Alklein35

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see this on any of the known bug lists or any other threads about it. When you use a blessing to add dice to your check, and then change which skill you are using for that check, it doesn't change how many dice were added by the blessing if needed. For example, I was encountering a monster as Sajan. First, I recharged a Blessing of the Gods (top card of the blessing discard was Erastil, add 2 dice to a combat Dexterity check) to add 1 die (since you have to actively use his power to use Dexterity, something that should probably be a prompt at the start of the check). I now had 2d6 then activated his power, now making this a Dexterity combat check, and that Blessing of the Gods should have matched the discard pile's Erastil and given me 2d10, for a total of 3 (1 for Dex, 2 for blessing). However, that didn't happen and it only had 2d10 total (1 for Dex, 1 for the blessing).

This beta does not include decks 3,4,5,6 so even if you manage to buy them, you won't have much fun. Ah I hadn't seen that. Wouldn't it be beneficial to include those so people can playtest those as well?

Why not make a new card then, like was done with... the Blacksmith's Son I think it's called? I agree with the power change, just not calling it Holy Candle, because that's not what the card is.

Ok fair enough. Add Paizo to my targets of disappointment on this change in addition to Obsidian and Lone Shark Although to be accurate, I don't think Paizo includes Mike, I don't remember him ever being part of Paizo, just LS? With respect, Alklein, I don't think any of us are missing the point of this thread. Your argument in the initial post is such a simple one that a person would need to have a severe intellectual disability in order to miss the point of it, and I hope you don't think any of us are thusly disabled. Evidence: The change to Holy Candle was not necessary for digital development. Conclusion: Holy Candle shouldn't have been changed. See? I got the point of your thread. I just happen to disagree with it. When asked in this AMA for his least favorite card, Mike Selinker replied, "I would not be upset to see all copies of Holy Candle consumed in flames." Immediately after that he said, "In some sense, we are getting to do just that with Runelords, because it's being rebuilt by Obsidian for their fantastic new PACG digital version." Respectfully, I think the wishes of the guy who invented the game trump anyone else's on this matter. Furthermore, I (and others) conceded that, even so, the card's name should have been changed. It's worth noting, too, that changing Holy Candle to its current form as opposed to banishing it outright is already a concession to players. Since Holy Candle is in the base set, you can add it to your deck in AD3 whenever you have an item deficit, and even after you banish it, you can simply add it back after the scenario as long as you preserve that deficit. Yes, you won't reliably be able to keep it in your deck all of the time, but since the power level of most items is low, refraining for rolling for new items won't be a major sacrifice a great deal of the time. I certainly don't think anyone is "thusly disabled" Now if someone requested more Holy Candles in the game, yea I just might! It's just that from the very first response the thread starting devolving into talks about how overpowered it was instead of the topic I brought up. I can understand Mike's hatred for the card. Heck, I almost agree (only almost because I'm that guy in every group that loves absolute cheese). Again though, whether it's a good card or the spawn of Pathfinder-hell is irrelevant to what I'm saying. Not to mention, even though I do almost agree with Mike, and know that developer wishes trumps all, that doesn't mean developer wishes are always right. It just means developer wishes are what go. If Mike said every character in the game should be unicorns casting spells out their butts, does that mea... OK bad example, that'd be awesome. You get the point though. For your last paragraph, while I agree, delves again into the territory of "not connected to the problem I'm mentioning". Power level comes into play in no way for what this thread was created for, but unfortunately has become the main topic of conversation for it from the very beginning.

I must know!

Sadly I've bought adventures 1 and 2 but have run into this issue with the other 4

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not about whether or not it's powerful enough or not. It's the general fact that they made a change for the digital version that had no development reason for needing to be changed. If it wasn't errata'd in the physical game, it shouldn't be changed here unless it simply can't work in a digital version. It wasn't errata'd, and bury vs. banish works fine in a digital game. Give a different card, but don't errata cards that haven't been errata'd. Make it a holy vestment, or a blessed tabernacle, whatever, just not the holy candle. The holy candle gets buried, not banished. I don't know whose idea it was, Lone Shark or Obsidian, but either way I'm disappointed in both for coming up with it and actually allowing it.

I've got a problem, and really it's the only thing at the moment I think I would truly call bad about this game. Some cards I know Lone Shark said had to be changed simply because the physical version wouldn't work well in a digital version of the game. That make sense, even though it drives me bonkers lol The one card I've seen changed that I really do have a problem with, and only because I don't see any reason to change it relating to digital vs. physical or other dev reasons, is Holy Candle. The physical version is a bury power, the digital is banish. As I said, if there were a reason of "well the way it worked just doesn't work in a digital game" then I could understand changing it. It sounds like this was just a change because somebody thought it was too powerful. In my opinion that's a terrible reason to change a card in a second version. It could even be a different card name with the banish power, fine, but a Holy Candle buries, and I see no reason outside of what almost feels like stealth-errata to change it for this version of the game.

Deleted: Not a bug

I'm currently playing The Poison Pill, the second scenario in the first adventure, Burnt Offerings. I'm on the middle difficulty with 1 of the random powers added, called Retaliation Retaliation: If you defeat a monster, roll 1d6. On a 1, take 1 Fire damage. I just defeated a Poison Trap henchman, which is a barrier not a monster, and Retaliation triggered. EDIT: And oddly, Pillbug Podiker, who suffers from the known issue where villains don't have the monster type and trigger monster powers, did trigger this as well.

I saw that it's a known but that logging out loses purchased characters. Unfortunately this happened to me with Sajan. I see we should contact you guys to get the gold back but I can't see anywhere to do that besides here Account: alklein35

You most definitely can choose to not attempt to acquire it Hannibal.

While I plan on buying the full pass as soon as the game goes live, having a pack of all the characters and a pack of all the adventures would be good. Based on the pass cost, $10 for the characters and $20 for the adventures.

I get that, and I agree that $25 is good price. That's not in dispute. The gold prices are beyond the point of just wanting to make a profit though. At the rate I'm seeing gold come in, it isn't even a viable option. That's a problem. Yes I did notice that when I first booted the game. Unfortunately that only explains why it was those characters that were chosen to be more expensive, not why any are more expensive in the first place.

I hadn't even seen that that post was there until just now, thanks.