Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Rise of the Runelords – Base Set» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ezren's Evoker Power rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Laura Blachek
United States
charlotte hall
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alright, last weekend my husband and I were playing the first scenario of deck 4, and ran into a disagreement that has ground us to a halt and we would like official clarification on.

My husband chose his role and power feat for Ezren partially based on reading the 4th power feat to mean he could add two to any arcane check and add the force trait to that check. at the very end of the adventure, when picking the second power feat from the role card, I happened to read it and suggested his interpretation was incorrect, based on some of the threads in these forums - that instead it meant that he could add two to arcane checks that already had the force trait listed on them.

We argued back and forth, comparing wording on other cards, and each changed our position twice until we each settled back on our original interpretations.

I think I agree with the post listed here Re: Specializations, but the big thing that's bothering us is that the phrase "with the XXX trait" gets used in different places to indicate either adding a particular trait to a check or as a qualifier for which checks to apply something to and would love to know or hear an official statement for how to determine which interpretation should be used.

In any event, we haven't been able to reach a satisfactory agreement or continue playing. It's actually growing to be one of the biggest arguments we've had in 7 years of marriage.

It strikes me that the whole issue could have been resolved by rewording the cards so that effects that added traits to checks were written as "and add the xxx trait" and/or instances of checking for the existence of traits on checks were written as "that has the xxx trait"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Warner
United States
Middletown
Delaware
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, no matter what the correct interpretation is, it isn't worth your marriage.

Two posts above the link you have, I gave this link:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8um?Leveling-Up-Ezren-Advice#3...

Chad is one of the lead designers of PACG, so that pretty much confirms the correct interpretation is that you get to add 2 if the check already has the Force trait.

"With the XXX trait" should be read to modify the thing that immediately proceeded it. So when it is "add 2 with the Force trait to your arcane check" the 2 you are adding have the Force trait. When it is "add to to your arcane check with the Force trait" the arcane check is modified, so it is the arcane check that has to have the Force trait.

I am no English major, but I think the sentence would have to be more like "Add 2 to your check, with the Force trait." to get the other interpretation. But again, I'm no English major.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/28
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Hawkmoon. It means you add 2 to an Arcane check that has the Force trait. Not only would they have worded it differently if they meant for you to add 2 and the Force trait to all of your Arcane checks (e.g., "Add 2 with the Force trait to your Arcane check"), that power would be significantly more powerful than most (probably all) other powers in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Byron Campbell
United States
Santa Clarita
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that "if it has" would be much clearer wording for future editions of the game. I don't agree that you need a degree in English to interpret the card...then again, I do have a degree in English, so I may not be the best to judge.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laura Blachek
United States
charlotte hall
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
269Hawkmoon wrote:
Well, no matter what the correct interpretation is, it isn't worth your marriage.

Two posts above the link you have, I gave this link:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8um?Leveling-Up-Ezren-Advice#3...

Chad is one of the lead designers of PACG, so that pretty much confirms the correct interpretation is that you get to add 2 if the check already has the Force trait.

"With the XXX trait" should be read to modify the thing that immediately proceeded it. So when it is "add 2 with the Force trait to your arcane check" the 2 you are adding have the Force trait. When it is "add to to your arcane check with the Force trait" the arcane check is modified, so it is the arcane check that has to have the Force trait.

I am no English major, but I think the sentence would have to be more like "Add 2 to your check, with the Force trait." to get the other Iinterpretation. But again, I'm no English major.


Thanks hawkmoon, that was exactly what i was looking for! I think i might have read that thread, but it didnt register that chad was a game developer. That should mollify my husband, and if it gives us a model for how to interpret the "with the xxx trait" for all future cards, that should also prevent further disagreements regarding this particular phrase.

Thanks to everyone else for helping out too!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Brown
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello, everyone. We're taking a look at this to try to make sure the intent and wording are clear.

We tried to adopt what I've called a "natural reading" style for the cards, and by and large it works for us, but the game has some complex interactions, and that can bring up very detail-oriented questions. Now, I have studied linguistics, and while I think it's a fascinating subject that I recommend for everyone, I feel comfortable saying that we don't want anyone to feel like they need it to play the game.

Thanks for playing!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Have you considered the Biblical approach? Something like this might work:

FOR THE DESIGNERS LOOKED DOWN ON THEM AND SPAKE, "For though hast labored to bestow unto thy check the FORCE trait, verily...VERILY I say unto thee!, that though shalt grant the divine bonus of TWO unto thy check! AMEN!"

5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mb
csouth154 wrote:
Have you considered the Biblical approach? Something like this might work:

FOR THE DESIGNERS LOOKED DOWN ON THEM AND SPAKE, "For though hast labored to bestow unto thy check the FORCE trait, verily...VERILY I say unto thee!, that though shalt grant the divine bonus of TWO unto thy check! AMEN!"



Priceless!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Selinker
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Have you considered the Biblical approach? Something like this might work:

FOR THE DESIGNERS LOOKED DOWN ON THEM AND SPAKE, "For though hast labored to bestow unto thy check the FORCE trait, verily...VERILY I say unto thee!, that though shalt grant the divine bonus of TWO unto thy check! AMEN!"


No.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/28
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thou shalt add two to force checks, no more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt add, and the number of the adding shall be two. Three shalt thou not add, neither add thou one, excepting that thou then proceed to two. Four is right out.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
mike selinker wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Have you considered the Biblical approach? Something like this might work:

FOR THE DESIGNERS LOOKED DOWN ON THEM AND SPAKE, "For though hast labored to bestow unto thy check the FORCE trait, verily...VERILY I say unto thee!, that though shalt grant the divine bonus of TWO unto thy check! AMEN!"


No.


I understand. Probably not enough space on the card...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.