Problem with Holy Candle changes

[Alklein35]

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.

[nimoyfish]

I would also like a developer to explain this change. I actually think Holy Candle is a little too powerful and becomes a party auto include in most situations, so a nerf makes sense. However, making it a banish card makes it weak to the point of useless. Specifically, I'd probably rather just run out of time than stock holy candles "just in case I'm close".

[Deekow]

Mike Selinker has called Holy Candle the mistake of Rise of the Runelords. It was overpowered. At least with it being a banish, you can use it as the clutch card it was meant to be, much like Consecrate. If you feel it's useless, don't use it. Personally, Holy Candle actually feels balanced for the first time, and I was glad it was removed altogether from later sets.

[Borissimo]

I'm with Deekow on this one. I sympathize with those who are frustrated by the change and want their old Holy Candles back, and I concede that perhaps the name of the card should have been changed as a courtesy, but man, there is just no way that I could ever justify that card's existence in any version of the game, least of all in the base set. Holy Candle could have come out in AD6 and everybody still would have lost their minds.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised more cards didn't get the Holy Candle treatment. I personally think that Augury is one of the most broken cards ever printed, and the fact that there are 3 copies of it in the base set is unbridled lunacy. Now of course, I don't mind having Augury in my games, just I like I never minded having Holy Candle. I'm just sayin', if Obsidian had whacked it with a nerf bat I could scarcely have begrudged them.

[Deekow]

To explore the tangent, Augery is self-limiting, though. There are many times it's used and there's no benefit whatsoever or throws you for a loop with planning your location run. It's certainly a great card, but it has limits, and also takes a very precious spell card slot. It's very good, but I don't consider it overpowered at all. It -can- be recharged, which makes it top tier for me, at least early on, but not broken at all.  It is fun when it works in your favor at the most opportune moments, though, for sure.

 

Candle is always 100% useful an in a game where it's buried, it should get used 100% of the time, and giving only 1 extra blessing, breaks the normal game flow and provides a distinct advantage over a game that doesn't have it... if you roll closer to a 6 every time, that's just bonkers. There's never a time with the original version that you wouldn't make room for it (unless you were intentionally avoiding using it).

 

That all said, given that the changes to Levitate weren't nearly as profound and it was deemed worthy a rename, I do totally agree that Holy Candle should have been renamed as well.

[PinkRose]

I vote for name change on something so changed.

Holy Votive is my suggestion.

[Hannibal_PJV]

A good change! Allmost hope errata to real game too!

[Deekow]

I vote for name change on something so changed.

Holy Votive is my suggestion.

 

"Holy Diver" is mine... so that my group would sound the tiniest bit less foolish when we yell out "Holy Candle!" as if we were Ronnie James Dio... every... single... time.

[Alklein35]

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.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Alklein35

[Deekow]

Testing should be objective. Making the same point a second time doesn't make it any stronger. Ultimately, it's just a card for just a game, that you may choose or not to spend money on in the future.

[Borissimo]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread.

 

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.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Borissimo

[PinkRose]

So for fear of going off topic, what is the difference between bury a basic card and banish a basic card, if you can just add then back at the end of the scenario?

[Deekow]

So for fear of going off topic, what is the difference between bury a basic card and banish a basic card, if you can just add then back at the end of the scenario?

 

You can only replace a basic card if you have an available slot for it. If you banished a BASIC potion, for example, but happened to loot a crowbar in that scenario and no other items were banished or acquired, you're going to replace the potion with the crowbar since you do have an item in your pool to replace it with (the prologue freedom to replace basics at will, notwithstanding). Burying it keeps it in your pool regardless, you just don't get to use it again that scenario.  So, if you don't get a new item (or whatever) to replace the banished card, you can replace it with a basic; it's just that that condition isn't guaranteed.

 

Also worth noting is that none of the cards mentioned in this thread are basic

[StormbringerGT]

Remember changes like that are Paizo approved.

Because the game is digital we are able to get a LOT more balance testing in than the physical version. Just not shuffling and setting up by itself means we get see more.

[oneplus999]

Given Selinker's comments and the significance of the change, I'd bet this is something Obsidian did based on explicit feedback from Paizo.

[oneplus999]

Oops beat me to it

[StormbringerGT]

Given Selinker's comments and the significance of the change, I'd bet this is something Obsidian did based on explicit feedback from Paizo.

 

It is safe to assume that Paizo including Vic and Mike have played our version of the game a lot.

[Alklein35]

Remember changes like that are Paizo approved.

 

Because the game is digital we are able to get a LOT more balance testing in than the physical version. Just not shuffling and setting up by itself means we get see more.

 

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?

 

 

I think some people are missing the point of this thread.

 

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.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Alklein35

[Deekow]

You starting a topic in no way entitles you to control it. Others feel the related topics to be of value to the conversation, and thus conversation occurred that presented points and opinions beyond your own. Everyone here likely heard your point, it doesn't mean it's the only one that matters. In your last reply, you even went beyond the parameters of your original point. It happens . The most that can ever really be expected in an open forum is to stay on-topic (which tends to have many nuances and relevant topics worth communicating), which I think we've done just fine.

 

This is an open forum, not a controlled debate platform. We're all benefiting from the conversation at hand, even if we don't agree with the points or that they're the only valid points to be made.

 

And for what it's worth, I entirely agree with the sentiment regarding a developer's wishing not always being right... at least not right for everyone.

 

I'm fairly vocal myself in regards to a couple topics, but if the conversation goes in other related directions, then it's still a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I'd rather move forward because rehashing it doesn't benefit anyone.

 

edit: because homonyms.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Deekow

[LadyKaieta]

Paizo and Lone Shark both approved these changes.  No changes, new cards, etc, are made without consulting both of them first.  Cards like Holy Candle in its current print form create a 'min-max' environment that can be un-fun for many players.  By bringing it in line with other cards of its level, it promotes creative play. 
 

[Alklein35]

Paizo and Lone Shark both approved these changes.  No changes, new cards, etc, are made without consulting both of them first.  Cards like Holy Candle in its current print form create a 'min-max' environment that can be un-fun for many players.  By bringing it in line with other cards of its level, it promotes creative play. 

 

 

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.

[Hannibal_PJV]

Hmmm... I don't see,why it is not a Holy Candle. Like magical missille now have arcane d10+1 vs original arcane 2d4.

In that Logic every "errated" cards should have new name.

It still gives time.

And shop keepers doughter still is in the game? Or is it. Have not encountered it yet.

[Deekow]

And shop keepers doughter still is in the game? Or is it. Have not encountered it yet.

 

Yeah, it is, just ran into her.

[Hannibal_PJV]

Ok. Good to know.

[retupmoc258]

I know this addition is long after the thread ended, but I wanted to mention something about the design of the digital version which is strictly different from the physical version--something nobody apparently noticed or took account of.

 

First, the game allows you to "purchase" boosts using gold (also using money in order to acquire gold, if you're willing) including a Holy Candle "charm".  While the effect is not nearly as good as the Holy Candle card (in either version), it helps players who are after a more casual game.  This effectively monetizes the game, allowing them to make money off of people playing it.  I'm sure that's part of the reason why they also made the Holy Candle banish in the digital version as opposed to simply buried.

 

A second thing I wish to point out is that there is exactly ONE Holy Candle in the base set.  In other words, one and only one of those cards that you could ever obtain.  The digital version doesn't keep track of card counts with the stash (I don't know if you've noticed).  I have two Holy Candles in my stash and I still run into Holy Candle in the scenarios from time to time.  In theory, someone could stock up on these.

 

Third, the digital game allows you to store cards that you've collected from previous adventures--a maximum of 10 if you're online, but ultimately an unlimited amount if you play offline because it doesn't enforce the limitation.  This makes it even more powerful, if you're desperate.

 

Overall, I was surprised because I played the app before I ever played the physical game, but I am definitely more for the Holy Candle banishing rather than just burying.  The potions work that way, too, and while that's frustrating, I haven't heard anyone making a big fuss about that.  In what world can you burn a candle and yet it's still fully ready to use a day or two later?  Yes, I understand it's magical, but that shouldn't be possible.

[Hannibal_PJV]

Heh!

The banish candle did game From the game developers in Paizo. Paizo itself just have problem because some new character allows banished card to be discarded instead so it is harder to implement in physical version. So Macia candle in digital is an upgrade 2.0 version compared to physical.