Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy Characters?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Can Cogsnap's final Bloodbomber power be updated?

Current wording wrote:
□ The first (□or any) Alchemical or Liquid item you play does not count against the number of items you can play on a check or step.
Suggested wording wrote:
□ The first (□ or any) Alchemical or Liquid item you play may be played freely.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't have them marked on the spreadsheet, but I think that Cogsnap and a few others have powers that the developers need to discuss with regard to the "freely" wording. Vic posted a caution a few pages back on this, so we didn't pull the trigger on implementing those changes until the developers give the green light.

I suppose we should go through and identify all of those now. I've marked the Cogsnap power that MorkXII referred to.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It looks like Sarkoris Guide Alase's final power does not match Vic's statement here.

Current wording wrote:
□ When a character at Tonbarse’s location fails to defeat a non-story bane and would shuffle it into their location, you may draw Tonbarse and display him at another open location to shuffle the bane into that location instead.
Suggested wording wrote:
□ When a character at Tonbarse’s location fails to defeat a non-story bane monster or barrier and would shuffle it into their location, you may draw Tonbarse and display him at another open location to shuffle the bane into that location instead.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've fixed it. Thanks.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Jenceslav wrote:

OK, here it is:

Vicious Scythe, CotCT 2 Weapon wrote:
If you fail this check against a non-story bane monster, you may reload the monster into its location
It also shows the non-story bane construction...

Yes, but note that just saying "non-story bane" would be inappropriate when you're trying to exclude non-banes.

That is to say, ”story bane” is a compound noun, so “story” should not be treated as an adjective modifying “bane.” “Non-story bane” would be read as “non-(story bane),” aka any card that’s not a story bane (be it bane, boon, or other). Just as “non-blessing” is any card that’s not a blessing.

If you want to refer to any bane other than a story bane, the phrase you would need to use is “non-story bane monster or barrier.”

Sorry for the very slow response, but I don't think this interpretation shared by Vic is accurate to the final wording on multiple (post-Core) printed cards.

Take, for example, the Harrow Blessing The Midwife.

The Midwife wrote:

When a local character would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, discard to exchange that card with a new card of the same type instead; all checks against it are blessed.

Discard to explore. This exploration, the first time you would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, you may exchange it with a new one of the same type instead.

By Vic's statement, The Midwife literally says "When a local character would encounter a boon or [any non-story-bane card, including boons]", and can be used against Ships and other Support cards in the rare situations that they are encountered (including Cohorts, I suppose).

I'm not saying I don't follow Vic's logic, I'm just publicly warning that it is not consistent with at least one Curse of the Crimson Throne card as-printed, and I believe it may not be consistent with a few others (but I'd need to look closer to re-find them).


Yewstance wrote:
The Midwife wrote:

When a local character would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, discard to exchange that card with a new card of the same type instead; all checks against it are blessed.

Discard to explore. This exploration, the first time you would encounter a boon or a non-story bane, you may exchange it with a new one of the same type instead.

By Vic's statement, The Midwife literally says "When a local character would encounter a boon or [any non-story-bane card, including boons]", and can be used against Ships and other Support cards in the rare situations that they are encountered (including Cohorts, I suppose).

I'm not saying I don't follow Vic's logic, I'm just publicly warning that it is not consistent with at least one Curse of the Crimson Throne card as-printed, and I believe it may not be consistent with a few others (but I'd need to look closer to re-find them).

Good catch, Yewstance. I always just skimmed through the Harrows, looking at the cool pictures and not reading the text (well, unless it became the hour or we encountered it). I believe that if the "non-story bane monster or barrier" wording is universal, then it calls for FAQ to The Midwife harrow.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It appears that an incorrect usage slipped by me. Let me know if you have more.

Lone Shark Games

I haven't been 100% keeping up with this thread (each time I swing by I see you're doing tons of work and Mike and Vic are checking in, so I just get happy and move on), but I had a chance to look over the spreadsheet a bit more today and noticed that you're performing actions (including draw) on cards directly from the recovery pile in at least one place.

Generally speaking, that's not something that should be allowed without heavy restrictions as it can allow you to bypass use restrictions on cards (such as Charm Person, Commune, Miracle, and Time Stop) or characters (Divine spells on Arcane casters, for instance) that genuinely should get buried or banished after use.

Edit: I see you've identified those problems above, so replying to:
"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."

As Chad said in the conversion blog, recovery was partially created as a solution for a gameplay problem around repetition. This was applied universally to all casters and methods, whether it was drawing from discards or healing from discards then drawing from deck. So, the answer should unfortunately be 1 here.

If there are characters who are actually broken by this change, rather than inconvenienced by having to wait a round, can we list those here, and I'll look them over at one time?

P.S. Also, Kasmir doesn't need Divine proficiency since he already has Healing proficiency, so even on a Divine only spell like Cure, he still passes the "If proficient" test.


Hello Keith,
I think the only character that may be heavily influenced by the "spell from discards" not including recovery pile is WotR Seoni:

Seoni wrote:
Before your combat check, you may discard a card to draw a card that has the Arcane (□ or Magic) trait from your discard pile.

The idea is that spells that she failed to recharge pre-Core would be available for drawing from the discard pile. For example, Disintegrate with huge recharge check difficulty. She has no other reliable way of fighting and cannot auto-recharge spells. Now, it is in the recovery pile during her turn and she cannot do anything with that spell. I never played with her, so I don't know how it would affect gameplay if she wasn't changed. Drawing from the recovery pile, however, has the potential to break things even more.

Other characters (IMHO) are slightly, but not crushingly, lowered in power.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This is one of the issues which brought me to this thread, so I'm glad to have developer attention drawn to it!

WotR Seoni wrote:
Before your combat check, you may discard a card to draw a card that has the Arcane ([ ] or Magic) (or mastered/[ ] or Corrupted) trait from your discard pile.

Previously, WotR Seoni could use a single Attack spell multiple times to handle multiple combat checks each turn. Now separate Attack spells are needed for sequential checks, multiple explores, summons, etc. So while it is repetitive, it seems to be intended repetition, in the same way that, for example, Core Seoni can repeatedly cast an Arcane + level + 2d4 Force spell. (The ability is a direct parallel with WotR Seoni, a variation on the prototypical sorcerer "discard a card as an Attack spell" ability.)

I do not think that Jenceslav's concern about difficult recharge checks is relevant to the issue here. (For a couple reasons, but most of all WotR Seoni can automatically recharge Attack spells!)

S&S Feiya has a similar issue: she could substitute allies to recast spells. And similar powers are also on roles of S&S Seltyiel and MM Amhotep. (I didn’t see anything in character decks with a quick search, although I’m not as familiar with those as with base set characters.)

S&S Feiya wrote:
You may discard ([ ] or recharge/) an ally that has the Animal trait (/[ ] or any ally) to return a spell from your discard pile to your hand.
MM Amhotep Eldritch Scion wrote:
[ ] You may discard ([ ] or recharge) a spell to draw a spell from your discard pile.
S&S Seltyiel Spellblade wrote:
[ ] You may discard a spell to draw a weapon from your discard pile ([ ] or discard a weapon to draw a spell from your discard pile).

Brainstorming a fix:
I came up with this idea while trying to brainstorm an alternative to drawing out of the recovery pile. It's not intended as a final consensus alternative- just something I was playing around with myself.

I considered how the WotR Seoni Corruptor power essentially simulates playing a blessing out of the blessings discard pile, and tried to adapt that into playing a spell out of the recovery pile.

Possible alternative WotR Seoni? wrote:
During your combat check, you may display a card to play it as if it instead has the powers and card type of an Arcane ([ ] or Magic) (or mastered/[ ] or Corrupted) card in your recovery pile or discards; the card you choose cannot be one that could be banished or buried during recovery. During recovery, discard the displayed card.

This would be a mechanical change, since the chosen card has to be used immediately, rather than redrawn into the hand. (The flavor justification being that this is an alternate way of casting a spell, rather than a healing ability.) Setting aside a card until end of turn by displaying it provides a resource cost, although admittedly that may not be enough of a cost to limit degeneracy. And I'm not sure whether the other affected characters (eg S&S Feiya) are too open to abuse without the something like WotR Seoni's in-combat limitation. (I’m not certain that the timing of “During your combat check” works as I intend, but that’s a wording issue.)


EmpTyger wrote:
I do not think that Jenceslav's concern about difficult recharge checks is relevant to the issue here. (For a couple reasons, but most of all WotR Seoni can automatically recharge Attack spells!)

Ups :) I have to read more carefully, I missed that power (and misremembered the way how the power in question replaces a typical Sorcerer power - I though it was instead of auto-recharging and it is instead of turn-anything-into-fireball). I am sorry ;)


I have been kind of reading this thread until now but I don't have enough experience with multiple characters to really contribute.

However, regarding WOTR Seoni and other characters that could use the same spell multiple times per turn before: what about keeping the old power to discards only but adding a new power along the lines of "You may at any time choose to fail to recharge a spell in your recovery pile." That way the power would retain the original functionality without risking to expand its scope.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think that the issue with whether or not to add the recovery pile comes down to the developers' intent. On the surface, most of the powers look like omitting the recovery pile would be nothing more than an inconvenience. However, another factor to consider is the overall synergy with other powers. Under legacy rules, there might be times where the ability to recharge/draw/whatever a card from discards enables the later use of that card (or activation of a power using that card) matters.

The addition of the recovery pile to the powers was nothing more than an effort to stick to the goal of literally translating powers from legacy to Core Set - translating without substantively affecting powers (whether improving them or nerfing them). As we've seen, though, you can't just add "or the recovery pile" to the powers without throwing things off kilter; and there's no simple addition to the wording to balance things. In addition, that literal translation doesn't take into account where the developers intended for the changes to necessarily reduce power effectiveness (in this case, by reducing the pool of cards that characters can choose from by omitting the recovery pile).

Ultimately, it's going to come down to whether or not the relative balance of the overall power synergy is at the level desired by the developer's for character theme and balance. All we can do (I think) is identify the perceived effects and perceived balance. It's really going to come down to whether or not the developers think that the omission of the recovery pile preserves the characters at a relative level of balance that is desired.

I'm going through the various characters now to develop my own feedback to Keith's question.

I've also added the latest Conversion Guide updates that Vic posted to the spreadsheet. I'll post an update soon.

Lone Shark Games

Brother Tyler wrote:
I'm going through the various characters now to develop my own feedback to Keith's question.

Many thanks!

I'll continue to keep an eye on this thread for this topic.

301 to 314 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.
Recent threads in General Discussion