Viro Melchior's page

Definitely feels like these rules are trying to reach both standards of play (pre-2.0 being run under 2.0, as well as 2.0), and wind up making some pretty major changes/mistakes.

Having to have Cure removed from the Vault is particularly painful. And both of the latest 2 seasons include rewards that let you make use of low adventure deck content. Mummy's Mask seasons would be particularly destroyed by this change, as Sunburst Market is unusable after Deck 2.

IMHO, 2.0 should have come out, and then release 2.0 PACS content - and groups switch to the new rules when they start the new content.

However, instead, everyone is being told to run 2.0 rules with 1.0 content, and it's creating a TON of issues that won't be there once you're using 2.0 cards with 2.0 rules (or rather, using scenarios and cards created with 2.0 rules in mind).

Hopefully can get an official rule on this, as my group is still playing the latest S&S path, and halfway through Deck 2. So this rule is going to be VERY relevant to us very soon.

I've been GMing and playing in tabletop RPGs for about 25 years now (since AD&D 2nd Ed.)

I agree that this "players vs GM" confuses the hell out of me. If a GM wants to kill his players, it's super easy. Nothing in the rules says the GM cannot force the players into 3 back-to-back extreme challenge encounters. 4th edition D&D "guaranteed" the players a 5 minute rest between encounters (to recover encounter powers), but that's about the safest the rules have ever made players from a cruel GM.

GMs have ALWAYS had far far too much power. That's their job. If a player can show up to a table and boss the GM around, they're likely going to make the game less fun for the other players.

And if not - if the GM is making the game less fun for all the players, and RulesExpertJohn is challenging him and trying to fix it, the better solution is usually just to find a different GM, not get into gritty rules lawyering.

-----

The Rulebooks are tools and guidelines to help a GM make a meaningful and structured experience for the players. And they are there so that the players are on equal footing with each other (not with the GM).

In fact, page 8 of Core Rulebook (2.0):
"The GM is in charge of the story and world."
"...being a GM is a challenge, requiring you to adjudicate the rules..."
"the only thing that matters is that everyone has a good time, and that includes you"

And on page 483 (ch10: Game Mastering):
"As Game Master, you have the final say on how the world AND RULES function, and how nonplayer characters act. This rule's purpose is to make the game run smoothly, with one guiding hand ensuring consistency. It's not intended to make one player dictator over the rest of the group."

-----

These quotes point out quite clearly that a GM saying "no, you can't" is perfectly ok. The GM is in charge of the rules.

Pathfinder Society play bends this in favor of the players some, but in the end, it is still the GM in charge - and fully capable of killing an entire party off if he/she decides to.

Hell, the DM makes tons of dice rolls behind the screen - which is yet another method they can 'cheat' (for good or for ill). If the GM has a free license to cheat, what would you (as a player) hope to accomplish by backing the GM into a rules corner, and/or making him hate you as a player?

-----

The GM has all the power. But he also is the one most responsible for making the game fun. And if players don't like a GM, the power *they* have is to not play.

-----

With regards to rarity, I love the simplicity of the system.

Common = in the game for everyone
Uncommon = in the game for players whose background/character is appropriate, or for the GM to allow for other characters
Rare = GM's choice when/where to allow it

If you're a player, and want uncommon gear(s), it should fit into your characters ancestry/background. If your build/idea won't work without rare gear, I think you should be asking yourself why play such a high maintenance idea in a game with a GM you aren't familiar with.

I've been playing around with BlueJey64's retro character sheet. I don't have his fonts and design capabilities, but I added a thing or two just pasting his elements differently and came up with this:

Modmod on BlueJay64's Retro Character Sheet

FWIW, I don't think it's necessary to have the level of each feat you get marked on the sheet as such. When I white in a feat, I preface it with a1, a2... (for an ancetry feat) c1, c2... (for class feats) and so on.

Perhaps it's from being so used to PF1, but I find it far more readable than the standard PF2 sheet.

If anyone's interested, I can post a link to the word file, to facilitate inserting a character portrait.

You'll find that a lot of experienced players use a bit of extra notation - to remember where they got something from. For me, this was especially common with D&D 3.5 due to the *ridiculous* number of sourcebooks to draw from. It was very important to have notes of how I got something, where I got it from, and often times, what I had planned (because sometimes you forget!).

I'd encourage you to look at two at a quick glance:

Celeste:
Flame Staff

Imrijka:
Boots of Friendly Terrain

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Celeste just added the Flame Staff to attempt to help (and it's in her deck list as posted here), and Imrijka has the boots already.

The replacement card is the new card.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

replacement noun

re·​place·​ment | \ ri-ˈplās-mənt \
Definition of replacement
1 : the action or process of replacing : the state of being replaced
2 : one that replaces another especially in a job or function

"the state of being replaced"

A replacement can, in fact, be referring to the object being removed. It isn't absolute 100% perfect English, but neither is a lot of what gets said (including in rulebooks).

Thank you for the clarification, I'll have to crack open my core box and see what would actually qualify in a helpful manner for me here.

Vic Wertz wrote:

"...If the replacement card’s level is higher than your tier, you can’t replace that card until you’re allowed to put cards of that level into your deck."

Is the "replacement card" the original card or the new Core/CotCT card?

To me, "replacement card" sounds like the newer Core/CotCT card, but then the phrase "replace that card" suggests the opposite - the original card that is being replaced.

And this is why words matter. Pathfinder does a pretty good job, but far far from perfect.

Also, this is why legal documents are full of explicitly telling you what parties/objects will be referred to as ("henceforth referred to as"). Because when a word can have multiple meanings, then the entire document can have multiple interpretations.

Thankfully, this is just a game, so a developer type person saying "Yo, this is what we meant" after the fact is plenty of resolution (at least for everyone who finds the post).

Estra's current deck:

Djinni Quarterstaff
Fire Snake
Cure (x2)
Life Drain
Burning Snot
Tussah Silk Coat
Dreamcatcher
Hypnotist's Locket
Magical Child
Vexing Daredevil
Honaire
Blessing of Sivanah
Blessing of Milani
Blessing of the Spellbound
Blessing of Abraxas

Feats
+1 Blessing
+1 Wisdom
+1 Hand Size

Deck list for Yojimbo (feats are +1 blessing, +1 hand size, and +1 str)
As mentioned, using Barbarian + Ultimate Combat

Katana +1
Naginata
Nine-Ring Sword
Greatsword
Wolfhide Armor
Fireproof O-Yoroi
Mattock
Crowbar
Blood Periapt
Surgeon (just got, have not ran this scenario with this card - was Retainer)
Retriever
Blessing of the Samurai
Blessing of the Gods (x2)
Blessing of Shax
Jinfu

Of note, the single card that would help Yojimbo the most here is any of the "roll X stat instead of the normal die" items, which are Deck 2. Since that could let me roll 2d10 (including blessing) instead of 2d6 when looking for that 8 or 9 to close. But because this debacle is occuring right out the gates in Deck 1, you haven't gotten access to cards that give that level of problem solving.

Honestly, having to swap characters for a reasonably well balanced group to clear a scenario means (to me) that the scenario has critical design flaws.

That shouldn't be the solution to overcoming a scenario, because at that point, the adventure paths should simply list which characters they are designed to play with (which defeats the entire point of organized play and class decks).

I'm one of the players (Yojimbo) - and our group generally has minimal issues with scenarios outside a run of bad luck, or approaching a scenario completely wrong.

Two of our players - with a blessing, are rolling 2d6 and looking for an 8 (or 9 post-haunt).

Because this is a deck 1 adeventure, there are VERY few tools available to us to improve our chances, and altering your deck takes forever due to the way organized play upgrades work.

Honestly, my biggest complaint is that this scenario is so lobsided that spending too much effort setting up our decks to try to handle it a bit better will just hurt us during Deck 2 & 3, where we'll be forced to intentionally replay just to get anti-undead (or other cards we put in for this scenario) stuff back out of our deck, because the rest of the campaign is not 95% undead & wisdom closes (or divine).

Avenge really doesn't help much, since the core problems we are encountering:

Close checks (and as James posted, 3/5 of the Henchmen are just auto-clears).
Monsters and Barriers that aggressively punish players for grouping up, combined with 2 characters that cannot deal with getting dragged into multiple extra combats per turn (ie, Celeste being unable to use her default combat ability). So if we were to group up, the odds of us just getting wiped out increase dramatically.
Imrijka can't help with combats (via bow/xbow) unless she's in a different location.

It really feels like if we group up, Celeste is basically removed from the scenario. So what we've been doing is having Yojimbo and Imrijka clear through a location with occasional outside help. However, even with a blessing, Imrijka is 2d6+3 looking for an 8 (or higher), so the chance of a failure remains quite relevant - and failing is catastrophic.

I believe this thread is actually about Skull & Shackles Alahazra, but this thread should answer your questions about CD Alahazra.

Thanks!

I spent over 30 minutes searching for an answer before posting, but never managed to find that thread.

Still doesn't have a concrete answer, but sounds like the weakest possible interpretation is agreed on.

Is this the right place for Class Deck Alahazra questions?

If so, have a question about how her 2nd ability (look at an extra card) works when combined with cards that directly interact with the (usually single) examined card.

Ability: "When you examine 1 or more cards from a character or location deck, you may examine an additional card"

Helpful Haversack: "At the start of your turn, reveal this card to examine the top card of your deck. You may additionally discard this card to add the examined card to your hand; otherwise, return the examined card to the top or bottom of your deck.

Blessing of Thoth: "Discard this card to examine the top card of your location deck. If the card has the Undead trait, you may explore your location."

-------

Okay, so with Haversack, you obviously get to examine a 2nd card.

• If you discard the Haversack, do you draw both cards, or just the top one?
  
• If you put them back, presumably you cannot change the order?

Blessing of Thoth is more complex, since it is trait-checking.

• If both cards have Undead, does it trigger one explore or two?
  
• If only the 2nd card is Undead, do you encounter the first card, or the card that matches the criteria?

-------

I know there have been a few other cards that the group I'm playing with has run into already, but I think those 2 cards cover most of the questions that came up.