Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sin Spawn

bugleyman's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,705 posts (7,822 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,012 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that it will be modestly successful and not really affect Pathfinder much.

But of course that's just that...a guess.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
That's... unexpected.

Agreed. I did NOT see that coming.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Like I said, I understand that feeling. But his work on Iron Gods (and Eberron back in the day) is very good...

No is pretty darn subjective. I know many people like WAR. I just think a different game should look different, right down to art style. YMMV.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
I'm not impressed by the art though. Please get WAR front and centre. ;)

No's past time for a new direction in RPG art. Besides, a distinct game deserves a distinct look.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's a fantasy world. The rocks can be happy if they want to be. You can ask them.

Pathfinder fails to establish that rocks are sentient. Therefore, all that is accomplished is confusion and dilution of the definition of "happy."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
All we really know is that the spell is evil. That's all we've got in the rules. Why it's evil is left undefined.

Which is the whole point, really. No one is disputing the rules say those spells are evil. They're pointing out that it an arbitrary designation that doesn't bear any relationship to the already established meaning of the word "evil."

The rules could state that love is evil. All that would accomplish is chaos (as is the case here).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."

That's an archetypal circular argument.

But I have way, Way, WAY less of an emotional investment in this topic than some appear to, so by all means, have fun. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?

Enslavement? :P

Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").

Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:

Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.

Does the idea disturb you in any way?

How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?

Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?

Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.

"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules for beyond level 20

Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome. I strongly suggest you join a message-board gang if you want to survive. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.

That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.

Objective good is the entire issue!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should a creature made of adamantine bypass DR/adamantine? I think the answer is obviously yes, but by RAW, it appears the answer is no.

This is why overly codified rules can be as bad/worse than vague rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:

So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?

What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?

p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide

"If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same

You forgot to drop the mic at the end.

Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

The thing that annoys me about made-up names in RPGs is when players decide to make jokes about them, and then use the joke-name at all times.

** spoiler omitted **

In my Rise game...


"Commander Bayden" became "Master Batin'"

I was sad. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:


You can move around using a only one leg.

Prerequisites: Dex 13

Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.

Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:

1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.

2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.

To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.

Blech. No thanks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

Commoner 1


Profession (linguist) +2

I'm not sure I'm buying it. No one with a Wis of 6 would have such a firm grasp of their own limitations. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. This is the first time I've seen the majority of people give themselves high wis and low cha instead. Maybe it's due to the TTRPG gamer demographic becoming older, more self-reflective, and realizing that they're introverted nerds.

I think people who would understand, let alone answer, this particular question probably have a higher than average Int and lower than average Cha.

For myself, My IQ has been empirically measured to be at least 130 on multiple occasions. I've tested into MENSA, scored in the 89th or 90th percentile of the LSAT with almost no preparation, and excelled in honors and "gifted" courses throughout my academic career.

On the other hand, in the unlikely event that anyone doubts my Cha of 7, I invite them to review my posting history. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yes - because everyone here has an Int of 14+. >.<

It's like how 90% of everyone thinks that they're an above average driver.

It's entirely possible for 90% of a population to be above average. If you don't see why, you are very likely confusing mean and median. Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake...even for someone with an Int of 14+. ;-)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta agree with BNW on this one. Feats should make you better at something or allow you to break the rules in some way, not serve to restrict everyone else.

Sometimes more rules = fewer options.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Given the sheer amount of pirated material I have personally seen over the years, I think a certain reluctance to embrace easily-transferred electronic formats for new releases intended to generate fresh revenue is hardly incomprehensible.

What's incomprehensible is the persistence of the idea that not releasing PDFs somehow impedes piracy.

But dead horses and all that...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
The sad thing is these same people would be complaining if various NPCs were named John or Bob or Jane. You know, easily-pronounced names.

Because the "problem" is them? Nice. >:(

Let's be honest...Paizo has come up with some pretty bad names. That's kinda unavoidable, though, given the volume of stuff they create. For some people, some of those odder names can server as an amusing shared experience. It's no problem if you don't share those experiences, but this thread doesn't have to be about criticizing -- or defending -- Paizo. There is nothing "sad" here. This is not SERIOUS BUSINESS(tm).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

PDFs, as we all know, are the work of the devil.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Suggestion: Never use five exclamation points in a row!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The loss of the pronunciation guide in the upgrade of the campaign setting was unfortunate. It's one of the few ways that the new version is inferior to the old. Not something it made sense to cut, imo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChaoticAngel97 wrote:
Probably Desna or Cayden, if I were to actually worshiper someone. I'm not a religious guy here on Earth so more than likely I wouldn't be on Golarion but if I was going to worship, it'd be one of the above two.

Interesting that you feel that way. I'm a "hardcore" atheist, but on Golarion I wouldn't be. Although, perhaps "venerate, respect, or serve" might better describe my behavior than "worship." Of course, that gets into the question of whether Golarion's gods are really capital-g Gods according to a contemporary U.S. point-of-view.

But that's another thread. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ford Prefect wrote:
I've been to the center of the universe, and it most definitely isn't Murica (wherever that is).

Filthy lies!

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

The OP is 100% correct.

If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong.

And I would say "you're doing it wrong" is a confrontational response rather than a response trying to understand why the person is doing it that way.

You don't teach people better discussion skills by simple negation of what they are doing. You can help them learn better discussion skills by showing them a different way.

But a flat 'if you do this, you are wrong' doesn't help anyone learn anything.

Wow, that's too meta. Seriously, though, you have a point. If the goal is to change people's behavior, I should probably avoid that sort of language.

But here's the thing: The older I get, the less I engage with people. Because the older I get, the easier it is for me to tell when people want a conversation (rarely) and when they want a fight (almost always). The unfortunate truth is that many (most?) people simply aren't worth interacting with, and a refusal to even try to understand the other guy's position is a big red flag. More than once I've taken the time to understand someone's argument to their satisfaction, but when I've asked them to pay me the same courtesy, they reply with "why should I want to understand your argument? It's stupid." Never mind that they just admitted they didn't understand the thing they were rallying against, but they've demonstrated that real communication was never the goal.

To me, that really is simply doing it wrong.

TDLR; Lots of people just want to win, and anything that lets an old curmudgeon like me quickly identify (and subsequently avoid) those people -- like them arguing in bad faith -- is a win. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Though it's certainly possible that the reason you can't explain your opponent's argument to their satisfaction is because they're explaining it badly. Or because they're arguing in bad faith.

Or perhaps you simply misunderstand, but do so in good faith.

I have on occasion attempted to restate someone else's argument as best I understood it and been accused of putting words in their mouth.

Of course.

But then you can just try again. If the other party is arguing in good faith, they will be open to this. If they're aren't, well then they just outed themselves, didn't they? :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The OP is 100% correct.

If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. Yes, it is easier said than done. On the other hand, if it would never even occur to you to try...

1 person marked this as a favorite.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea of a smaller version of the Core Book -- but is it going to come with a magnifying glass? :P

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming they know how to design software, Apple should be totally unable to "unlock" a phone. That ain't how encryption works, folks.

My understanding is what the government is actually asking for is them to build a permanent back door, which they're right to refuse.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
I have a strange feeling in my gut that pdfs are coming. They basically have no reason whatsoever not to, at this point

I thought the same thing, until I realized the SRD is incomplete. But I hope you're right! At that point they'll instantly earn a few hundred dollars from me. :-)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

First of all, credit where credit is due: This is a big step in the right direction. Maybe they're learning.

Personally, however, I will not be moving to 5E until a complete, non-proprietary digital version of the rules is available. I'm simply unwilling to hitch my wagon to a system that could go out-of-print at any time. I'm done putting myself at the mercy of publisher whims as to how/when I can view what I've purchased....especially in a world in which pretty much every other publisher routinely offers digital versions.

If/when they wise up and offer PDFs (or equivalent), I would be hard pressed to not jump. I like the system itself quite a bit.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Minis bloat! Stop printing all these new minis of things that haven't had minis before, I don't like these options!

We need a new edition for minis! Only core classes and core monsters!

Terrible analogies and sarcasm don't mix well.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, using a computer to manage information. In 2016. How horrible.

There's difference between using a computer because it's handy and using one because it's necessary.

But I suppose if you enjoy complexity for complexity's sake...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Aren't there a number of dead systems like that? Isn't that the basis of things like FATE or Fudge? Personally I went through a phase of homebrewing a system when I felt like moving to Fighting Fantasy feels but wanted diversity. It was kind of derivative of Macrolite d20 but functioned until that group moved on to other things in life.

That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front. In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.

Like I said, I appreciate that people don't agree with me, but not that some of them feel the need to tell me my (subjective) preferences are objectively wrong. As if they need to make the Internet safe for their point-of-view, or something. :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Medriev wrote:

Frankly, nothing would make me stop buying PF products quicker than an announcement of a new edition.

PF is well supported by technology options that make managing the volume of content easier (Hero Lab is the best example of this IMHO) and in the published lines references to non-core products almost always include a full stat block / rules summary in case you haven't hoovered up every product (which I for the most part have anyway).

The big problem with 3E/3.5E bloat was that later products almost required you to own previous products and it was so difficult, in the absence of good IT solutions at the time, to keep track of every feat you might want or every monster you might want to use. PF solves both of these problems with a commitment to repeat non-core info where it's used and licensed software solutions (plus the PRD).

To my mind, the problems for players / GMs that usually lead to new editions therefore don't exit so unless there is a business reason (which I highly doubt there is at the moment) I see no reason for there to be a PF 2E in the foreseeable future.

Alternatively, maybe they could go with a system that doesn't require computer assistance to be manageable. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Int is easily my highest stat. Top 10% LSAT score, tested into Mensa, etc.

Cha is easily my lowest. I can be short-tempered and condescending...hardly a winning combination.

In the immortal words of the Dude: I'm not wrong, I'm just an a**hole. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO merging Spot and Listen sounded great, but was ultimately a BAD IDEA(tm).

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing they do surprises me any more. Nothing.

1 to 50 of 1,012 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.