We need the option to pass on a boon

[Faray]

Now that adventure 5 is out, this is relevant. 2 locations that stand out are the Shimmering Veils of Pride and the Vault of Greed. Both these have effects when you acquire a card and this may cause undesirable results, especially if the card isn't worth while. For example in the Vault of Greed a potion came up that I was guaranteed to get, and would have forced me to banish my loot wand of enervation if I didn't forfeit the scenario then and there. 

 

Please add a feature to let us fail boon checks that we don't want. 

[Archangelrey]

You can select a dice roll trait that character doesn't have. Just click the dice tray above the dice and select a different and weaker trait for that character.

[Ripe]

You can select a dice roll trait that character doesn't have. Just click the dice tray above the dice and select a different and weaker trait for that character.

Not even close to being a same thing. What if the character in question have ALL the traits listed on a card?

 

We need to have an option to decline aquiring a boon.

[Ethics Gradient]

Not even close to being a same thing. What if the character in question have ALL the traits listed on a card?

 

No, it is not the same, but it is the best advice until the feature gets implemented.

 

The discussion on this goes back to May, and even earlier if you consider the closed beta.  Last we heard, it was on the to do list, but it's only been recently that forced rolls for unwanted boons has started having a significant quality-of-life impact.

[Darkren]

plus one.  

 

Why do I want a crappy boon if it will force me to BANISH a great boon I have?

 

And how do I roll bad on a boon that the character at the location auto succeeds on in all slots?

 

It may have been less relevant in previous adventure decks, but now that it's becoming more a question of cards being banished if you take the crap, it's getting very significant very quickly.

[jolyonb]

On this topic, is there any way to reacquire yellow-bordered loot cards that got banished for this kind of reason?

[MauGibrin]

On this topic, is there any way to reacquire yellow-bordered loot cards that got banished for this kind of reason?

 

I don't think so. Once a loot is gone, it is gone for good... 

 

Cheers!

 

Mauricio

Edited December 14, 2016 by MauGibrin

[Ripe]

 

Not even close to being a same thing. What if the character in question have ALL the traits listed on a card?

 

No, it is not the same, but it is the best advice until the feature gets implemented.

 

The discussion on this goes back to May, and even earlier if you consider the closed beta.  Last we heard, it was on the to do list, but it's only been recently that forced rolls for unwanted boons has started having a significant quality-of-life impact.

 

Forced rolls for unwanted boons had quality-of-life impact from day 1 considering that declining to aquire a boon is not the same as failing to aquire a boon. Which make huge difference for that wildcard that causes us to discard a blessing from blessing deck each time we fail to aquire a boon. And there were few other situations where failing a check to aquire would bring up other consequences (Glasswork location, some boons)

[Thyraxus]

Which make huge difference for that wildcard that causes us to discard a blessing from blessing deck each time we fail to aquire a boon. And there were few other situations where failing a check to aquire would bring up other consequences (Glasswork location, some boons)

 

Actually, the standard interpretation of the rules seems to be that declining (the attempt to acquire) a boon is to be taken equivalent to failing to acquire it. So all the rules where it says something like "When you fail to acquire a boon..." still apply.

 

Glassworks is a notable exception where it specifically mentions "failing a check to acquire a boon", which means that if you don't even attempt to acquire, you technically don't make a check and therefore can't fail it, but opinions on whether that is the proper interpretation are divided, to say the least.

[Chris_R]

Going to disagree again, with specific reference to the Vault of Greed. It is a nasty property of the Vault - and what people here are actually arguing is that as a byproduct of their desire to pass on boons, they should have consequently the option to simply ignore the one thing that makes the Vault of Greed the Vault of Greed.

 

As soon as you have the option to refuse a boon, the Vault of Greed's text - and the location - becomes completely redundant. Because you will never encounter its drawback. The only time you'll ever use it is when you get an Item you were going to keep anyway, and you get to banish the Item you were going to banish at the end of the scenario anyway a few turns early. I rather think that for a showpiece scenario towards the climax of the campaign, that's a bit deracinated.

 

The scenario is actually easy because of the way location closing works and you get to repeatedly find villains and close locations if you play it right. The three villains are not unduly tough by this point in the game.

 

And so the response of the community appears to be 'there's a bit of this scenario that's a bit risky and challenging. Make it go away'. I appreciate this is not the real intention for many, but it's the practical effect.

 

I'm not really that behind efforts to try to rules lawyer designed scenario drawbacks.

[Ethics Gradient]

Going to disagree again, with specific reference to the Vault of Greed. It is a nasty property of the Vault - and what people here are actually arguing is that as a byproduct of their desire to pass on boons, they should have consequently the option to simply ignore the one thing that makes the Vault of Greed the Vault of Greed.

Thematically, I see the opposite in the Vault of Greed.  The location power is there to punish the "greedy" character by forcing them to banish an item if they want the one they found in the vault.  At AD5, with 4 items, there's a decent chance there's something nice inside; but grab it at your own peril.

 

We're not trying to rules-ninja the game here.  Passing on boons is explicitly allowed, and a completely valid way to mitigate the Vault of Greed's Location Power. 

 

If you encounter a boon while exploring a location, you may attempt a check to acquire the card. If you succeed at the check, put the card in your hand; if you fail, or choose not to attempt the check, banish the card.

[Chris_R]

 

Going to disagree again, with specific reference to the Vault of Greed. It is a nasty property of the Vault - and what people here are actually arguing is that as a byproduct of their desire to pass on boons, they should have consequently the option to simply ignore the one thing that makes the Vault of Greed the Vault of Greed.

Thematically, I see the opposite in the Vault of Greed.  The location power is there to punish the "greedy" character by forcing them to banish an item if they want the one they found in the vault.  At AD5, with 4 items, there's a decent chance there's something nice inside; but grab it at your own peril.

 

Yes, I think that's a fair point. But I like the idea that the Greed of the Vault overwhelms the character's common sense.

 

I do also take your point that the rules do explicitly allow the ability to decline a check. I just think that should not apply in the Vaults because of their link to the Thassilonian sins.

[Ethics Gradient]

Yes, I think that's a fair point. But I like the idea that the Greed of the Vault overwhelms the character's common sense.

 

I do also take your point that the rules do explicitly allow the ability to decline a check. I just think that should not apply in the Vaults because of their link to the Thassilonian sins.

That would actually be pretty cool (in a truly miserable sort of way).  The location card would just need a little bit of extra text like: "You must attempt all checks to acquire boons while at this location" and we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

Instead we'd be having an entirely different debate over on Paizo's forums about how much we absolutely hate the Vault of Greed... and lots of questions about how to replace our torn-up cards.  

[Strategy Builder]

I'm sorry for the rules lawyers and people disappointed by the results of their own bad planning, but the location's function is explicit: you banish the card upon encountering a boon, not upon attempting any checks. You must banish a card before taking any other action, and that would include declining your check if/when that feature is implemented.

 

In other words, it functions correctly and the proposed feature would not affect the function of the location.

 

Edit; the location rules also trump any application of the general rules, even though rules about accepting or declining a check, as quoted, are in fact irrelevant. The location's power is not tied to any check performed.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Strategy Builder

[Darkren]

you do know that there are wildcards rules for legendary encounters, right?   And some say things like "If you bury x many cards for y reason, banish a card" right?

And some scenerios have you bury extra cards when you pass a check for a boon?

 

Even if it is only bury...   you can cure a discard, but not a bury.   Granted, you can carry shovels everywhere.   But what are you giving up to carry that shovel?

 

OR even if it is only discard upon passing the check, it could just be that one time that it would actually cause your character to die.  

If you play with permadeath on, bye bye character...  although I assume raise dead will still work until the end of the scenerio?  I would assume yes, but have not tested it...

 

Granted, many of these, AT CURRENT, are events that do not occur very often.  

 

But checks are getting harder, and characters are reaching their ceilings.  

It WILL be more significant if the current trend continues.

 

Which is why it is being mentioned NOW.   

BEFORE it becomes game breaking.

[elcoderdude]

Now that adventure 5 is out, this is relevant. 2 locations that stand out are the Shimmering Veils of Pride and the Vault of Greed. Both these have effects when you acquire a card and this may cause undesirable results, especially if the card isn't worth while. For example in the Vault of Greed a potion came up that I was guaranteed to get, and would have forced me to banish my loot wand of enervation if I didn't forfeit the scenario then and there. 

 

Please add a feature to let us fail boon checks that we don't want. 

 

Or to be more exact:  please let us choose not to attempt to acquire a boon (like the card game rules permit). 

 

This is not failing the check (although, as stated, it is failing to acquire a boon -- see Burglar).

[Strategy Builder]

I would like to note that I was thinking of the wrong location: the rules for the vault of greed state that an item is banished when one is acquired, not encountered.

 

Does it seem strange to you that the developers left out a whole game feature when building this engine? Is it intentional? They haven't replied to comments and requests about it yet.

 

There are some things that cause you to acquire cards that do not trigger powers properly. I'm thinking of cache encounters here. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.

[Hannibal_PJV]

The dev did comment this allmost a year ago. So They know this matter well.

[Thyraxus]

The only time you'll ever use it is when you get an Item you were going to keep anyway, and you get to banish the Item you were going to banish at the end of the scenario anyway a few turns early.

That's not entirely true. What if, when you encounter that really awesome item you really, really want to have, the only item that you happen to be holding in your hand is another awesome item you really, really don't want to lose?

Edited December 12, 2016 by Thyraxus

[Edannan]

Um... there _is_ a way to pass on a boon in the electronic game. It's called evading. Merisel is one of the 'safe' characters to play in the Vault of Greed specifically because of her ability to say 'no thanks' to anything she encounters (Along with Seelah, who doesn't have items in the first place). If every character had that capability for Boons, then what would be the point of many of the punishing aspects? I get that in the physical card game, you can choose to fail to acquire without rolling, but TBH, it doesn't need to be in this version of the game. Yes, Vault of Greed is dangerous. That's... kinda the point, isn't it?

[Ethics Gradient]

If every character had that capability for Boons, then what would be the point of many of the punishing aspects? I get that in the physical card game, you can choose to fail to acquire without rolling, but TBH, it doesn't need to be in this version of the game. Yes, Vault of Greed is dangerous. That's... kinda the point, isn't it?

Vault of Greed is dangerous.. but only to characters who attempt to take from it.  Characters can get around the effects by keeping their hands to themselves.

 

The Vault of Greed may have caused the forum to be a little more vocal about this request, but it isn't just some minor bit of rules-lawyering.  Characters passing on boons is literally mentioned several times in each of the four Pathfinder ACG rulebooks, and the devs said they intended to implement it. This isn't just about weaseling your way through the Vault of Greed, it's also about not having to waste your time the thousandth time you come across Caltrops or a Short Sword.

 

Being forced to make a check on every boon is a bug, not a feature.  It was an issue back in the beta.  It is still an issue now.

[Edannan]

 

If every character had that capability for Boons, then what would be the point of many of the punishing aspects? I get that in the physical card game, you can choose to fail to acquire without rolling, but TBH, it doesn't need to be in this version of the game. Yes, Vault of Greed is dangerous. That's... kinda the point, isn't it?

Vault of Greed is dangerous.. but only to characters who attempt to take from it.  Characters can get around the effects by keeping their hands to themselves.

 

The Vault of Greed may have caused the forum to be a little more vocal about this request, but it isn't just some minor bit of rules-lawyering.  Characters passing on boons is literally mentioned several times in each of the four Pathfinder ACG rulebooks, and the devs said they intended to implement it. This isn't just about weaseling your way through the Vault of Greed, it's also about not having to waste your time the thousandth time you come across Caltrops or a Short Sword.

 

Being forced to make a check on every boon is a bug, not a feature.  It was an issue back in the beta.  It is still an issue now.

 

 

I suppose my thinking is a little skewed, since there seem to be so few Items actually worth acquiring in general compared to the number of crappy Items, so I assumed the Halls were meant to imply a compulsion. Always made me laugh at the Pit of Malfeshnekor when I encountered it. If they ever implement this, it'll certainly make the Halls of Greed a similar joke.

[MauGibrin]

 

Always made me laugh at the Pit of Malfeshnekor when I encountered it. If they ever implement this, it'll certainly make the Halls of Greed a similar joke.

 

 

Maybe, but you cannot blame the guys at Obsidian - since the fault lies with Paizo's original design.

 

One of the things I dislike the most about Pathfinder is how special weapon/spell powers like poison or mental are mostly a drawback, not an advantage (since there are lots of immune enemies and they rarely do something significant against non-immune foes). But it makes little sense to complain about it on these forums, since they are not supposed to 'fix' the game here, only to implement it electronically...

 

Cheers!

 

Mauricio

Edited December 14, 2016 by MauGibrin

[Darkren]

IT's not a complaint.

 

It's feedback.

 

Which is kinda why the forums exist.

 

It seems there are two groups of people on this:  the I don't cares, and the I want its.

 

Either way, it is what it is.  No one will know your opinion if you don't put it out there.

[Borissimo]

What mystifies me the most in this discussion is why anybody opposes the implementation of one of the game's rules. The ability to pass on boons is one of the rules of the game. Saying "just roll an untrained skill" is totally asinine. It's like if in the digital version you couldn't discard blessings to take an extra exploration and somebody posted a thread titled "we should be allowed to discard blessings to explore again" and other people posted in that thread like "just use allies."

 

There's nothing to argue about here. You're allowed to pass on boons. That's the rule! Five sixths of the game have been released and the rule still hasn't been implemented. It should be. The end!

 

Night Approaches and the Vault of Greed just happen to be convenient examples that illustrate the consequences of not having this RULE implemented in the digital version of the game. To argue about the merit of these examples is to miss the point entirely.