I don't want that boon!

[magniTT]

In physical game there was an option to refuse to pass a check to acquire a boon. This was useful in more than one way:

 

1) Often you just don't want some cards, neither in your hand (they are useless), nor in you discard (they get shuffled back in the deck when you are healed and you are stuck with them).

2) Sometimes there are penalties for failed checks (is some locations, and with some scenario rules), and if you have no chance to acquire anything you could just skip the check to avoid this penalty.

3) Beginning with adventure 3 if you don't acquire a boon with BASIC trait you could remove it from the game. Sometimes we chose to refuse a check just to remove a card from the game, so that there would be more new powerful cards in the deck, even though this boon could be useful in a particular situation.

4) Sometimes you banish certain cards on purpose - so that you can choose a card you need from the vault between scenarios. But if you later come by a card of that type in a location you are forced to pass a check to acquire it, which sucks.

 

It's too bad we don't have this option now...

[Kgk4569]

Yes, this has been brought up A LOT. It is planned to be included.

[FatePAC]

I would just add that you can auto fail the check but not refuse to take the check.

[Hannibal_PJV]

Like fatePAC said, section 2. Is not possible, but everything else... maybe later.

[Namyra]

Also as for 3), I think it's been discussed that this will likely work differently in the app somehow, like a percentage of Basic cards getting removed automatically or so.

[da_mayor]

Just remember that, by the rules, if you turn down the opportunity to acquire a boon, it still counts as "failure to acquire", so any place that penalizes you for that will do so in this case.

[269Hawkmoon]

So, the big place not being able to not attempt the check to acquire a boon is the Glassworks, which penalizes you for failing a check. But, if you choose not to attempt the check to acquire the boon, you haven't failed the check, you've not attempted it. So the Glassworks shouldn't penalize you. In other words, there is a difference between "fail a check to acquire a boon" and "fail to acquire a boon". You can fail to acquire a boon without failing a check to acquire a boon.

 

For now, the best you can do is pick the worst skill option and hope you don't get it. And be careful about going to the Glassworks.

[da_mayor]

So, the big place not being able to not attempt the check to acquire a boon is the Glassworks, which penalizes you for failing a check. But, if you choose not to attempt the check to acquire the boon, you haven't failed the check, you've not attempted it. So the Glassworks shouldn't penalize you. In other words, there is a difference between "fail a check to acquire a boon" and "fail to acquire a boon". You can fail to acquire a boon without failing a check to acquire a boon.

 

For now, the best you can do is pick the worst skill option and hope you don't get it. And be careful about going to the Glassworks.

 

Hawk, I know YOU know this verbage, but for others reading this thread (and who haven't read the OTHER threads where this has been quoted)...

 

From the card game rulebook:

 

If the card is a boon, you may try to acquire it for your deck; if it’s a bane, you must try to defeat it (see Attempting a Check, below). If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.

 

So, yeah, that seems to be the case.  That'd make the Glassworks safer, but anything that says, "When you fail to acquire a boon..." will still zap you.

[Brainwave]

Also as for 3), I think it's been discussed that this will likely work differently in the app somehow, like a percentage of Basic cards getting removed automatically or so.

This is disappointing. The app seems the perfect way to implement the actual card game rules which were tedious to keep track of in the physical game but when you've got a computer to do it for you, seem like they'd be a lot more doable.

[PinkRose]

I have never found a time I didn't want a boon.

More boons, more life.

[da_mayor]

I gotta admit, I hate the spell Mending.  I've had a grudge against it (and, to a barely lesser degree Guidance) since I forgot to edit a couple of characters' decks before starting and game and ended up with these instead of multiple Cures.  If I see these, I go out of my way to lower my odds of acquiring them, just to lessen my irritation.

 

Smart-game-strategy-wise, you're aboslutely right.

[Kgk4569]

I have never found a time I didn't want a boon.

More boons, more life.

 

True, but more junk in your deck and hand after you heal.

[PinkRose]

Most character has a power that requires discarding or burying.

[Kgk4569]

The ones that don't are: Kyra (she does, but very selective), Sajan (also limited recharging), Valeros, and Ezren, while Seelah has one that is a wildcard as it takes the top card of the deck, which could be good.

 

Also, even if you can discard or recharge cards, it is not unlimited, you can still end up with a lot of junk in your hand that limits what you can do.

[Borissimo]

While some of the points in the OP have merit, most do not. Let's go through them one by one:

 

1) Often you just don't want some cards, neither in your hand (they are useless), nor in you discard (they get shuffled back in the deck when you are healed and you are stuck with them).

 

This is a legitimate concern. However, it's incredibly minor. How often will this make the difference between failure and success? Almost never.

 

2) Sometimes there are penalties for failed checks (is some locations, and with some scenario rules), and if you have no chance to acquire anything you could just skip the check to avoid this penalty.

 

According to the rulebook of the newest set, Wrath of the Righteous, "If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it." So this point is totally illegitimate. Hawk and da-Mayor believe that the Glassworks is an exception to this, drawing a distinction between "failing to acquire a boon" and "failing a check to acquire a boon," but I completely (but respectfully! ) disagree. I think that "failing to acquire" is just a shortened form of "failing a check to acquire" because really, when are you ever going to fail to acquire a boon in any other way? It's possible I'm wrong, but only if the designers simply come out and say it; the rules in this intance are far from unequivocal.

 

In any case, however matters are settled in the Glassworks, this point is wrong.

 

3) Beginning with adventure 3 if you don't acquire a boon with BASIC trait you could remove it from the game. Sometimes we chose to refuse a check just to remove a card from the game, so that there would be more new powerful cards in the deck, even though this boon could be useful in a particular situation.

 

This is also completely wrong. The digital game handles box culling in a different way than the physical game does. In the digital game, whether a boon gets banished has no bearing on whether it will appear in later scenarios.

 

This is a controversial topic: some players, like me, think Obsidian's method is superior to the physical game's, while others hotly disagree. Either way, though, the ability to pass on boons won't affect what it's in your box in the digital game.

 

4) Sometimes you banish certain cards on purpose - so that you can choose a card you need from the vault between scenarios. But if you later come by a card of that type in a location you are forced to pass a check to acquire it, which sucks.

 

This is the only point in the OP that's both legitimate AND significant. At the end of the day, though, it's not game-breaking, so I don't think that on its own it confers high-priority status to the option to auto-fail boon checks.

[delpheki]

Whenever I come to a disagreement on a rule or topic of confusion I try to reason out the scenario in an RP sense.  Lini is adventuring through a dark dungeon.  Lini comes across a room that has a shiny sword on the wall.  Lini realizes she doesn't know how to swing a sword, can hardly hold a sword that size up, and doesn't really have the room for that sword in her bag so she simply avoids even trying to pick it up.

[zeroth_hour]

delpheki: that's actually a dangerous road to tread down, as that type of intuition creates situations where you'll tear your hair out because of abstraction and simplification.

 

It's actually not incredibly minor; Ezren in particular wants his deck to be mostly spells so he can cycle through his deck without having to discard much; he really doesn't want a shortsword or something else he can't use and that will clog his deck if it gets healed in.  The reason I say this with Ezren is because he's probably the character who has the most trouble cycling through his deck out of all of them - he doesn't get blessings, he can't heal, and he mainly relies on recharging situational spells (and is worse than Seoni at doing it)

 

But I like him because he can get really ridiculous sometimes (eg Academy)

[269Hawkmoon]

The difference between failing to acquire and failing a check to acquire can be found in this discussion:

 

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qo9f&page=2?Burglar-Question#89

 

So, while failing a check to acquire a boon results in failing to acquire a boon, if you simply decide to not attempt to acquire the boon, you haven't failed the check to acquire it.

[Hannibal_PJV]

That is discussion before Wrath of the righteousnes rulebook clarification?

Not want to be devils advocad, but that may have changed. But can not be sure ofcourse. Hawkmoon is allmost always right in these matters, but even he can not owerride rule changes... or can he?

;-)

But this would be nice to know as an academic point of view.

[zeroth_hour]

Yeah, the WotR rulebook now say (p.10) "If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it." and Vic said he wasn't sure in that post.

[wakasm]

Having played all 3 games, in the card version, multiple times... I can confidently say there are many cases where you would not want to acquire a boon.  

 

Obsidian's new method of pulling cards makes sense due to their Treasure Chests... but... it does hurt the strategic value of removing cards you don't want from the likelyhood of drawing them.  When the whole idea of no experience (XP) is substituted by probability of random cards... it does suck you can't remove basic cards.   

 

However, that said, just because there are less cases in the Rise of the Runelords, does not mean cases to not encounter boons do not exist.  Sometimes it is worth while to get boons you do not want... extra HP, trash items you can banish for closing, etc... however,  many cases exist in Wrath of the Righteous where you do not want a boon.  People arguing that they "never would decline a boon", sure, that's great, if that is your play-style... but that doesn't make it ok that the option does not exist.  

• Having boons you do not want make heals less useful.  You'll stay alive, but you are less efficient since there are not many ways to draw cards DURING a turn. I try to heal when i know what is in my discard pile... often aiming to leave only my heal in my discard pile to retrieve it later.  Having boons I do not want in there makes it less likely I will heal back the cards I want and it will take more turns to get the combinations of cards I DO want... which goes against the whole idea of having 30 turns.  
• There exist henchmen/bosses you can't defeat (or get bonuses) if you have a certain type of card in your hand (corrupted)... and when a lot of cards have that trait... imagine being forced to take them right before meeting said henchmen/villain.  
• Some characters whose main gimmick/strength is to reveal/draw/recharge cards with a certain keyword on it to reliably do anything and you end up filling your deck with cards you don't need, slowing you down.  The oracle is a perfect example of this... someone whom you only want divine cards to keep your turn moving.  
• Since you are allowed to pull boons from the "box" up to 2 adventures prior to your current one... by Adventure 6... I may want to purposely banish a card, and never encounter that type of card, to get a specific card.  For instance, if I had bad luck, I may banish an adventure 1 card though a location (lets say a spell), and as a group, have everyone not encounter spells unless its a good one.  This way, at the end, I can pull up to an Adventure Deck 4 card from the box into my hand.  (Same with cards like the Candle, for instance). 
• The holy candle (and other broken items).  You can literally guarantee your party always has a holy candle by just not encountering non-banishable items the moment you use your candle after a certain adventure number.  Basically, hold onto it until you need it... and then for the rest of the game... don't encounter items (unless a really good one comes up).   If you do this, you can always have extra blessings every game.  It's very doable in a 2-player party for instance.  Also an easy way to trivialize Legendary encounters. 

These scenarios are all likely and real.  It doesn't matter if they are game-breaking, it's a rule for a reason. 

 

Also @hawkmoon... your own thread says the opposite.  Vic Wertz posted this after Mike's response.  

 

 

The current plan: Burglar stays as is. The rules get a few changes, though.

"Evade the Card (Optional)" becomes:

Apply Evasion Effects. You may use a power or card that lets you evade the card you’re encountering. If any powers on the card you’re encountering relate to evading the card, they take effect at this time. If you evade the card, do not activate any other powers on it. Shuffle it back into the deck; it is neither defeated nor undefeated, and the encounter is over.

"Attempt the Check" gets the following addition:

If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.

What this means is if you evade, the burglar's second power does not occur. If you do not evade, and either choose not to acquire it or fail to acquire it, the power occurs.

 

Also, the updated rules clarify this as well, since you can only opt out of attempting a check for a boon during the "Attempt to check" portion of a turn.  Which also clearly says that if you do not attempt the check, you fail the check.  

Edited May 17, 2016 by wakasm

[Namyra]

Very well put, I agree with pretty much all of wakasm's post! I also think that choosing not to acquire a boon (and yes, I know it counts as failing and thus doesn't help against a certain lovely wildcard) has several valid applications and isn't just a minor, very rarely used thing, even if the app handles getting rid of Basic/Elite boons differently (though that is of course one of the main reasons why you would want to fail acquiring stuff in the physical card game). It's not absolutely terrible not to have this option, but personally I would really like to see it added sooner rather than later.

[hfm]

I would imagine the number of locations where failing a check to acquire a boon ends up hurting the party is limited enough that having the option to not attempt the check at all, even if that means failing the check, would still be a useful tactic in most cases. The problem of diluting your deck with useless cards is a detriment to certain characters. 

[PinkRose]

I still say diluting your deck is a fallacy and I would much rather have life than an exact deck of 15.

When I get done with my current group of Half-Height Heroes, I'll run through with Kyra, Sajan, Valeros, Ezren, and Seelah and report on how the "bloated" decks  work.

[wakasm]

I still say diluting your deck is a fallacy and I would much rather have life than an exact deck of 15.

[/size][/font]

Statistically it is not a fallacy, but even then it is still a preference of those who care. See: any deck building game ever and Math.

 

Plus, it is an actual rule in the game that was omitted for no reason, despite multiple other reasons - beyond deck bloat - to want this feature.

 

Rise of the rune lords is fairly forgiving regardless and high HP heroes will surely do fine. No one is arguing you can't do this as a strategy... but there are definitely cases regardless and to argue against it at this point is needless since they are implementing it.