Disenchanter's page

I almost hate reading the comments sections on some of the tech sites (or CNN, for that matter)--Just do a Google search for 'iPad WiFi issues' and almost every site that has a comments section reads thus:

there about 1% honest assessments or asides; 10% Apple-products-are-Kaminoan-perfect; and 80% Apple-suxx, Steve Jobs pwnd! you, n00b!

Nature of the beast. Those who aren't having problems probably aren't on those sites.

I am one part impressed, and one part disappointed.

I'm impressed Apple was actually prepared, after a fashion.
I'm disappointed because from a manufacturing standpoint that means they were likely aware of the issues (probably due to a bad batch of wi-fi transceivers, or some manufacturing errors) and counted on it being better for their bottom line to "fix it in the field" rather than postpone their release date. But this is usually true for any big business...

From reading Apples support page, it appears only a tech repair, or replacement will fix the issue. If you have to move closer to the access point, it isn't a software issue...

So that means a staff listed at +2 should be considered +2/+2 correct?

That is the way I read it.

Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"

Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.

It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.

iPad WiFi issues

Apple had a support page up and running for the wi-fi issues on release day?

Huh.

However, you should be aware the EPUB format that the iBookstore uses is designed for books that are primarily text, and isn't suitable for our Pathfinder gaming book products. (Amazon's kindle format has the same issues). Until a better format comes along, the best way to view our gaming products electronically is in PDF form.

You might want to keep an eye on the WePad (Some English, a lot in German) then. It is being billed as the "tablet PC for publishing houses," whatever that ends up meaning.

Their claimed specs are good, and it appears to be trying to do "Apple-but-open."

Disenchanter wrote:

By the rules, that shouldn't happen. (I can think of several occasion where it could, but those all require a "looseness" with the rules prior to the occasion to have it happen.)

Falling into a 5' wide pit, already containing an enemy?

Then there is an adjacent space, the one the character came from. D20 is very 2-D centric, and doesn't make allowances for level differences.

Also, while showering I realized the my previous suggestion was for a scenario that had "no available squares," not just no adjacent ones.

So if that is the case, a quick and dirty, semi-realistic way to do it is to assume the falling character successfully bullrushed the enemy from the most reasonable direction and shift as appropriate.

By the rules, that shouldn't happen. (I can think of several occasion where it could, but those all require a "looseness" with the rules prior to the occasion to have it happen.)

If possible, I'd figure out which creature would be least effective and "remove it from the board" to allow the combat to continue. Once a square opens up, return the least effective creature.

Example: If an enemy is held, or otherwise stunned/sickened/whatever, that would be my first consideration. Followed by an spellcaster who is out of spells.

Edit: here is a sample of the corrupted text in Pathfinder 31. And TriOmega - I haven't tried it yet, but i am told you can add PDFs to GoodReader in iTunes and sync them to the iPad without gong through the whole file sharing rigamarole.

That isn't text corruption. If you look real close, that is the text being overlapped with itself. I don't have a clue why that would even happen, it is as if the reader is treating each word as an individual image and trying to resize everything to fit. And failing, obviously.

Disenchanter wrote:

Price comparison chart mentioned in the review.

I wonder just how much iPad users will really want/need 3G. It seems to me to be more of a "home" device, then a mobile one (although it's being touted as one). If I ever get one, I see it more likely to spend its time sitting on the coffee table than being taken out for a walk. (But then, what do I know?)

Greg

I can only tell you what I know from watching previews/reviews and my extremely limited exposure to iPhone owners.

From the previews/reviews I have seen, the majority are split between "not worth adopting" or "it'll sit on my coffee table if I get one," and with "it is a netbook replacement." (I just wish there was a way to adopt the netbooks being replaced.)

My extremely limited exposure to iPhone users (I would guess less than 0.001%) tells me it'll be "taken out for a walk." How else are you going to show it off to everyone? We can't know how cool they are, if we can't see them with their iPad.

I know that if the economy doesn't turn around real damn soon, I won't see any in the area I live in now. And I wouldn't see more than one or two where I used to live.

That is the only anecdotal evidence I can give you.

For those that are interested in such things: iPad jailbroken already.

Greg

Whooo Wee! That didn't take long at all. As the tech saying goes "information wants to be free." Apparently so do Apple products. It almost makes you wonder why Apple even tries to "lock up" their products at all. Those more legitimate users either will want to jailbreak their products or not, and the ones that want to will anyway... So it doesn't act as much of a deterrent...

Ok. You now owe me a new industrial grade, heavy-duty irony meter. You just made the last one explode.

That is clearly "user error."

I will not be held responsible for your decision to test the wrong thread for levels of seriousness.

Disenchanter wrote:

Now you are just making fun of me. And poorly too. You forgot to put the apostrophe in, let alone in the wrong place.

Sorry, I guess I don't have the same level of proficiancy as you.

Of course you don't.

It wouldn't be possible to look down at my proficiency, or lack thereof, without your proficiency being greater.

Wave it around long and strong!
Slap it in the digital faces of every poster you can!
And all that.

That was a pathetic attempt at stirring up s$*~ again.

And you accused me of trolling...

GBTVs review.

Price comparison chart mentioned in the review.

Disenchanter wrote:

Second, did you just admit in a public place...

The term is publics place.

Now you are just making fun of me. And poorly too. You forgot to put the apostrophe in, let alone in the wrong place.

Oh. Ha. Ha. I get it now. :-/

If it's any consolation, I'm starting to feel bad about poking at you.

First, do you think I am not able to tell you are lying? You don't have feelings.

Second, did you just admit in a public place to attempting to digitally rape me? I think the cyber police need to be called in.

Is it my imagination, or does Paizo pretty much refuse to give anyone a weapon or armor with a higher basic bonus than +1 plus other abilities (if you're lucky)? What's up with that?

I am guessing you are talking about in the Adventure Paths, or Modules?

If so, I'd hazard the guess that it is for wealth balance issues. I am betting they are keeping an eye on what wealth the party should have.

Either that, or they take the general view of "other abilities are cooler," or that GMs are more likely to allow basic bonus upgrades...

But I am just guessing.

If you don't understand what the problem is with this thread (and your profile) from the word go, I'm certain that I lack the ability to distill and explain it. It'd be like explaining color to the blind, and, though I am a god among men, I'm no Eric Stoltz* of the internet.

Ahhh... I get it. You are incapable of pulling that ten foot pole out of your rectum to come down to human level. Fair enough.

*Here's the set-up for the ugly/mutant joke in your response.

If I did what you expected, what would be the fun in it for you?

Dienchanter [sic],

If you would be so kind, please add me to the list of English language elitists.

Done.

Never let it be said that I am not kind.

You're right - this definitely wasn't a trainwreck from the first post.

I'm assuming you are serious with this, so I'd like to know how the first post was a trainwreck?[/seriousness]

I mean, other than in your own mind. How do you have room for anything in there and your ego?

PDF Reader for iPad

Reader with annotation capability

First, a note to others: Both links are YouTube that likes to autostart (at least if you are not logged in - I think you have a setting for that if you log in) so don't click them both and then go and see what they are.

These look very promising WRT Paizo PDFs.

I'm not sure why you say that. Paizo PDFs aren't really optimized for readers of any stripe. They tend to clog up my 3ghz Pentium 4, and can really murder my Atom processors. (1gig memory on the Pentium, and 2gig on the Atoms.)

I'd like to see a more objective video of the iPads performance with Paizo PDFs.

This thread just keeps on keepin' on.

That is probably due to the fact that the second poster in it couldn't even keep it on topic. A lot of posts got distracted from that post on.

Which is why I explicitly stated what imperative mood is.

I, in my first post in the other thread, wrote:

As already pointed out in this thread, it is written in the imperative mood, which is used for commands. You are commanded to spend your skills and feats as the last step to leveling up.

You know what?

I missed that.

I was infuriated you linked to wikipedia as if that was going to fix everything for everyone.

But you know... I'm incapable of admitting you're right. You got me pegged.

EDIT:: Awww.... Zurai! You deleted your post! How can I quote that you are amused that you can never convince me of anything?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You got me, you were the one who wanted to bring it up "for the record."

If you notice, I was responding to your argument that the rules don't explicitly tell you to spend your feat when you level (I'll also point out that your argument flip-flopped around between whether the rules need to implicitly or explicitly state this; going by your first post, the rules need to be implicit, while going by the post I responded to, the rules need to be explicit). I wasn't responding to the OP at all.

I never cared enough to know there was a difference. Your elitism is secured.

I also note that you're avoiding my actual argument and attacking a sidenote. It's amusing how often that happens when people don't think they can actually refute the argument. I sometimes include side notes like this just so I can laugh at the people desperately clutching to them as something they can respond to without admitting that I'm right.

Well, I was trying to be polite and not point out that you were deliberately arguing with me, rather than look at that thread as a whole. But fine.

Really? People who don't speak English don't understand what commands are? That's news to me. As I pointed out to you in the other thread, every single language has an imperative mood used for commands.

I can't say if people who don't speak English understand what commands are, but you can't assume they understand what imperative mood is, or that wikipedia will make any sense to them. As I told you, my high school never took the time to explain imperative mood to us. I never even heard the phrase until late in college.

So... How are you going to suggest I didn't maintain the same stance throughout that entire thread now?

Disenchanter, if it's a formal title you should have capitalized each word rather than just the first.

Well, if it were a formal title you would get a plaque or something. It is strictly informal.

I'd also like to point out, for the record, that the post we're arguing about was written before the original poster in that thread mentioned that he was not a native English speaker,

So what?

You were arguing with me, who had already guessed the questioner wasn't a native English speaker. If you notice, the issues I pointed out in my very first post in that thread matched exactly with issues the questioner listed after admitting that English wasn't their native language.

Of course, having said that, you are probably going to claim that is just a sock puppet account for me, right?

My Firefox underlines publics in red for me and leaves public's alone. Regional settings?

((I never thought continuing the game with Sebastian would spawn such a diversion.))

Probably. I haven't messed with the settings at all. It is probably set to where ever Canonical calls home then.

Pretty sure it's "the public's" there. Public is a singular object even though it represents a group. "The public does this, the public does that." "The public" is a single entity.

Really?

Then Firefox needs to adjust their spellchecker because it complained about public's, but it likes publics'.

I didn't say that because it's not needed. When you're told to do something by the rules of the game, you do it.

But, when you are describing for the benefit of those that admit English isn't their first language - it is needed.

But I think I figured out where you are mistaken...

You thought you were arguing with my understanding of the rule, which never entered the discussion.

Disenchanter wrote:

All fine and dandy. But if you are going to answer a question about that rulebook, at least take the time to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

I did.

You did? The "post hidding bug" must still be acting up because I don't se where you said "The phrase 'make sure to' should probably be read as 'you must,' and still applies four sentences later when the book says 'Finally, add new skills and feats.'"

All I see from the post you linked is where you threw down a dictionary written in Russian, and told me (figuratively, of course) to figure it out my damn self.

Or am I mis-representing you again?

Hmmm...looks like this thread isn't achieving the desired result...maybe another appeal to the public's sense of justice is in order...

What result do you desire from this thread?

((And it is "publics'"))

Is not exactly the best way of convincing people of your point of view

You are assuming, of course, that I am trying to convince anyone of anything.

My profile is simply collecting the "titles" I have been bestowed. Plus my opinion of others. If I "wear my heart on my sleeve" in the real world, I gotta do it somehow online, yes?

As far as agreeing with Zurai, have at it. But I would caution you against trusting his opinion of me distorting things since I think that stems from the fact he knows he does it.

It is entirely unreasonable to expect and, in fact impossible to write, anything as complex as a 500 page rule book that people with an imperfect grasp of the language don't find at least partially unclear.

All fine and dandy. But if you are going to answer a question about that rulebook, at least take the time to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

If you noticed, I didn't comment (or "attack" if you prefer) on any one who did that.

I feel that we are a multi-national club. Some will have great english skills, others will not, but we are all part of a family of sorts and some tolerance and patience shouldn't be too much to ask for in the realm of english speaking ability. Now being an imbecile is of course totally different and should be used as proper reason to allow flogging.

Don't worry Fake Healer, I'll acknowledge your serious post. ;-)

And I agree with you, for what that is worth.

Their doesnt seem to be that many ppl uptight about grammer, if thats what your worried about.

No, that wasn't it.

The questioner asked to be pointed out to the rule that made it clear how to interpret something. The problem was, that rule wasn't automatically clear to an experienced English speaker. It could take an experienced speaker four or more reads just to notice the key phrase that explains how it should be read and it isn't guaranteed they would automatically apply it the correct way. And yet responders were quoting the passage, and just leaving it at that as if even an infant should be able to see it. (Again, my assumption). When it was pointed out that the language wasn't that clear (by me, I admit it) the thread turned into a big argument about how wrong I was.

And in the middle of that argument, the questioner pointed out that English was not their first language, and that the quoted passage was still easy for them to read "the wrong way."

And still anyone (me, again) who said the rule was anything but crystal clear was wrong, throwing out a house rule, etc., etc..

Urizen wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!

Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?

Hey! That's not fair. Now you're making fun of me!!!

THIS

WILL

NOT

STAND

Are you saying you lie down for the price of a joke?

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?

BTW, the url still has the original spelling.

I have no control over that. That is for someone with a better tag than me.

Disenchanter wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.

Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

But the laughter is forever. You are one of the best channels on Paizo, do you know that? I'm not sure what I'd do without you, probably laugh a lot less.

Want to go steady?

I thought I told you already, I don't swing like that. You just aren't my type of binary digit.

Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.

Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

I am wondering what level of proficiency the forum community thinks posters should assume about other posters.

In a semi-recent thread in the Rules Questions forum, it became clear that a few posters expected everyone to maintain a level of proficiency in the English language roughly equal to that of a native speaker of about 20ish years (my assumption).

I would like to hear what others think.

Me, I've seen it time and again that anyone asking if a "creative interpretation" of the rules was legal/legit/kosher, ends up admitting down thread that English isn't their first language. And yet, posters answering the question assume that the questioner holds the same mastery over the English language that the answerers do.

Maybe I expect too much of posters trying to answer rules questions... But I hold them up to a level close to that of a Paizo employee. After all, they are an unofficial representative of the company if they are trying to answer questions about company products.

Then again, it is pretty messed up if the third biggest troll on these boards has to fight for compassion and understanding for a subset of forum posters...

EDITed:: to fix typos that weren't pointed out to me.

I see two schools of thought on this...

First, is that on page 219 is something of a "copy and paste" hold over from 3.5 that slipped through editing. I don't know this for certain.

Or learning a new spell is different from copying from a spellbook/scroll.

I am less inclined to agree with the latter, because that means page 109 only refers to the two spells a Wizard gains at a new level. Which are supposed to be able to be copied into the spellbook without a roll.

Without further official input, I would say that page 109 is supposed to be correct.

Disenchanter wrote:

Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...

This part actually hasn't happened.

You keep saying that the rules don't say WHEN you have to choose a feat,

Selective reading at its' finest...

What I have been saying, is that the rule isn't clear enough to assume that everyone can simply understand from constantly quoting the same damn rule.

Try catching up this time.

Disenchanter wrote:

hogarth wrote:

You might also be able to get some use out of this PDF that is based off of the Reference Document mentioned by Russ.

That is incredible. Is it your work hogarth? It is something of a pity we can't get more b&w and imageless copies of Paizo products. Although I do understand not having them.

Nope, some other guy did it; I'm way too lazy to come up with something that looks that good!

According to the cover page and the d20PFSRD downloads page, Mike Dusseault is the creator.

Yeah, I caught the cover page credits. But I had no way of confirming or denying it was you.

Hydro wrote:

The most expensive item a 1st-level spellcaster can make is a 1st level scroll, which costs 25 GP. Which, since you can only make one item per day, means he makes 12.5 GP per day (after 2 hours of work).

Wrong, you can make multiple scrolls and potions in a day.

Not according to the PRD

Under "Creating Potions:"

Brewing a potion requires 1 day.

Under "Creating Scrolls:"

meaning that no more than 1 spell can be scribed in a day.

Probably, because you're merely trolling because you like to feel important by pushing as many peoples buttons as possible.

Wow.

I like how I point out the language isn't clear enough to assume quoting it alone, and by itself, would be the end-all, be-all of the discussion. Then get "dog piled" by half a dozen people about how wrong I am. Then I am later shown to have a clue about what I speak...

And yet I'm trolling.

It is a wonder I've never been baned from these forums. Or any forums for that matter.

Ainslan wrote:

I believe it is a situation where such a rule could be a good thing.

It's your game. If that what you want to do, then do it. Have fun. That's why we play, to have fun. Don't stress over what the rules say. Fun > rules.

I think you might have misunderstood Ainslan. I think s/he wasn't saying delaying feat selection would be a good rule to have, rather than the lack of an rule that expressly forbid delaying feats would be good to rectify.

When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), you must take the following steps in order.

(Bolded words added by me, and replace the three words that were there [saving a word, but only 3 characters].)

The English language elitists will point out that such a change isn't needed. And they would have a point for some. The important point is that it would help, and - unless I'm not thinking hard enough - wouldn't hurt.

Now, to be frank, english is not my first language. And while the repeatedly quoted passage seem to strongly indicate that feats must be chosen on leveling, it could also be interpreted as a simple restriction on the order where each step of the leveling process is done. As in, "you may not choose feats before you increase ability scores, and so forth", without specifying that you must complete any given step, at the cost of stopping the process until you complete the previous step. And it happens that feat selection is the last step of the chain, as written.

Exactly my point.

And I won't speak for anyone else, but I hadn't even come close to flame-level yet. I was simply losing my incentive to maintain my "Paizo voice," and took a couple steps closer to my more normal speech patterns.
When every other word is considered profanity, I am getting closer to flaming. :-P

2. It's not an obscure rule. Imperatives are extremely common and pretty intuitive. Children are taught in imperatives ("Do this", "Don't do that", etc), so it's something that is learned and absorbed almost from birth. Imperatives are also overwhelmingly common in technical writing, which includes rulebooks.

But when the children are told "Do this," and not told "now" it is simply the childs' fault for waiting until later to do it?

Come on Zurai.

You can't have your head that far up your ass.

Did I ever state that it was impossible to confuse the language?

No, you didn't.

What you, as one of the last of several, have done was state a grammatical rule of a living language, a rule that wasn't even taught when I was in high school some 20 years ago (so there is a damn good chance it isn't being taught now), as the sole, single, evidence of how a rule should be interpreted.

Let's ignore the elitism of that for the moment, and think of the practicality of it.

Can you honestly say it is fair and reasonable for any questioning if you have to spend a feat when gained can understand, and are willing to understand, what is essentially an obscure rule to a language that is actively killing all grammatical rules of itself?

The rules are exceptionally clear in the section quoted repeatedly now.

I so clearly stand corrected... :-/

The purpose was to point out that such a claim -- which has been made in this thread -- is very obviously ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. If it was intended to be directed at you, I would have said "you" or "Disenchanter". I probably should have used a separator to make even more clear that I wasn't directing it at any person, so you have my apology that I wasn't more clear about it.

Now you are confusing me...

The intention of the written English language can be easily confused...

Or it can't.

Which is it?

Alright, I'll actually ask you, what was the purpose of the last staement starting with "Claiming that" in response to me if not to accuse me of claiming anything?

You are clearly an English major, or was that a major who was English... Either way, please enlightened the ignorant masses.

Kolokotroni wrote:

for the sake of brevity

I actually already posted that link above. :) ha ha ha

To be fair, I had to go and reread your post to even see the link. It clearly made its' stealth roll.

Claiming that the text

That right there illustrates perfectly where you are mistaken.

I have not claimed anything in regards to how the rule should be interpreted. I have neither argued for, nor against, anything.

All I have been saying is that one little sentence isn't enough to assume, nor expect, all - and I would wager most - people to agree that you must spend a feat when it is gained.

Feel free to read this thread in order to see what I mean.

Disenchanter wrote:

My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.

Err, yes, actually, it is. As already pointed out in this thread, it is written in the imperative mood, which is used for commands. You are commanded to spend your skills and feats as the last step to leveling up. It doesn't say "you may spend your skills and feats". It says "spend your skills and feats".

The English language isn't a science. Even less so when translated to other languages. Thanks to internet, not one of us can assume that any one posting looking for "official" clarification can actually interpret the book as intended.

And another thread that points out that imperative mood isn't sufficient to convince all of the people, all of the time, what a rule is supposed to be.

And yet another example of imperative mood being ignored.

But you know... Who cares?

Your entire argument is "it doesn't say you can't EXPLICITLY"

Hmmm... I wonder if I can find an appropriate response to this...

Oh yeah:

Dude, you're wrong.

My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.

And when some one asks for the passage in the rules that says you must spend the feats when gained, that passage doesn't suffice.

With that in mind, which one of us is being more unhelpful?

Disenchanter wrote:

MacNuada wrote:

He seriously believes that he can bend everybody to his will, and complains when it doesn't work. It just gets old. He's a friend who doesn't take criticism well either.

He'll try to convince the party not to kill him, and if they do he'll probably complain and quit.

That's going to cause a bit of a problem then...

Best suggestion: Get the group together before the next game - it can even be early on the day of the next session, and ask the rest of the group what their out of character thoughts are about the situation.
If the group vetoes the idea of the player continuing as a wight, then no one person is the bad guy... {snip} ...Keep it collaborative, and try to avoid "us versus you" type situations.

The only problem with this suggestion... ...

Yeah. I'm aware it isn't a perfect suggestion... But it still is the best. It has the best chance of fixing the problem...

So, again I wish MacNuada good luck.