Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

251 to 300 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Slacker, that was one of my crazy ideas, although it might be hard to control it. "OK, at the end of my last explore step, I heal myself. OH, full 5 cards? Hmmmmm, then I will discard this ally to explore some more." Other player: "you can't do that". Kasmir's player: "Well, it was the last explore step at that time, right?" Other player: "Ugh"

EmpTyger - my several suggestions in that regard were sparked by WeBeHeroes? Siathorn Treemugger - first power. It is definitely not suitable everywhere, but sometimes it might be useful for long lists.


Slacker2010 wrote:

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.)

I don't like "last explore step" because it depends on future information. "End of your explore step; you may not explore again" is the same effect, except with restriction instead of predicting the future.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

In my cutting and pasting to fill the template, I missed the actual change that was being proposed for Rivani.

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.)

The proposal is to remove the "at the check portion":

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

Is there any reason not to reword it that way?

As far as #11 and Vic's suggestion goes, I wasn't sure if that was authoritative guidance on his part or if it was casual discussion. Looking at what he said, though:

Vic Wertz wrote:
Frencois wrote:
RAW there is only one explore step per turn (with multiple explorations potentially). Although that may be misleading for people not carefully reading the rules.

Core added the following rule: "Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; each exploration is a separate step.

I would say "At the start of the first explore step of your turn..."

(Unfortunately, you can't just say "At the start of your first explore step," because that could be misunderstood as "At the start of the first explore step of the game.")

...would result in...

Quote:
At the end of the first explore step 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.) (□ If the discarded card has the Magic trait, you may do the same.)

(That preserves the timing of the original power.)

This raises the same question that we have with MM Damiel power 6 (#6 above): Should we further revise the wording to the following?

Quote:
At the end of the first explore step 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.) (□ If the discarded card is a Magic card, you may do the same.)

(The "...has the Magic trait..." portion was changed to "...is a Magic card...".)

In the meantime, I'm going through and tallying the feedback for the other questions.


Hmmm, Brother Tyler, there is one error in your last post. The discussion to the "At the start of the first explore step of your turn" relates to a different character and not to Kasmir (who cares about the end of the old-style exploration phase, i.e. the last explore step), but has the same result: there are many explore steps.
As stated above, we need something that forces this Kasmir's power to prevent additional exploration, so Fox's suggestion is the best (You may not explore this turn). See my mock-up gameplay conversation above (post 251).
"If the discarded card is Magic card" works. It may be even better to use "If you discarded a spell, …" and "If you discarded a Magic card" - even though English does not hate repetition as much as my own language, I always try to limit it ;)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

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.

Added to FAQ.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Vic.

I think that issues 1-7 have been resolved (1 via the FAQ and 2-7 by consensus), so I've made those changes on the spreadsheet.

Issues 8-11 are still up for discussion. Issue 11 is still especially problematic as we need developer guidance on the two questions:

1. Does an exploration step = an explore step, or does an explore step consist of 1 or more exploration steps? (Most of us interpret the first answer, but I found a post that interpreted the second answer, and that post wasn't refuted by the developers - naturally, I can't find that post now, so I may be imagining it).

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

Most of us interpret the rules to mean that both questions are "yes" (exploration step = explore step and Kasmir can only use the power once per turn). If we are incorrect in either/both of these assumptions, though, we might be creating a bunch of unnecessary work.

Lone Shark Games

I believe the answer to both of those is yes, so Kasmir may need some help.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Mike!

So for Kasmir it looks like we're down to four basic proposals that preserve the previous functionality (there are other proposals that become viable if the developers want to change the functionality):

Quote:
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.
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.)
Quote:
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.)
Quote:
At the end of your first 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.)

A variation on the last two is "...the last/first explore step of your turn..." (borrowing language that Vic used in a suggestion for another power).

There are small tweaks that can be made here and there to any of the above. The first suggestion is the most flexible, allowing Kasmir to use the power at the end of any exploration, but only once per turn. The second is the most limiting, forcing Kasmir to move forward to the Close Your Location step.

My thinking at this point is that we really need the developers to weigh in on this as it will set a precedent with how future character powers might be worded.


I feel it should be the second one. I played Kasmir in Society play and one of the biggest decisions I had to make, was if I was going to push explorations. If I pushed too hard and lost my hand I could not heal. I feel decisions should matter.


My money is on Kasmir #2. Also, the #3 and #4 most probably need the "of your turn" added, as Vic said; otherwise it might imply the first/last explore step of the game and not on the turn. Plus, #3 has the potential problem of not being able to check the conditions forward (also, if there was a power that said "When a character heals a card on their turn, they may explore.", he would be able to explore if he healed himself, right?).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

#2. It's the only one that matches how Kasmir worked previously.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Vic Wertz wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Brother Tyler wrote:
With the logic that "banish" and "return to the vault" are functionally different, my assumption is that "bless" and "add a die to the check" are also functionally different, so I'll make those changes, too.
Checking on that.
I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be that when a blessing adds a die, it counts as blessing the check.

Added to Conversion Guide.


Speaking of the conversion guide, it looks like we've just received some guidance on how to deal with characters that can play extra cards. Or some of them, at least. (Thanks, Vic!)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

I've made the changes from the Conversion Guide (that foxoftheasterisk mentioned). I've marked the issue of Rivani complete, too. That was just the suggestion to remove the "...at the check..." portion of the power (everyone agreed that it could be removed).

I've taken the issue of Amaryllis off the table. That suggestion was to give more specificity to the type of spell that she could recharge from her discards, the original suggestion being to add the Arcane trait and a follow-on suggestion being to state it as "spell you are proficient with" or similar. The reason I've taken it off the table is because it is either not an issue or it is an issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere. The implication with any card that allows an attempt to recharge is that the character has the requisite proficiency. So Amaryllis could only attempt to recharge an Arcane spell (and "Arcane" doesn't need to be stated). Whether or not this requirement is clearly stated is another issue. The cards provide for this requirement, but the rulebook doesn't necessarily state it clearly. So if we need Amaryllis's power to be more clear, I suggest that the correction needs to be a clarification within the rulebook and not on the power. Note that I've applied this concept to other similar powers for other characters (e.g., S&S Seltyiel).

I've marked issue #11 (Kasmir) for the developers.

So this leaves us with a number of issues. Before you get all excited, I'm leaving all of these to the developers* except 1, 8, and 16.

1. "...or recovery pile..."

I've also undone a few suggestions for the addition of "...or recovery pile..." from powers that took place at the start of the turn. Since all characters perform recovery during any character's recovery step, there won't be any cards in a character's recovery pile at the start of a turn; so the addition of "...or recovery pile..." was pointless in those instances.

There are other instances where there is a suggestion of adding "...or recovery pile..." to a power's wording. Generally speaking, all of these preserve the functionality of the legacy cards. However, they also create a problem:

Affected characters are:

    [li]S&S Feiya 5
    [li]S&S Seltyiel Spellblade 9
    [li]WotR Enora 5
    [li]WotR Seoni 4 (Element Master 6)
    [li]WotR Shardra Spirit Guide 8
    [li]MM Ahmotep Eldritch Scion 8
    [li]MM Simoun Lightning Thief 6
    [li]CD Enora 5

(Note that I may have missed some, especially in cases where I removed the red text before listing the character here - I'm sure y'all will identify any that I missed.)

Under legacy wording, drawing/recharging/whatever a card from a character's discard pile was safe because cards that would be banished/buried weren't available. With the creation of the recovery pile in the Core Set Rulebook, cards that might be banished/buried are placed in the recovery pile. So while some cards in the recovery pile should be eligible for the power, other cards shouldn't be. I see three alternatives:

1. Omit the recovery pile (this is a reduction in the powers' potency).
2. Include the recovery pile without qualifier (this is an increase in the powers' potency, sometimes significant).
3. Include the recovery pile with qualifier, either as a standardized wording on the power (3A) or (preferably) an errata to the rulebook (3B).

What I'd like to focus our discussion on is developing proposals for 3A and 3B. Ultimately, I think this one needs to be addressed by the developers.

2. Powers/feats that allow movement after closing a location

With this ability conferred to all characters under the Core Set Rulebook, these powers/feats are useless. The following characters/roles have such powers/feats:

    [li]S&S Feiya Sea Witch 8
    [li]CD Amiri 5
    [li]CD Wrathack Sentry 8
    [li]CD Seoni Dragon Initiate 7 (power feat within a role power)

(Hopefully I didn't miss any.)

One suggestion has been to change all such powers to something along the lines of saying that closing your location during your explore step doesn't prevent you from exploring. The wording has to be careful in not implying a free exploration (which is why I haven't suggested an alternate wording here ;) ).

Ultimately, the decision for how to address these powers is up to the developers.

3. WotR Enora 5 and CD Enora 5

This is part of the "...or recovery pile..." issue identified above, but has one additional wrinkle:

Quote:
After you play a spell, you may recharge a random spell from your discards or recovery pile.

If we add "...or recovery pile..." to the power, as above, the random aspect of the power is diminished (unless some other verbiage is added). As written, Enora would simply choose to recharge a random spell from her discards or a random spell from her recovery pile (i.e., she would choose the source of the random card). Assuming she knows which spells are in which stacks, it would be easy for her to more reliably pinpoint a specific spell, especially if there was only one spell in either stack. An easy solution (in theory) is to mix all such cards together and then choose one at random, then return all of the remaining cards to their original stack. The easy solution in my mind is that players simply have to keep track of which cards came from which stack, returning the remaining cards to their original stacks after the spell is recharged. This should be pretty easy most of the time (all you really have to do is remember the spells that came from the stack with fewer spells - everything else goes into the other stack). Admittedly, this may be a molehill that I'm making into a mountain.

4. WotR Harsk Abyssal Walker 7
When this location is closed, Harsk gets to acquire a boon from the location. The question is if the timing should be expanded to include when the location is guarded. Personally, I don't think that the guard timing should be added, but I've been wrong before. The guidance in the rulebook is that legacy instances of "close" should be expanded to include "close or guard," but that seems off to me.

This should be an easy one for the developers to answer.

5. WotR Ekkie 4

This power is problematic in that it involves invoking the Basic trait. That trait no longer exists, and any instance of "Basic trait" is now converted to "level 0 card" or similar. There are several suggestions on the table, but each is problematic in different ways:

Quote:
On your check that invokes Animal or that has or is against a card whose level is 0 (□ lower than #), add 1d4 (□ 1d6).

Can you say that a check "has or is against a card whose level is 0"? Should character and role cards be explicitly excluded from this (such cards didn't count for invoking traits previously)?

Quote:
On your check that invokes the Animal trait, or that is against a card whose level is 0 (□ or lower than #), or on which you play a level 0 card to determine the skill you're using, add 1d4 (□ 1d6).

The problem with this one is that the "...is against a card whose level is..." verbiage misses the other part of the original "...has or is against..."/"...invokes..." criteria.

Ultimately, we'll need some developer guidance on this before we can determine an appropriate answer; and it might require additional developer work (e.g., errata to rulebook) or decision.

6. MM Mavaro
The Conversion Guide gave the base character the Arcane and Divine proficiencies, but only the Channeler role gets those skills. If the addition of the proficiencies is erroneous, the Channeler role can get the proficiencies when the power feat for the skills is checked. The counter to this is that since the character lacks the skills, he's rolling 1d4 unless his Intelligence power is used, so it's not a game-breaker.

We'll leave the proficiencies as provided in the Conversion Guide unless the developers tell us it's okay to remove them (presumably by an update to the Conversion Guide).

7. MM Reepazo Verminator 4
There's lots of discussion, but the only really significant question is whether or not the last power feat also allows to Reepazo to recharge a Goblin, Swarm, or Vermin bane and then display it as if it were a Divine boon later.

8. MM Yoon

Jenceslav wrote:
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 :).

What would the addition of these proficiencies add to game play? None of Yoon's powers replicate proficiency with these traits, so the suggestion essentially adds a power feat (or three), changing the functionality of the character.

9. CD Damiel Mindchemist 5
The Conversion Guide provided new wording for the power, but didn't mention the Mindchemist power feats. Assumption is that those power feats are supposed to be retained, so we're just looking for a nod from the developers.

10. CD Mother Myrtle 4
Conversion guide doesn't use template of providing timing first. Other legacy powers have been adjusted to that template wherever possible. Adjusting this one would result in:

Quote:
For your Arcane (□ or Divine) check, you may use your Wisdom (□ +1d4).

(Alternate suggestion is to use "When you attempt an Arcane check..." based on the logic that "For your Arcane check..." wording precludes use in combat checks, but that seems faulty.)

This one is marked for the developers, but only because the Conversion Guide provided wording. In all other respects, it's a basic change.

11. CD Brielle Opportunist 8
Currently translated to:

Quote:
□ When a local character fails to acquire an item, you may encounter it.

As worded, allows an infinite loop of Brielle attempting to acquire an item. Should it be adjusted to limit the initial character to another local character?

Quote:
□ When another local character fails to acquire an item, you may encounter it.

This is an issue for the developers and FAQ since it's not a Core Set conversion issue.

12. CD Flenta 4
I added "...you may..." to the power, though this is one area where we should probably leave it out. Thematically, Flenta is a fighter posing as a wizard, so she doesn't have the Arcane proficiency and doesn't recharge spells. She simply casts spells (reading from scrolls?) and then gets new ones (presumably from some vast store of simple scrolls). Putting "...you may..." in the power would severely limit her.

At this point, I'm looking for developer guidance to keep the "...you may..." in there, otherwise I'll delete it.

13. CD Poog 6

Original wrote:
After you bury, discard, recharge, or reveal a boon that has the Animal trait for its power, banish it, then you may (□ recharge a random card from your discard pile and) draw a card.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
After you bury, discard, recharge, or reveal an Animal boon for its power, banish it, then you may (□ recharge a random card from your discards and) draw a card.

Should "reload" be added as one of the activations in the timing?

Since reload is between display and recharge in terms of "power", it's right at the cutoff, so we'll need developer guidance to add it (otherwise we'll leave it off).

14. CD Lazzero Asmodean Advocate 6
Conversion Guide gave a reworded power, but that version had only two power feat boxes, leaving out the third that was in the original power. I've added that power feat.

If the developers don't say to leave it out, I'm going to add it.

15. CD Talitha 6
This power couldn't be re-phrased into the template of having the timing first because one of the internal power feats created a different timing/effect. However, the power can be broken down into two separate powers without any functional change:

Original wrote:
You may recharge a buried blessing to (□ succeed at your check to recharge a spell or to) reroll the dice (□ or 1 die) on any of your checks; take the new result.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
You may recharge a buried blessing to (□ succeed at your check to recharge a spell or to) reroll (□ or reroll 1 die) on any of your checks.

This can be split into:

New 1 wrote:
On your check, you may recharge a buried blessing to reroll (□ or reroll 1 die).

...and...

New 2 wrote:
□ On your check to recharge a spell, you may recharge a buried blessing to succeed.

I suspect that legacy powers were often crafted around how the power was activated rather than the timing. In this case, there were two different power effects activated by recharging a buried blessing, so they were consolidated into one power rather than two different powers based on their effects (the first rerolling and the second being recharging a spell).

At this point, we're looking for the developers to tell us not to split the power.

16. CD Meligaster Egotist 7
(Note that we made one change from the previous discussion, but now we have a new issue.) So far we've translated it to:

Quote:
□ 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.

The concern (as I understand it) is that the "banish" terminology allows for potential other outcomes depending upon other rules that might come into play. The example of a bound imp (presumably from the Summoner CD, but potentially from the Core Set) was brought up, but I don't understand the correlation. The suggestion is to change the wording to say to return the card to the vault instead of banishing it.

Another concern is that the effect of the power might be [interpreted as] replacing the actual power on the card, but I don't think that's a valid interpretation (the power would be "□ You may banish an ally to recharge a new ally.").

This is one of the few left up for community discussion (vice developer input) to decide upon the banish/return to the vault issue (though the developers, as always, are free to tell us what to do).

17. CD Koren Unflagging Companion 8

Updated wrote:
□ When a local character fails to acquire a boon, you may recharge (□ or reveal) a blessing; they evade the boon and you immediately encounter it.

As worded, the power allows Koren to fail a check to acquire a boon, recharge (□ or reveal), and encounter the boon for another attempt to acquire it. With the "evade" word, though, the implication of the theme is that another local character must fail to acquire the boon. Should the power be re-worded as:

Fixed wrote:
□ When another local character fails to acquire a boon, you may recharge (□ or reveal) a blessing; they evade the boon and you immediately encounter it.

This is a FAQ/errata issue and not a core conversion issue, though, so it's up to the developers.

18. CD Arabundi Nature Adept 9
The intent of this power is a bit vague.

Original wrote:
□ When you would recharge a spell, you may display it instead. Before you reset your hand, shuffle it into your deck (□ or put it on top of your deck).

This power basically created a pseudo-recovery pile (before recovery piles existed). So far we've updated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ When you would recharge a spell, you may shuffle it into your deck (□ or reload it) instead.

If the power is supposed to work any time a spell is recharged (e.g., when some other rule allows/requires Arabundi to recharge cards), then the current wording works just fine and doesn't need to be changed.

Conversely, if the power is only supposed to work when he would recharge a spell for its power (i.e., after casting it), then it should be reworded to:

Fixed wrote:
□ When you would recharge a spell during recovery, you may shuffle it into your deck (□ or reload it) instead.

Without developer guidance otherwise, we'll leave it as is.

19. CD Oloch Gorum's Champion 7

Original wrote:
□ After you banish, bury, discard, or recharge an armor for its power, a character at your location may shuffle a random card from his discard pile into his deck (□ and another such character may do so).

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ After you banish, bury, discard, or recharge an armor for its power, a local character (□ 2 local characters) may heal 1 card.

Should reload be added to the list of activations? As with #13, we're at the cutoff because recharge is one of the legacy activations, but discharge isn't.

This is definitely a developer level decision. If no guidance is given, we'll assume that reload won't be added.

20. CD 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.)

With Mr. Selinker's (uncertain?) confirmation that "explore step" = "exploration step" and that Kasmir is only supposed to be able to use this power once per turn, we know that the power needs to be reworded.

We have four basic options:

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.
2 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.)
3 wrote:
At the end of the last explore step 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.)
4 wrote:
At the end of the first explore step 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.)

We all have our preferences (I think the majority are in favor of #2 so far), but I don't want to paint the developers into a corner with a potentially precedent-setting decision, so I'm leaving this one up to them.

21. CD Kasmir 6

Conversion Guide wrote:
☐ On your check against a Healing card, you may recharge a spell to gain the skill Divine: Intelligence +0.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ On your check against a Healing card, you may recharge a spell to gain the skill Divine: Intelligence +0 and you are proficient with Divine.

Other Core Set characters that had skills conferred by power feats included verbiage about corresponding proficiencies, where applicable. We've included that verbiage in our updated wording. The only real issue is whether or not the addition of the wording for the Divine proficiency should be omitted. Kasmir already has the Healing proficiency, so the Divine proficiency doesn't add anything. In order to maintain consistency, we should include the proficiency verbiage. The wording should only be removed if there is a reason to remove it (i.e., if the inclusion creates an unintended outcome).

22. CD Kasmir Hedge Witch 6
The conversion guide provides the following wording:

Conversion Guide wrote:
☐ On your check against a Healing card, you may recharge a spell to gain the skill Divine: Intelligence +0.

However, the Hedge Witch role includes two power feats that weren't mentioned. If we include them, we get:

Fixed wrote:
□ On your check against a Healing card, you may recharge (□ or reveal) a spell (□ or an Arcane, Divine, or Magic boon) to gain the skill Divine: Intelligence +0 and you are proficient with Divine.

If we don't include those power feats, then those power feats need to be replaced (definitely a developer level thing). At this point, I'm going to include them unless the developers tell me otherwise.

23. SoPT Mnesoset
We're suggesting that the character get the Divine proficiency. This one isn't a huge deal since it's an OP role that a character might assume temporarily.

* As we've seen, the developers are aware of this project and jump in when necessary to keep us from going off the rails. My assumption is that they're letting us work through the issues on our own (probably smiling in amusement when we run into contentious/challenging issues that give them problems), and they'll jump in at crucial moments to keep us from doing anything wrong, but they want us to work through as much as possible before we go to them for help (as Aesop's fables say, the gods help them that help themselves).

We've worked through a huge list of changes and we're coming to the end of things. And this is only the first step of the process, the second being the creation of the actual new character sheets. That step is a bit easier, but that work will be a solo effort. I'd like to get to that stage soon, so we need to wrap up discussions. Some things can probably be resolved at our level, but there are a few that will require guidance. In the interest of moving forward, I'll probably finalize things (and if the developers disagree, hopefully they'll (a) recognize that I'm the one that made the bad call, and (b) stop me from screwing it up ;) ).


My personal opinion:
1 - either 1 or 3, definitely not 2
3 - not a molehill, definitely a mountain; could it be something like "randomly select a spell from your discards and recovery pile; then, recharge it"?
4 - definitely not guard. I thought the instructions were: if the power adds to a check to close your location (and similar), it is "close or guard"; if it is "when you close your location" (condition), it stays as close. I may be misremembering or misunderstanding it.
5 - I do not understand the problem with second option. The check "has the Basic trait" if and only if you play a Basic boon to determine the check you are using (covered - play a level 0 ...), it specifically is added by a card's power (extremely unlikely with Basic) or is added through an effect on some card like "discard a card. Add its traits to the check". The last part is unlikely enough that I would ignore that. Or am I missing something? Be concrete, please, or I may not understand :)
8 - the thing is, she has proficiency with Fire, but her Pan-Elementalist role adds other elements to her existing powers, so it is more like a question of priorities. She cannot have spells, so it is down to items or weapons. Her gained proficiency with "Fire" also does not have any other support from pre-Core functionality other than her power 4 and flavour. Pan-elementalist proficient with Fire and not with Cold? Strange sounding to me. If the proficiency would be added, then maybe for "[] Add 1d4 ([] 1d6) to …" power
10 - seems to me like "use skill X instead of Y", but developers's word IS needed. If it remained "For", which I don't mind much, that would be "determine the skill you are using", which would prevent her from using it if the Arcane check was combat spell ("For your combat check, use Arcane"). It would be a different character (much more non-combat oriented), which I don't mind.
12 - I am slightly against "you may" here. Never played with her (like most other characters), but it seems to me that the player will almost never choose "I don't want a new spell instead of the one I just burned" and if they are in a situation when they need for the bottom card to be non-spell for some reason, they should not have that option. OH, I retract my first statement! "When you don't have enough cards of any type, choose cards from the vault". Definitely should NOT have "you may" as it would allow choosing any spell they like, for the same levels as in this power. Example: she is the only "caster" and consistently banishes spells without taking new ones. After the scenario, she chooses the spells she wants. Repeat for any scenario. BAD.
16 - "instead" to me smells like replacement for "recharge, discard, or bury" actions, therefore it might be considered valid for recovery (becoming ~ "banish for its power", the condition for recovery pile). And Bound Imp + Bound Homunculus truly are in Core+Curse :)
19 - you meant display and not discharge, right? Comparing to Poog, I would broaden Poog's power and left Oloch's as it is. Reason? Purely thematical (and also because Poog's power is actually a sort-of disadvantage, and it is better to "nerf" something than to make it stronger). Reload did not exist, but so no Animal allies with display power existed (I believe) at the moment Poog was created. So I would even add "display" to the set of conditions for Poog :-D - did not think about that. P.S.: In Pathfinder Adventures app, the banishing occurs even outside "for its power" condition and I always passionately hated that, so (il)logicaly I am to include as many play-keywords as possible to spread the hate :)
20 - well, read the Conversion Guide, code word "Dream Voyage". The truth is out there, Scully.
22 - too many words for no gain (pun intended); honestly, I don't mind either option :)

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1. I have no clue which of these would be best, and think it's entirely a developer question at this point.

2. Since these characters may still be played using old sets and therefore old locations which are not banished when closed, (for example in Organized Play) I don't think any of these powers need to be changed. The characters are a bit less potent when played with the Core and Curse sets, but I think that's just okay, personally.

3. Letting Enora pull a specific spell from either discards or recovery isn't a HUGE boost in power. In practice, most of the time she's going to have just one or two spells in her discards at most anyway, in my experience. I think leaving her the option to pull from the recovery pile is fine.

4. This should absolutely not be expanded to guarding. The clear intent of the original power was to work when a location was PERMANENTLY closed, not temp-closed, so it should be left as just working when a location is closed. I don't even think we really need developer input on it... or at least we could move forward assuming that this should not change, and on the off chance that Vic says "sure" we can change it.

5. This one really can't be resolved without a developer.

6. If they made Mavaro a tiny bit extra-powerful accidentally, I'm not gonna complain. Move forward assuming this is what they wanted when they wrote the Conversion Guide.

7. Reepazo needs a full redesign from developers (Keith has his eye on her for sure, at least), so I personally think we should just leave her out until she gets updated.

8. Definitely not. (In other news, her proficiency with Fire ONLY works for spells at the moment, though that might change in the future.)

9. Pretty clear that it was just a slight oversight, I'd move forward with keeping the feats.

10. Seems straightforward enough to me that you can move forward with the current suggested wording you show here.

11. Pretty clear intent, but I agree that this one really needs a developer nod.

12. Delete it.

13. Nope, wasn't in the original power, leave reload off.

14. Yep, add the missing power feat.

15. I agree, splitting seems like the right call.

16. I still very much feel that return to the vault is the correct way to do this, because changing it from return to the box to banish could have unintended consequences, plain and simple.

17. Up to devs, but I definitely think the intent is that it's another local character.

18. A tough one, and definitely needs the developer input.

19. Agreed not to add reload to this power.

20. Dev input would be good, but I think moving forward with #1 is the least disruptive option until then.

21. The extra Divine proficiency doesn't seem necessary to me, and it opens a question of whether he can then try to recover other Divine spells for the rest of his recovery step or something equally weird. Healing proficiency gives him the ability to recharge a card during recovery to roll his newly-acquired Divine skill at that time, so I don't see the need for the Divine proficiency at all.

22. Agreed, include the power feats.

23. I'd include the Divine proficiency moving forward until told otherwise.

This has been a HUGE amount of work for you, and I think you've done an AMAZING job of pulling together all these changes. I'm happy to help you create some of the character sheets (I've used your template for other characters and it works great) so that the entire burden isn't just on you.

From the bottom of my heart, and I think I can confidently represent the rest of the community on these forums that plays PACG, THANK YOU BROTHER TYLER FOR YOUR HARD WORK!!!


cartmanbeck wrote:
2. Since these characters may still be played using old sets and therefore old locations which are not banished when closed, (for example in Organized Play) I don't think any of these powers need to be changed. The characters are a bit less potent when played with the Core and Curse sets, but I think that's just okay, personally.

Do you not have the opportunity to move when playing old sets under Core rules and not banishing locations? If the power is redundant, it should be replaced with something like Core Amiri's power.

If it is not redundant, I would prefer to combine the old-style power and the Core version to have a power that works equally well in either set, rather than have character potency depend on which box you use.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

RexAliquid wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
2. Since these characters may still be played using old sets and therefore old locations which are not banished when closed, (for example in Organized Play) I don't think any of these powers need to be changed. The characters are a bit less potent when played with the Core and Curse sets, but I think that's just okay, personally.

Do you not have the opportunity to move when playing old sets under Core rules and not banishing locations? If the power is redundant, it should be replaced with something like Core Amiri's power.

If it is not redundant, I would prefer to combine the old-style power and the Core version to have a power that works equally well in either set, rather than have character potency depend on which box you use.

Nope, you don't get to auto-move if your location doesn't banish. I agree that it'd be nice to change this to a power that's ALSO useful in the new sets, but any change like that will need developer approval. I'm simply pointing out that these powers are not TOTALLY useless just because you're using post-Core rules... only if you're also using only post-Core locations. :)


1 & 3. I still think the recovery pile should be omitted from these powers, with the possible exception of those that draw the spells. In all other cases, the loss of functionality is negligible and certainly not worth the issues that adding the recovery pile opens up.

4. As I've mentioned before, the core rulebook says to treat only powers that mention checks or other requirements to close as "to close or to guard". Anything that triggers off of closing is not changed. (So we don't need developer input for this.)

5. I don't understand what your objection to the second wording is. If it's that the power feat to add "level less than #" doesn't apply to cards you play, then I would like to remind you that according to Vic, they never did. If it's that the third clause could potentially miss a trait-adding scenario, then I would like to remind you of the wording I proposed earlier of "...or on which a level 0 card adds its traits to the check..." . In either case, I'm confident we have a working wording without involving the developers further.

(The first wording does not work, however, as the "has or is against" wording applies to traits, not cards.)

10. The "for your check" wording does prevent her using it in combat, according to this Vic post. So it should be "when you attempt...".

16. "Return to the vault" is safe. "Banish" probably works without issue, but "return to the vault" definitely does, so we may as well make it "return to the vault".

21. I think adding the "Divine proficiency" wording could be confusing, actually. Players are used to looking for only Arcane or Divine proficiency for spells, and adding the useless proficiency would probably indicate to them it's necessary, and therefore lead them to believe they aren't proficient otherwise. Mind, that still could happen without that wording, but it seems more likely with it.
(Also, I'm in favor of keeping the Conversion Guide wordings unchanged where possible.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

4. WotR Harsk Abyssal Walker 7

When this location is closed, Harsk gets to acquire a boon from the location. The question is if the timing should be expanded to include when the location is guarded. Personally, I don't think that the guard timing should be added, but I've been wrong before. The guidance in the rulebook is that legacy instances of "close" should be expanded to include "close or guard," but that seems off to me.

This should be an easy one for the developers to answer.

Under the old rules, temporarily closing a location only prevents the villain from escaping there during this encounter; it does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location. Since Harsk did not get to acquire that boon after a temp close, he should not get to do so after guarding.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

11. CD Brielle Opportunist 8

Currently translated to:

Quote:
□ When a local character fails to acquire an item, you may encounter it.
As worded, allows an infinite loop of Brielle attempting to acquire an item. Should it be adjusted to limit the initial character to another local character?

Quote:
□ When another local character fails to acquire an item, you may encounter it.
This is an issue for the developers and FAQ since it's not a Core Set conversion issue.

Added Brielle's Opportunist role to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

12. CD Flenta 4

I added "...you may..." to the power, though this is one area where we should probably leave it out. Thematically, Flenta is a fighter posing as a wizard, so she doesn't have the Arcane proficiency and doesn't recharge spells. She simply casts spells (reading from scrolls?) and then gets new ones (presumably from some vast store of simple scrolls). Putting "...you may..." in the power would severely limit her.

At this point, I'm looking for developer guidance to keep the "...you may..." in there, otherwise I'll delete it.

Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

15. CD Talitha 6

...
At this point, we're looking for the developers to tell us not to split the power.

Splitting it seems sensible.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

23. SoPT Mnesoset

We're suggesting that the character get the Divine proficiency.

A change to that should be pushed soon, with her proficiencies corrected to Arcane, Divine, Light Armors, Heavy Armors, and Weapons.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Vic!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

The spreadsheet has been updated based on the recent FAQs and Vic's input. These resolve issues 4, 11, 12, 15, and 23.

Issue 8 (adding the Acid, Cold, and Electricity proficiencies to Pan-Elementalist Yoon) is off the table. There's no need for this from a conversion perspective, nor would it "fix" any existing gaps.

For issue 10, while I disagree with the assertion that the "For your check" wording prevents Mother Myrtle from using the power (the example in Vic's post is about two different rules with the "for your X check" used in sequence, so that combination wouldn't work), I agree that the "for your check" wording is incorrect for the intent. I've changed that portion of the power to the "When you" wording. The underlying issue remains, though, as an issue for the developers to approve (since we're adjusting the template of a rule changed via the Conversion Guide). To be fair, this is a power we could probably leave as worded in the Conversion Guide without any problems (plus, it's shorter that way than it is when we reformat it into the timing first template).

For issue 16 (Meligaster Egotist 7 banish/return it to the vault), I've changed it to the "return it to the vault" wording, so this issue is resolved.

With all of the other issues left to the developers, we're down to one aspect of issue 1 - figuring out if there are any workable wordings for adding the recovery pile (leaving the recovery pile out or adding it without any qualifiers are easy).

1. "...or recovery pile..."

There are instances where there is a suggestion of adding "...or recovery pile..." to a power's wording. Generally speaking, all of these preserve the functionality of the legacy cards. However, they also create a problem:

Affected characters are:

  • S&S Feiya 5
  • S&S Seltyiel Spellblade 9
  • WotR Enora 5
  • WotR Seoni 4 (Element Master 6)
  • WotR Shardra Spirit Guide 8
  • MM Ahmotep Eldritch Scion 8
  • MM Simoun Lightning Thief 6
  • CD Enora 5

Under legacy wording, drawing/recharging/whatever a card from a character's discard pile was safe because cards that would be banished/buried weren't available. With the creation of the recovery pile in the Core Set Rulebook, cards that might be banished/buried are placed in the recovery pile. So while some cards in the recovery pile should be eligible for the power, other cards shouldn't be. I see three alternatives:

1. Omit the recovery pile (this is a reduction in the powers' potency).
2. Include the recovery pile without qualifier (this is an increase in the powers' potency, sometimes significant).
3. Include the recovery pile with qualifier, either as a standardized wording on the power (3A) or (preferably) an errata to the rulebook (3B).

What I'd like to focus our discussion on is developing proposals for 3A and 3B. Ultimately, I think this one needs to be addressed by the developers.

Yes, leaving the recovery pile out is an easy solution, but it doesn't preserve the functionality of the legacy power, so it's not a decision we can make (the developers are the only ones that can make that decision). Under the objective of converting legacy powers as accurately as possible to Core Set rules, we are obligated to try to find a solution that includes the recovery pile. We already know that we can't just add the recovery pile option without any restrictions since that, too changes the functionality of the powers (enhancing them rather than degrading them).

Alternative 3A (standardized/templated wording for character/role powers):

Would a solution involving not allowing cards that are automatically banished or buried during recovery to be drawn/recharged/whatever work? For example:

S&S Feiya original wrote:
You may discard an ally that has the Animal trait to return a spell from your discard pile to your hand.
S&S Feiya converted wrote:
You may discard an Animal ally to draw a spell from your discards or a spell from your recovery pile that would not be automatically banished or buried during recovery.

This solution adds to the length of the power's wording.

Or perhaps a better solution would be to focus on spells that would be discarded during recovery:

S&S Feiya converted wrote:
You may discard an Animal ally to draw a spell from your discards or a spell from your recovery pile that would be discarded during recovery.

This one also adds to the length of the power's wording, but less so.

Alternative 3B (errata for the rulebook):

I haven't really considered options here as I think it's a can of worms. Or maybe I've just been too focused on trying to find a way to revise the powers. ;) Other participants in the discussion might be able to come up with something. Hopefully.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, I just remembered that there are two other things we need to discuss.

First is S&S Jirelle Duelist 7 (the issue of "check" vs. "checks").

Second is ensuring that we split CD Talitha 6 correctly.

I think we may have to go over all of the "on your"/"for your"/"when you" power wordings to make sure that we are using them correctly and consistently, but I'm not certain. It might just be easier to develop the criteria for each, then identify any that aren't worded according to that criteria.


Brother Tyler, you do a great job with all these changes, guided along with the voice of Golarion's Gods Vic. Regarding the #1 issue, here is my reasoning (also, my preferences are (3A ~ 1) >> 2; we really need qualifiers):
For the 3A variant, I think it needs more tweaking to make it work.

S&S Feiya wrote:
You may discard an Animal ally to draw a spell from your discards or, if proficient and that spell alllows a check to recharge, from your recovery pile.

It's not nice, but preserves the original functionality (I hope). We cannot just say "spell that would be discarded", because that happens only when you choose not to take the check-to-recharge or fail it. And we don't know the result at the moment this power is activated. "Automatically banished during recovery" has similar problem, as the banishing is not automatical, you have to check some conditions for the spell not to be banished as we "(rulebook~) banish any cards that remain" at the end of recovery.

Proficiency is needed, because originally, non-proficient spells would be banised after playing and never get into the discard pile. If you omit proficiency, you change the functionality, which we are not allowed to do, as you yourself said.


Ad Jirelle, this is the power in question

S&S Jirelle, the dashing Duelist wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.

and the question is, what happens if the monster has several checks to defeat. Do all of them need to be Swashbuckling? Or at least one?

If the latter, then…

Adelita Doloruso, the terrible S&S villain, based on FAQ wrote:
… your turn, and any check to defeat invoked Swashbuckling, …

On Talitha, your suggested splitting looks perfect to me.

CD Talitha wrote:

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.

Lone Shark Games

Addressing these issues:
1. Noted. We’ll talk about it.
2. I would say all should get "Closing your location does not prevent you from exploring” per Core Amiri. We will have to look at adding that to the Conversion FAQ.
3. I would not do that.
4. Harsk should not get guard.
5. We’ll have to discuss that.
6. We’ll figure that out in our discussion on Mavaro.
7. I don’t follow this one.
8. That sure isn’t easy.
9. The Mindchemist feats should be retained.
10 and 11. Already addressed.
12. Flenta should not get a “you may.”
13. I’m fine with Poog getting “reload.” Up to Vic whether that gets added to the Conversion FAQ.
14. This sounds like it needs a fix to the FAQ.
15. You can split that power up.
16. I don’t follow this one.
17. That’ll need to be fixed by CD FAQ.
18. I don’t see a need for a change here.
19. I’m fine with this getting reload as well. Up to Vic on whether it’s added to the FAQ.
20. We’re still talking about this.
21. I think we’re still talking about what happens with temporary gains, but I'm not sure.
22. Include the power feats.
23. An update is coming on this.


Brother Tyler wrote:
I think we may have to go over all of the "on your"/"for your"/"when you" power wordings to make sure that we are using them correctly and consistently, but I'm not certain. It might just be easier to develop the criteria for each, then identify any that aren't worded according to that criteria.

The criteria for those, at least as I see them, are pretty simple:

"For" is only for those cases where "you may use" a certain skill (plus some dice, usually.) Even then, if it replaces a skill that should be usable in combat (say, "you may use Knowledge instead of Arcane"), it should instead be "When you attempt"... Unlike the others, "For" actually has mechanical significance, so we should be careful when adding or removing "for".

"On" is for any case where the power specifies a kind of check, then (often with a cost) effects the check. If there's a further requirement beyond the type of check, though, it will become "when".

"When" is the catch-all for when anything happens, other than a check. "When you play [a card] (on [a check)", "When you encounter [a card]", "When [someone] suffers [damage]”, etc. etc.

"If", additionally, is for checking a condition after timing has been established. Any time you use "if", though, first check if it could reasonably be reworded to omit the "if" and do that if so, especially if there is no "when" already in the power. For example, "On your check, if you play an ally..." should instead be "When you play an ally on your check..."

"During" is the one that I'm not sure about. Does it even exist anymore, other than "during recovery"? I think it's used when you temporarily gain a skill, so as to avoid implying that the skill is gained permanently. But again, not really sure if that's still the case.

So, it doesn't look quite so simple once it's written down, but (other than "during") it's pretty clear, right?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm tracking on what you're saying, foxoftheasterisk, and I agree.

Thanks, Mike!

I'll have an updated version of the spreadsheet posted tomorrow.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

The spreadsheet has been updated based on Mike's input. His responses resolve issues 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23 (Vic's input/FAQs had previously resolved issues 4, 11, 12, 15, and 23). The only place where the two provided conflicting guidance were with regard to Flenta (13) getting "you may" added (my assumption is that Flenta shouldn't have "you may" added and that the FAQ will be adjusted).

I infer from Mike's response to 14 that we can make the change and a FAQ correction will come later.

Mike indicated that he didn't follow issues 7 and 16.

Looking more closely at issue 7, there isn't an issue. The question raised was whether or not Reepazo could display defeated banes that she recharged. The wording makes it clear that she can display such a bane "as if it were a Divine boon" so there's no issue.

As for issue 16, this was a problem I created. The original wording was "return to the box" and I originally changed it to "return to the vault" and later to "banish." I've changed it back to "return to the vault" to avoid any corner cases where "banish" might allow something unintended in combination with other rules. So all of the hoopla on this one was my fault and I'll punish myself.

This leaves issues 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 20, and 21 to the developers.

There are also the recommendations for added proficiencies ("PROFICIENT WITH" entry, not power feats) that are up to the developers.

In addition, we have the Jirelle issue.

24. S&S Jirelle Duelist 7

Original wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.

So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.

The question concerns monsters that have multiple checks to defeat. With the "your check" wording, would the power work if only one check had the Swashbuckling trait?

We had a similar issue with S&S Lem Freebooter 8 (summary, which was changed by FAQ so that Lem's power affects all of his checks. We might assume that the same concept will apply to Jirelle, but we can't use the same wording because they're very different (Lem's is an effect, Jirelle's is a condition). However, following that assumption, we might change it to:

Assumption wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and any of your checks to defeat has Swashbuckling, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.

Change "...and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait..." to "...and any of your checks to defeat has Swashbuckling..." (I also applied a basic change in the trait wording - under legacy wording it would be ...and any of your checks to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait...).

This is marked as a Developer issue because it's more of a FAQ correction (assuming a correction is needed) and not a Core Set conversion issue.

I've gone through and identified all of the characters that don't have powers that are up for discussion/developer decision. I'll start working on those character sheets now (and I'll foist some of them on cartmanbeck).

Lone Shark Games

Yeah, I'd say that's any of her checks (and no one else's). By the way, we still use "the X trait" when describing a trait. So "any of your checks to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait" is more accurate.

It's possible I was looking at the wrong Flenta power. Which one do you mean?

Vic hasn't weighed in on the potential FAQ change to Koren, so I'd hold off on that.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Original wrote:
After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, you may draw a random spell from the box that does not have an adventure deck number and has the Arcane trait and recharge it.

We've updated it to:

Updated wrote:
After you play an Arcane spell for its power, recharge a new Arcane spell that is level #–2 or lower (minimum 0).

The concerns I brought up earlier:

Me whining wrote:
I added "...you may..." to the power, though this is one area where we should probably leave it out. Thematically, Flenta is a fighter posing as a wizard, so she doesn't have the Arcane proficiency and doesn't recharge spells. She simply casts spells (reading from scrolls?) and then gets new ones (presumably from some vast store of simple scrolls). Putting "...you may..." in the power would severely limit her.

Lone Shark Games

Brother Tyler wrote:
Original wrote:
After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait for its power, you may draw a random spell from the box that does not have an adventure deck number and has the Arcane trait and recharge it.

We've updated it to:

Updated wrote:
After you play an Arcane spell for its power, recharge a new Arcane spell that is level #–2 or lower (minimum 0).

The concerns I brought up earlier:

Me whining wrote:
I added "...you may..." to the power, though this is one area where we should probably leave it out. Thematically, Flenta is a fighter posing as a wizard, so she doesn't have the Arcane proficiency and doesn't recharge spells. She simply casts spells (reading from scrolls?) and then gets new ones (presumably from some vast store of simple scrolls). Putting "...you may..." in the power would severely limit her.

Right. When we put that in the Conversion Guide, we did not intend it to be optional. The Conversion Guide is correct.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Mike. That one was my fault, too.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

24. S&S Jirelle Duelist 7

Original wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.
So far we've translated it to:

Updated wrote:
□ When you defeat a monster on your turn, and your check to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait, you may discard (□ or recharge) a card to immediately explore.
The question concerns monsters that have multiple checks to defeat. With the "your check" wording, would the power work if only one check had the Swashbuckling trait?

Added to FAQ.

Also note that the phrasing "immediately explore" became redundant once we added the rule "If something grants you an additional exploration, after you finish what you are doing, you must immediately use that exploration or forfeit it."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks, Vic (for both). I'll scrub the spreadsheet for the "immediately explore" verbiage and purge it.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Mike Selinker wrote:
Vic hasn't weighed in on the potential FAQ change to Koren, so I'd hold off on that.

Added to FAQ.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I'd like to once again stare in open-mouthed awe at how much has been accomplished in this thread! Thank you SO MUCH for all of this, Brother Tyler and thank you Vic for stopping in so often over the past few weeks to give us much-needed feedback and FAQ's! :)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

CD Oloch 4:
I think this was mentioned previously, but there is an inconsistency here: The character card says "When another local character fails a check to defeat [..]" and the role cards both say "When another local character would fail to defeat [..]".

The wording on the role cards are incorrect, since the power needs to fire off a check to defeat, not on whether the monster is defeated or not. (See this FAQ). The character card card wording is closer to the FAQd wording, but to be honest, I don't think it's correct either, since I don't think the FAQd wording actually does what the FAQ says it should. (As worded, I think the player would still take damage, even though the FAQ says they shouldn't.)

I believe CD Oloch 4 should be updated to read "When another local character would fail a check to defeat [..]."


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Actually, that's an error on my part. I didn't apply the FAQ change to the role powers, only to the base power. I'll fix that now.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Vic Wertz wrote:
Frencois wrote:
RAW there is only one explore step per turn (with multiple explorations potentially). Although that may be misleading for people not carefully reading the rules.

Core added the following rule: "Many effects allow you to explore again on your turn; each exploration is a separate step.

I would say "At the start of the first explore step of your turn..."

(Unfortunately, you can't just say "At the start of your first explore step," because that could be misunderstood as "At the start of the first explore step of the game.")

Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Brother Tyler wrote:

20. CD 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.)
With Mr. Selinker's (uncertain?) confirmation that "explore step" = "exploration step" and that Kasmir is only supposed to be able to use this power once per turn, we know that the power needs to be reworded.

Added to FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks! (That's to Vic and the developers.) I've updated the spreadsheet, but I haven't uploaded it yet.

The only remaining issues are:

1. (adding "...or recovery pile..." with or without qualifications to some powers)
2. powers/feats that allow movement after closing a location
5. WotR Ekkie's power that invokes the Basic trait
6. MM Mavaro and the Arcane/Divine proficiencies that were added by the Conversion Guide
21. CD Kasmir and whether or not to add the Divine proficiency wording to the power feat that grants him the skill

These are all up to the Developers.

I'm just combing through the rulebook to see if there are any small nuggets we've missed. I should have the current version posted later today.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Latest update based on the feedback

I've updated the spreadsheet based on the FAQs and guidance provided by Mike/Vic.

The only issues pending now (as far as I know) are ones that the developers are discussing.

Lone Shark Games

On a second glance, Mavaro looks fine as is. He should have the proficiencies to start, and then only later (on the Channeler role) gain the skills. So at the start he can attempt recovery checks but won't be very good at them unless he uses his skill-gaining power.


Complete side note, I love the "acquire a Magic card" phrasing of Ezren's power because now I can joke about buying a booster pack for an extra explore. ;)

Lone Shark Games

foxoftheasterisk wrote:
Complete side note, I love the "acquire a Magic card" phrasing of Ezren's power because now I can joke about buying a booster pack for an extra explore. ;)

In development, this absolutely was a stated argument against the "an X card" phrasing, but we were like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Another common one was "a Giant monster," which we had to stress did not include the Giant Fly.

251 to 300 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.