Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Polk5440]

There are some interesting concepts to think about with this set of cards, and I don't think the answers are as clear-cut as it seems. It seems like people are all over the map on the following questions.

1) How good is gaining money in hand?

A Gold in hand is powerful; but not broken. Horse Traders gives you +$3 and a Buy and forces you to discard 2 cards; it seems like Gold in hand with discarding two cards would be only slightly better.

A Copper in hand gives you +$1 right now; it may be trashed later depending on the kingdom. Certainly, getting a Copper in hand is better than getting in your discard pile, but how much better? Consider:

Poppy
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Choose one: +1 Card, +$1, or trash a card from your hand.  If you choose...
+1 Card, each other player draws a card.
+$1, each other player gains a Copper in hand.
Trash a card, +1 VP, and each other player may trash a card from his hand.

This card is fun. I do not agree that this card should be labeled attack. Gaining a Copper in hand is about as soft an attack as you can have. Clearly, if it read, "may gain a Copper in hand" then this card would definitely not be an attack. Maybe that would solidify this card as a $4, weakening the second (and usually, but not always, the "strongest" option)? Regardless, the logic seems clear: Having your opponents gain a Copper in hand is the cleanest way of having them gain $1 on their turn. Yeah, it's a little worse, but that shouldn't be too bad, if we think +$1 is generally better than +1 Card. It beats having to make the card a Duration to give opponents +$1, or having to accumulate a token, or gain then trash a Copper, or remembering the bonus. Gaining the Copper in hand seems much better than gaining it in your discard pile.

I admit, because the large space the options span for this card, I would pay $5 for this card as written.

And what about gaining a Silver in hand?

Cinnamon
$4 - Action-Reaction
+1 Card
+2 Actions
--
When a player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside. If you do, gain a Silver in hand. Return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

This is intriguing -- a reaction to something that isn't an attack -- but the Silver in hand just seems too much. I would have preferred "may gain a Copper in hand."


2) How good is +2 Cards, +2 Actions, anyway?

It seems like under current Dominion pricing, +2 Cards, +2 Actions would be a (too stong?) $5. So how to knock it down to size? Or is really not as good as it first appears?

Marjoram
$4 - Action-Duration
+2 Cards
At the start of your next turn, +2 Actions.

Marjoram doesn't give you the two bonuses together. But, I think this would be fine at $4 if you only got 1 Action next turn (maybe that actually was the intent?). I really like the idea of a Duration Village; but not so sure about a super-Village on the second turn.

Chervil
$5 - Action
If played for the first time this turn: +2 Cards, +2 actions, +$1.
All other plays: +$1, +2 Actions.

Beefs it up, but doesn't let you stack it. But is stacking really the concern with +2 Cards, +2 Actions? Or is even one enough of an engine enabler to be a problem at $5?

Mint
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
--
When at least one [This Card] is in play and you gain a Province or Colony, every other player gains a gold, putting it into their hand.

This card offsets it by giving a huge conditional bonus to your opponents (and we're back to question 1). Powerman thinks the card is too strong. WW does not. I just think this card seems too swingy.

Patchouli
$5 - Action
Gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold in hand.
If you gain a Copper, +2 Cards, +2 Actions.
If you gain a Silver, +1 Action.
If you gain a Gold, discard two cards.

This card offsets it by You gaining a Copper in hand (but how bad is that really? and we're back to question 1). And there is choice -- which adds power (see Quesiton 3) but those choices also bring up question 1! I really like the concept of this card, but I really don't know how evaluate it in terms of strength. But isn't that one mark of a great card? That it takes some playing to figure out?

3) How valuable is choice?

If card with ability X, is correctly priced at $3, and a card with ability Y is correctly priced at $3, it just seems wrong to conclude in general that a card that has ability "Choose one of X or Y" could be priced correctly at anything less than $4. A card that has 2 or 3 (or more) choices seems like it would be more likely to be balanced if no option can stand alone at the price point of the card.

For instance:

Stevia
$3 - Action
Choose one: +2 Actions, or all players draw up to 6 cards in hand. You may set aside any Treasure cards drawn this way, as you draw them; discard the set aside cards after you finish drawing.
--
(Rules clarification: If the draw option is exercised, only the player who played the card may set aside Treasure cards as he draws up to 6 cards in hand; all other players simply draw up to 6 cards in hand.)

This seems right to me: each ability by itself is weak at $3; but they are in different spaces and synergize together with multiple plays of the card. It takes a LOT of help to be able to consistently make the draw option draw two good Treasures regularly (and this is off-set by allowing your opponents to draw and you hitting Actions and Victories) -- so this is definitely not overpowered. It does contribute interestingly to the Library-engine style card set. I like this card a lot.

Thyme
$3 $4- Action-Reaction
Choose one: +2 Cards or +3 Actions.
--
When you discard this from play, you may put it on top of your deck.
--
When you discard this other than during a Clean-Up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, set this aside, then at the start of your next turn, return it to your hand.

In contrast, this just seems way over-powered. +3 Actions alone could be priced at $3. It also has the super-ability that just allows it to defy being discarded. Also, see Powerman and WW above. Edit: Now that the price is fixed, I can't call it clearly "way over-powered," but I still don't like the card's aversion to the discard pile, which I still think is a sneaky-powerful ability, and even at $4 still have some power concerns. I would have to play with the card to know for sure.

Cayenne
$3P - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, +1 Buy.

I really like Cayenne, but really wish it was priced without Potion; say, at $5. I'm sure it thematically goes with whatever it's official name is, but still...

Vanilla
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Action, or discard your hand and draw 4 cards.

I like this card, too. I agree with WW; the best part of Minion.

Saffron, Turmeric, Mace, Fennel, and Sesame are other cards in this category that just seem under-priced because of the power of choice (and I just don't like them that much).

Other Thoughts

There are a lot of good thoughts posted in other comments relating to a lot of other individual cards, but I want to add some thoughts of mine:

I vote no on "permanents" unless it's really interesting. Rosemary and Sage don't cut it for me.

I prefer Cardamom over Coriander, but neither seems like a good enough implementation of Victory as Treasure. The Basil and Anise mechanic seems hard to balance properly. However, interesting idea, and I like Anise better.

Clove is too much like Almoner, as others have said.

Oregano seems to work at $4.

Borage looks like an interesting Cartographer variant that isn't too powerful (like a lot of the ones in the last contest). Being able to reorganize is an under-looked power in cards -- but I agree that another top of the deck improver isn't really needed.

Savory is nicely balanced.

Savory
$4 - Action-Attack
+2 Actions
+$1
Each other player may discard a Treasure card.  If he doesn't, he gains a Copper.

The attack isn't too strong but keeps people thinking -- right up my alley.

Fennel is too cheap, but I like the mechanic, I think.

Paprika seems like a nice riff on Throne Room. By why does this need to be a village?

I must be a vampire because Garlic makes me recoil in fear.

Cumin seems kind of strong. Also, I would rather have an alt VP enabler rather than more alt VP.

There are a lot of villages that are Village + benefit. Of these cards, I really like Mustard.

Mustard
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may put a Victory card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2.

Yeah it's too strong (a super-duper Market for $4 and all you have to do is put a green card on your deck? and practically no further penalty if you have two of them in your hand?), but that could easily be fixed by pricing it at $5.

And lastly, unlike rinkworks, I still can't handle the cards that give four or more different bonuses depending on what happens. But I must be breaking down -- just last week I would have said "three or more different bonuses"...

[One of the cards mentioned is mine.]

[Powerman]

Mint
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
--
When at least one [This Card] is in play and you gain a Province or Colony, every other player gains a gold, putting it into their hand.

This card offsets it by giving a huge conditional bonus to your opponents (and we're back to question 1). Powerman thinks the card is too strong. WW does not. I just think this card seems too swingy.

I've change my thinking.  I like the card mechanism, but I think the card gained should not be in hand as that IS too big of an opponent benefit.

[rinkworks]

Ballot Error:  The entry "Thyme" was originally posted with a cost of $3.  It should have been $4.  I have changed the ballot post accordingly.  Sorry about the error.

[greatexpectations]

I've change my thinking.  I like the card mechanism, but I think the card gained should not be in hand as that IS too big of an opponent benefit.

you can find a balance between gaining/gaining in hand by top decking it or shuffling it into your deck.

[Polk5440]

Ballot Error:  The entry "Thyme" was originally posted with a cost of $3.  It should have been $4.  I have changed the ballot post accordingly.  Sorry about the error.

Thanks for noting that. I edited my post above.

[rinkworks]

1) How good is gaining money in hand?

A Gold in hand is powerful; but not broken. Horse Traders gives you +$3 and a Buy and forces you to discard 2 cards; it seems like Gold in hand with discarding two cards would be only slightly better.

Massively better.  First let's establish that "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."  Horse Traders is a good comparison here.   What you're saying is that "Gain a Gold" is only slightly better than "+1 Buy."  These are more similar abilities than it first appears, as a gainer is a form of +Buy:   both allow you to get an extra card on that turn.  But to duplicate the effect of a card that gains a Gold, you need "+1 Buy, +$6."  In other words, "Gain a gold in hand; discard two cards" is more than a Platinum better than "+1 Buy; +$3; discard two cards."

Another way to look at it:  Bag of Gold is a Prize-level card, and you don't even get the Gold in hand.  No required discards either, admittedly.  But even "Gain a gold; discard your hand" is a card that's too powerful to be able to open with, and more than Horse Traders typically allows, its specialty being to secure $5 hands reliably.

[Polk5440]

Massively better.  First let's establish that "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."  Horse Traders is a good comparison here.   What you're saying is that "Gain a Gold" is only slightly better than "+1 Buy."  These are more similar abilities than it first appears, as a gainer is a form of +Buy:   both allow you to get an extra card on that turn.  But to duplicate the effect of a card that gains a Gold, you need "+1 Buy, +$6."  In other words, "Gain a gold in hand; discard two cards" is more than a Platinum better than "+1 Buy; +$3; discard two cards."

Another way to look at it:  Bag of Gold is a Prize-level card, and you don't even get the Gold in hand.  No required discards either, admittedly.  But even "Gain a gold; discard your hand" is a card that's too powerful to be able to open with, and more than Horse Traders typically allows, its specialty being to secure $5 hands reliably.

Good points. I like the way you are thinking about it: "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."

I disagree that it's anything similar to +1 Buy, +$6, though, because you don't have to buy Gold in that case; you can buy a LOT of other things (massive increase in choice, which is very, very valuable). I would claim +1 Buy, +$6 is a LOT more powerful than "gain a Gold." Also, gaining money gets progressively worse as the game continues. There is usually a point where gaining money (even Platinums) is completely worthless because the game will end soon.

I just can't see gaining a Gold in hand being more than a Platinum better ever, even at the beginning of the game. To me, this just shows how powerful gaining spending power NOW is, especially late game.

Are there any forum threads on the topic?

[Grujah]

"Gain a Gold" is a mandatory buy Black Market that gives +$6 but you only offers you Gold to buy.

[Powerman]

1) How good is gaining money in hand?

A Gold in hand is powerful; but not broken. Horse Traders gives you +$3 and a Buy and forces you to discard 2 cards; it seems like Gold in hand with discarding two cards would be only slightly better.

Massively better.  First let's establish that "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."  Horse Traders is a good comparison here.   What you're saying is that "Gain a Gold" is only slightly better than "+1 Buy."  These are more similar abilities than it first appears, as a gainer is a form of +Buy:   both allow you to get an extra card on that turn.  But to duplicate the effect of a card that gains a Gold, you need "+1 Buy, +$6."  In other words, "Gain a gold in hand; discard two cards" is more than a Platinum better than "+1 Buy; +$3; discard two cards."

Another way to look at it:  Bag of Gold is a Prize-level card, and you don't even get the Gold in hand.  No required discards either, admittedly.  But even "Gain a gold; discard your hand" is a card that's too powerful to be able to open with, and more than Horse Traders typically allows, its specialty being to secure $5 hands reliably.

Bolded part... = Vault?

[nopawnsintended]

Massively better.  First let's establish that "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."  Horse Traders is a good comparison here.   What you're saying is that "Gain a Gold" is only slightly better than "+1 Buy."  These are more similar abilities than it first appears, as a gainer is a form of +Buy:   both allow you to get an extra card on that turn.  But to duplicate the effect of a card that gains a Gold, you need "+1 Buy, +$6."  In other words, "Gain a gold in hand; discard two cards" is more than a Platinum better than "+1 Buy; +$3; discard two cards."

Another way to look at it:  Bag of Gold is a Prize-level card, and you don't even get the Gold in hand.  No required discards either, admittedly.  But even "Gain a gold; discard your hand" is a card that's too powerful to be able to open with, and more than Horse Traders typically allows, its specialty being to secure $5 hands reliably.

Good points. I like the way you are thinking about it: "Gain a gold in hand" is the rough equivalent of "+$3; gain a Gold."

I disagree that it's anything similar to +1 Buy, +$6, though, because you don't have to buy Gold in that case; you can buy a LOT of other things (massive increase in choice, which is very, very valuable). I would claim +1 Buy, +$6 is a LOT more powerful than "gain a Gold." Also, gaining money gets progressively worse as the game continues. There is usually a point where gaining money (even Platinums) is completely worthless because the game will end soon.

I just can't see gaining a Gold in hand being more than a Platinum better ever, even at the beginning of the game. To me, this just shows how powerful gaining spending power NOW is, especially late game.

Are there any forum threads on the topic?

There's not much value to having $12 to spend rather than $8 without extra buy. This is to say there are diminishing returns to gaining additional Golds if you can't pair it with something like +Buy and +Cards. 

I think the comparison of Vault with "Gain a Gold in hand, discard 2 cards" (maybe Powerman said this earlier?) is a good way to look at it too.  By the way, if you forgive ignoring the externality, Vault is strictly better than "Gain a Gold, discard your hand" as a possible opener with 5/2.  This is because you need not buy the Gold (Tactician, Hoard or Goons come to mind), and later in the game you have the option to discard only the bad stuff, so the card greens well too.  It also conveniently draws enough cards so that if one of them is Gold, you can get a Province.

I would actually be curious to know if using the option of "Gain a Gold in hand, discard 2" repeatedly is faster or slower at getting Provinces than Vault --> Gold --> Vault+Gold --> Province.  This might be board dependent (the gain a Gold option would be much better early b/c ), but I have a feeling that discarding two rather than drawing two is really important here.

Another point relating to Polk's objection: To replicate the "+1 Buy, +$6" with a terminal "Gain a Gold in hand, discard two cards," you would need to have a Salvager in hand when you gain the Gold, and you would have to have extra actions from earlier plays.  There's not *that* much added benefit to getting flexibility, but it could definitely be valuable, especially given that you already have a bunch of Gold.

Edit: I think Powerman said this about Vault earlier... not just in the post he wrote while I wrote this.

[rinkworks]

But even "Gain a gold; discard your hand" is a card that's too powerful to be able to open with, and more than Horse Traders typically allows, its specialty being to secure $5 hands reliably.

Bolded part... = Vault?

Vault incurs a penalty in the form of a benefit to the opponent (a benefit which, I'm sure, is not coincidentally stronger in the early game).

Vault without a penalty is therefore better than a $5 card and, indeed, too powerful to open with.  I stand by my statement.

I disagree that it's anything similar to +1 Buy, +$6, though, because you don't have to buy Gold in that case; you can buy a LOT of other things (massive increase in choice, which is very, very valuable). I would claim +1 Buy, +$6 is a LOT more powerful than "gain a Gold."

I knew I'd get picked up on that and should have gone into more detail.  Yes, certainly you'd prefer $6 you can do whatever you want with.  Still, Gold costs $6, and you're talking about a card that does virtually what Horse Traders does but throws in a free Gold.  That's massive -- leaps and bounds above what a +Buy will do for you.

Again, figure that Horse Traders' primary use (the top part, anyway) is to reach $5, so you can better rush some critical $5 pile, be it Hunting Party or Duke or Minion or whatever.  The +Buy is often going to go unused.  You pick up Coppers in Duke games.  In Hunting Party games, you don't pick up anything extra until the engine is already firing, at which point, yes, it's a big deal.  But under ordinarily circumstances, that HT isn't going to let you get a Gold AND a critical $5, which is precisely what this card allows.  It is difficult to overstate the effect of JUST getting an early Gold, but to get an early Gold AND another key, expensive card is just dominating in a way Horse Traders will never be.

So yeah, that pseudo-$6 comes with strings attached.   But it still means you get a $6 card in your deck AND boost your buying power in the early game (when you can discard Estates), weakening it only in the middle game when your Gold density is so high it doesn't matter that you have to discard stuff and strengthening it again once you start having green cards to discard.  I'm pretty sure that such a card is too powerful to cost at any price.  Again, Bag of Gold is a Prize, and it's tons weaker.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Mustard
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may put a Victory card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2.

Yeah it's too strong (a super-duper Market for $4 and all you have to do is put a green card on your deck? and practically no further penalty if you have two of them in your hand?), but that could easily be fixed by pricing it at $5.

It turns into a Festival when it's activated. It's not even giving you any cycling, because the card has to go on top of your deck and has to be junk. (Ignore Nobles ._.) This card looked really inelegant until I realized it was essentially a Village/Festival split card.

[Polk5440]

Mustard
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may put a Victory card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +1 Buy, +$2.

Yeah it's too strong (a super-duper Market for $4 and all you have to do is put a green card on your deck? and practically no further penalty if you have two of them in your hand?), but that could easily be fixed by pricing it at $5.

It turns into a Festival when it's activated. It's not even giving you any cycling, because the card has to go on top of your deck and has to be junk. (Ignore Nobles ._.) This card looked really inelegant until I realized it was essentially a Village/Festival split card.

I guess I was reading the card as: if you put a Victory on your deck you get +1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, and +$2, which is one more Action than Grand Market gives you (hence super-duper market). I see the comparison you are making with Festival because you can't draw more Mustards without help. You draw the green card in hand instead. But you do get one chance to draw another when you play your first Mustard (the Victory goes on the deck AFTER you draw). In addition, if you put a Great Hall on your deck or Nobles, as you mentioned, you get around the restriction, which is something that is hard to ignore completely. And even so, the penalty doesn't really stack in the sense of clogging your next hand with multiple Victory cards (which I also like, but it does make the card stronger).

I do really like the card, but I would want to have it play tested before settling on a cost -- and if it really works at $4, fine. I was imagining it would hit more often than not, and would be generally very helpful. For now, I am sticking to my claim it should cost more. I could be wrong, though. 

[Tdog]

Scout plus Mustard is the new Super Combo!

[nopawnsintended]

Scout plus Mustard is the new Super Combo!

Oh yeah!  Scout is the super enabler.

[Titandrake]

Wait, am I the only one who thinks Savory is broken? Sure, it doesn't draw a card, making it less chainable, but if you can make an engine to play ~3 a turn, it seems far too good. If you don't have treasure in hand, you gain lots of Coppers. If you don't want to discard any treasure, you gain lots of Copper. Discarding 2 treasure or more is essentially a better Militia. To me, it seems that if you get an engine going with Savory as +Actions, no one else can make an engine because of Copper flood.

I suppose that opponent's Savory can attack back, but it still feels off to me.

[Tdog]

Wait, am I the only one who thinks Savory is broken? Sure, it doesn't draw a card, making it less chainable, but if you can make an engine to play ~3 a turn, it seems far too good. If you don't have treasure in hand, you gain lots of Coppers. If you don't want to discard any treasure, you gain lots of Copper. Discarding 2 treasure or more is essentially a better Militia. To me, it seems that if you get an engine going with Savory as +Actions, no one else can make an engine because of Copper flood.

I suppose that opponent's Savory can attack back, but it still feels off to me.

Every other savory is ineffective because you can just discard the copper. And it can help you if you need one more for a province or Alt VP. And the village part sucks. So no I don't think it's overpowered.

[gman314]

Wait, am I the only one who thinks Savory is broken? Sure, it doesn't draw a card, making it less chainable, but if you can make an engine to play ~3 a turn, it seems far too good. If you don't have treasure in hand, you gain lots of Coppers. If you don't want to discard any treasure, you gain lots of Copper. Discarding 2 treasure or more is essentially a better Militia. To me, it seems that if you get an engine going with Savory as +Actions, no one else can make an engine because of Copper flood.

I suppose that opponent's Savory can attack back, but it still feels off to me.

Every other savory is ineffective because you can just discard the copper. And it can help you if you need one more for a province or Alt VP. And the village part sucks. So no I don't think it's overpowered.

It doesn't say to gain the copper in hand. However, I think making it do that would fix it.

[Titandrake]

Wait, am I the only one who thinks Savory is broken? Sure, it doesn't draw a card, making it less chainable, but if you can make an engine to play ~3 a turn, it seems far too good. If you don't have treasure in hand, you gain lots of Coppers. If you don't want to discard any treasure, you gain lots of Copper. Discarding 2 treasure or more is essentially a better Militia. To me, it seems that if you get an engine going with Savory as +Actions, no one else can make an engine because of Copper flood.

I suppose that opponent's Savory can attack back, but it still feels off to me.

Every other savory is ineffective because you can just discard the copper. And it can help you if you need one more for a province or Alt VP. And the village part sucks. So no I don't think it's overpowered.

It doesn't say to gain the copper in hand. However, I think making it do that would fix it.

I really want the card to do that, but then the card starts feeling too weak. Free money is pretty good. I think it's workable if you fiddle with the cost and effect.

[gman314]

The problem is that as it stands, the card totally destroys any Big Money strategy. If the same card also helped build a treasure-free strategy, it could work, but it doesn't. So, on some boards, it could just destroy the game almost completely.

[Tdog]

Oh yeah then I do think savory is a bit overpowered because of the power of non terminal attacks.

[Hks]

Patchouli
$5 - Action
Gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold in hand.
If you gain a Copper, +2 Cards, +2 Actions.
If you gain a Silver, +1 Action.
If you gain a Gold, discard two cards.

The Silver option is superior to Explorer's (unless you gain a gold with Explorer), it's a non-terminal Explorer. Also this card has more flexibility, you obviously choose what to gain based on how many actions you need. All these options are quite powerful. If you choose gold, and has a single silver and copper in hand, you can discard the two other cards and have a double-gold turn. Gaining a gold in hand is quite powerful.

[NoMoreFun]

Patchouli
$5 - Action
Gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold in hand.
If you gain a Copper, +2 Cards, +2 Actions.
If you gain a Silver, +1 Action.
If you gain a Gold, discard two cards.

The Silver option is superior to Explorer's (unless you gain a gold with Explorer), it's a non-terminal Explorer. Also this card has more flexibility, you obviously choose what to gain based on how many actions you need. All these options are quite powerful. If you choose gold, and has a single silver and copper in hand, you can discard the two other cards and have a double-gold turn. Gaining a gold in hand is quite powerful.

I'm almost thinking this was a typo at 5. It seems like a 6 or 7.

[Dubdubdubdub]

Patchouli
$5 - Action
Gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold in hand.
If you gain a Copper, +2 Cards, +2 Actions.
If you gain a Silver, +1 Action.
If you gain a Gold, discard two cards.

The Silver option is superior to Explorer's (unless you gain a gold with Explorer), it's a non-terminal Explorer. Also this card has more flexibility, you obviously choose what to gain based on how many actions you need. All these options are quite powerful. If you choose gold, and has a single silver and copper in hand, you can discard the two other cards and have a double-gold turn. Gaining a gold in hand is quite powerful.

I'm almost thinking this was a typo at 5. It seems like a 6 or 7.

Don't agree. The penalty for Gold might not be harsh enough, but it doesn't seem all that broken. Sure, the silver option is a non-terminal Explorer unless you gain a gold with Explorer. That's a pretty big unless to me.

[popsofctown]

Patchouli
$5 - Action
Gain a Copper, Silver, or Gold in hand.
If you gain a Copper, +2 Cards, +2 Actions.
If you gain a Silver, +1 Action.
If you gain a Gold, discard two cards.

The Silver option is superior to Explorer's (unless you gain a gold with Explorer), it's a non-terminal Explorer. Also this card has more flexibility, you obviously choose what to gain based on how many actions you need. All these options are quite powerful. If you choose gold, and has a single silver and copper in hand, you can discard the two other cards and have a double-gold turn. Gaining a gold in hand is quite powerful.

I'm almost thinking this was a typo at 5. It seems like a 6 or 7.

Don't agree. The penalty for Gold might not be harsh enough, but it doesn't seem all that broken. Sure, the silver option is a non-terminal Explorer unless you gain a gold with Explorer. That's a pretty big unless to me.

No, really.  The card is broken in half. 

Magic Ingot
5$ - Treasure
Worth 2$
When you play this, gain a Silver.

Magic Ingot is almost strictly worse than this card and it'd never see print.