[1.1.3] Bug: Blessings don't add dice to Wand Of Scorching Ray

[mccrispy]

It didn't matter whose blessing I used, no dice were added. I have some screenies so you can see the Wand Buried and you can Blessings Discarded, but only ever 4D6 for the Check.

 

Screenies here

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wcoqyjwg1mpr6sb/AACFxOslQkkhAJ68o-sr_3RXa?dl=0

Edited September 12, 2016 by mccrispy

[Ripe]

Wand of Scorching Ray (not Wand of Blasting!) say following: "For your combat check bury this card to roll 4d6."

 

That mean that when you use it you get to use your "no skill" + 4d6, so blessings that add your base die can't help you since your base die is 0. Things like Old Lite location power which add d6 to any check with Fire trait would work since you do add Fire trait to your check. Similarly, anything else that add specific die to a check with Fire, Ranged, Magic or Arcane trait would work as it should.

 

You may also want to read through this discussion on Paizo board:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qklk?Wand-of-scorching-ray-and-a-weapon

Edited September 11, 2016 by Ripe

[Longshot11]

Wand of Scorching Ray (not Wand of Blasting!) say following: "For your combat check bury this card to roll 4d6."

 

That mean that when you use it you get to roll 4d6 which can't be adjusted.

This is incorrect. Blessings are still supposed to add dice to a Wand - 1d6 by deafult in the case of WoSR (or 2d6 if you play Blessing of Zarongel; or if you supported it with Aid/Guidance spell and played Bo Pharsma...). Also, post-role, some heroes have powers that can add a bigger die if particular Blessing is played..

 

So, yeah, it's a bug.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Longshot11

[Ripe]

Hmm, I'm not sure if we ever had a decisive ruling on that other then Mike saying that Wand changes your skill used to "nothing"... which could mean that your default die is 1d0.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Ripe

[Hannibal_PJV]

If I am not wrong it was mentioned in the Paizo page that blessing actually work with wands... It gives one more dice of the same type as the item is already granting. Did ask it by my self about one and half years ago....

Edited September 11, 2016 by Hannibal_PJV

[RedPred]

@ ripe

No idea what are you talking about. In the discussion you posted they argued about the ability involved. Answer: no one.

Here the op is about blessing that doesn't add any die.

The rule on the blessing is: "Discard this card to add one die to any check". Player is rolling a check? Yes, so blessing adds one die. They HAVE to, also with no ability involved (that gives basic value and extra dice in other situations).

Also in the end of the discussion you linked, a subscriber asked that and it got exactly this answer: 

"A blessing adds d6s to a combat check using the Wand of Scorching Ray. A Gorum would add 1d6. A Zarongel would add 2d6."

 

PS just noticed that the subscriber there was our Hannibal_PJV. Hei mate

Edited September 11, 2016 by RedPred

[mccrispy]

I reviewed that thread. Here's my understanding:

• Playing the Wand changes the skill check to a "no skill" check and permits you to roll 4D6

• Playing a Blessing adds one die (because it doesn't match the type of check)

• the type of die added is D6 because that's the type of die defined by the "no skill" check in this instance

• you cannot play a weapon or a spell on the check because the die has already been defined by the "no skill" die

 

So it's a bug.

Edited September 11, 2016 by mccrispy

[Hannibal_PJV]

It definitely is a bug!

[Longshot11]

Also, that whole confusion might have been evaded - I believe this case is explicitly made clear in the card game Rulebook; I don't know if it made it in the app tutorial texts however.

[Longshot11]

I can now also confirm this bug.

[mccrispy]

Well, we didn't need you to confirm it as bug, that had already been done; but it's good to know that somebody else has seen it - so it should be possible for the Devs to repro it

[Longshot11]

Well, we didn't need you to confirm it as bug, that had already been done; but it's good to know that somebody else has seen it - so it should be possible for the Devs to repro it

Well, in my experience, number of affected users *can* in fact affect prioritization of an issue fix, so there's that. Now, if an issue has been reported by a single user only, no matter how severe, I've seen cases where it's disregarded as having low impact and never fixed at all (and I suppose many users realize this, at least on some intuitive level, hence the many threads with many 'me too' posts in Tech Support forums).

[Hannibal_PJV]

Also it tells that the bug is relatively easily reproduced. Some bugs Are not. And it is easier to fix a bug, if you can make it happen easily.

[Aarik D]

Hey guys,

 

We're looking into it! 

 

Thanks!

[mccrispy]

 

Well, we didn't need you to confirm it as bug, that had already been done; but it's good to know that somebody else has seen it - so it should be possible for the Devs to repro it

Well, in my experience, number of affected users *can* in fact affect prioritization of an issue fix, so there's that. Now, if an issue has been reported by a single user only, no matter how severe, I've seen cases where it's disregarded as having low impact and never fixed at all (and I suppose many users realize this, at least on some intuitive level, hence the many threads with many 'me too' posts in Tech Support forums).

 

I don't disagree. That's what was implied in my comment about reproducibility. I also have no problem with "me too" threads to bump up the priority of a bug as a result of "popularity".

[mccrispy]

Also it tells that the bug is relatively easily reproduced. Some bugs Are not. And it is easier to fix a bug, if you can make it happen easily.

I said that in my response.

[mccrispy]

Hey guys,

 

We're looking into it! 

 

Thanks!

Thanks Aarik, my shopping list gets longer :D