini "suffer Poison (□ or Cold or Fire) (□ or Acid or Electricity) damage"
Core Seoni "suffer Acid or Cold (□ or Electricity or Fire) damage"

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.