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 2013 Star Voter, 2014 Star Voter, 2015 Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler. 7,454 posts (7,571 including aliases). 81 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 917 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
The term "build" used in reference to characters makes me want to punch someone in the face.
What word would you prefer to use that describes the mechanical choices a player makes when filling out a character sheet?

I'd rather the game not be mechanically complex enough to necessitate a term. I certainly never heard of "builds" before 3E. What amounts to a separate character-building game simply doesn't appeal to me.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Edit: Please tell me that thing about the Rusty Dragon mini set case incentive is a joke.

Why? It's pretty awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I assume that's why they keep on making new ones...they are on the third iteration of it already.

I'm not sure that's a valid inference; they probably had to commit to the second -- if not the third -- set before they knew how well the first one sold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
So don't make it sound like I'm invalidating anyone, that was not my intent. Sorry if that was unclear. I guess I see a difference between want and need.

Sorry for getting my hackles up.

If you want to be technical, I guess I don't need indoor plumbing, but I sure as hell wouldn't willing live without it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Go home Sarge, the war's over already.

Battles end, son. The war goes on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."

You called?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the Sandpoint Box a thing yet?

How about now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Americans complaining about fuel prices...

'Murica.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see this thread is going well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.

Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The kicker is that monsters don't actually follow the rules for characters, because whenever a designer wants to fudge the numbers, he simply throws in a "racial bonus."

Besides, why would monster design require the same level of detail character design does? Do we really care whether the blacksmith has knowledge (local)? No, we don't. We only care about craft (blacksmith). Do I care whether that orc has X ranks of stealth? Nope. All I care about is the final #, not how you got there.

Designing monsters using character rules is crazy talk.

Also, assumed bonuses need to die in a fire. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GMPCs are the devil's work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't see a Pathfinder revisions going too far afield, especially with there being so much potential for improvement without doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
It's the internet. Pretty sure that's what it was invented for.

Perhaps. But I keep coming back to this thread to see if any developers have chimed in, but instead all I see are the same arguments being rehashed. Doesn't make for a helpful signal-to-noise ratio.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone actually somehow believe that restating their perspective for the 15th time is suddenly going to convince everyone?

Spoiler:

It's not going to happen!

Clarification is plainly required. Or do you guys enjoy arguing? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.

Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF 2 is not inevitable. Neither is humanity living to see tomorrow.

Both are quite likely, however.

And let's face it, that's really what this thread is about: People who don't want a new edition -- ever -- arguing that, despite how this has gone every other time, it will be different this time.

Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but...good luck with that.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want this thread to be about a new edition, rather than D&D 5E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...this is a multi-page argument about whether it's clear or not; I'm pretty sure the question has answered itself...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My name is Ed, and I approve of this 5E tangent derailing this thread!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chocolate Thief wrote:
Unfortunately as a public sector worker here in the UK where a new Conservative government has just been elected I am getting poorer all the time. I'll have to cut at least one sub. Oh well, with a sense of perspective that is not what I call hardship.

I wouldn't expect things to get better. Stateside conservative ideology pretty much views public sector employees as being welfare recipients. :-(


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually like to see the return of the PHB/DMG split.

That would allow things like archetypes and traits to be added to the Core Rules (aka the PHB) without making the book even larger. Between re-organization, re-writing, and trimming the GM stuff, they should be able to get the Core Rules down to 384 pages (or even 320) pages (and maybe even down to $39.99).

Sure a separate GM's guide would mean a higher barrier to entry for GMs, but it would probably be a win for most players. It would certainly make for a stronger binding. ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love a new edition. I'd like that new edition to look a lot more like the Beginner Box than the Core currently does. I'd also like a new edition to do away with many of the fiddly bits like "you can draw a weapon as part of a move action, but only if your BAB is +1 or higher"...which is like 95%+ of all characters. And for heaven's sake, please fix level 12+.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Mankind's entire history seems to be dominated by someone putting the knife in the back of someone else.

FIFY. ;-)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
It has been mentioned that Man was contributing more to a global change in the colonial times than anything we do presently.

Wait...you were serious?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
For every scientist that totes the flag for Global Warming/Climate Change, there is two others that have dis proven the theory.

Ok, now you're just messing with me. Well played, sir.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a world where a Decantur of Endless Water is a thing that can easily be bought (which it can, according to the item availability rules in the CRB), the need for proximity to a water source for, say, a viable settlement is completely obviated. To say nothing of the fact that the decantur as described can easily be used as a source of power as well as water.

Once you start down that path, a practically endless series of socioeconomic changes quickly results in a the world that is, if not completely unrecognizable, certainly very unlike Golarion.

Again, it really is best not to look too closely at this sort of thing. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the specific maps in the first batch, I'm torn, because I already have most of them. However, I want the line to succeed so some other maps -- maps I don't already have -- will be re-printed.

As I no longer have ship, I'll be buying that one for sure...the others I'll have to consider more carefully.

Edit: How did Waterfront Tavern not make it into the initial batch? That one seems like a top-tier candidate for inclusion. Was it because of the (deliberately?) very similar Seedy Tavern?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
The fact that you consider this standard, candid exchange a caricature is kinda sad.

He didn't say he considered it a caricature; he said it sounded like one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The authoritarianism is strong in this thread.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is still small in the grand scheme of things (though I suspect it is rather large for an RPG company).

But as for money farming...I think they actually go out of their way to be reasonable, especially with the price of the PDFs of their hardcovers. You could buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary in PDF ($20) and play for years. Would they like to sell you more? Of course. But it's not like they wouldn't still be glad to have you playing Pathfinder just because you don't spend $100 a month.

As capitalism goes, Paizo is about as benign as it gets.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
You're correct. It appears that the lack of an OGL hasn't proven as ruinous as I had thought to third party publishers.
It's not exactly a giant leap. Editions prior to 3rd have had people publishing adventures for them since 2006 (when OSRIC first came out). None of those systems had the OGL. It's not a huge leap to use the same logic that allows retroclones, their supplements, and their adventures to legally exist to move forward to do the same for 5th edition as well.

But it is the OGL that accompanied 3rd edition that enabled *all* of those to exist, but opening up terms like hit points, armor class, etc.

I'm honestly not sure what your point here is, so I'll reiterate mine: Wotc has nothing to gain by not releasing 5E under the OGL, as a clone could be built with the existing OGL. They only manage to discourage participation (which is, perhaps, their goal) but muddying the legal waters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I think it's wotc management who's holding them back, not Hasbro. From what I've heard, wotc management is rather poor in many ways.
I believe current WotC CEO Greg Leeds was a transplant from Hasbro. Sent to promulgate Hasbro culture in WotC management?
More likely to fill in a gap from the retiring CEO.

If only those two things weren't mutually exclusive...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
One thing you have to realize about the OGL is that while it resulted in a huge renaissance in TTRPGs as a whole, it also looks like a stunningly bad strategy in hindsight. How much market share did WotC lose to Paizo as a result of the OGL? If you're the WotC guy trying to pitch a 5E OGL to his boss, that boss is going to ask if maybe you'd like to go ahead and give Lisa Stevens the whole company while you're at it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Never mind that there are plenty of reasons WotC lost market share--customer satisfaction being at the top of that list--your typical exec is going to see the OGL as a market leader's growth strategy that failed.

There is no "doing the same thing," because the OGL cat is out of the bag. No matter what, you still have to compete with 3E WITH the OGL. Not OGLing your new system simply hobbles it.

Also, while the OGL was necessary for Pathfinder to exist, but it didn't cause Pathfinder to beat 4E. That fiasco (from WotC's point of view) came from the mis-managment of D&D -- exactly the bad management they're (apparently) still laboring under.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Get over the OGL. It was a WotC thing that Hasbro wanted nothing to do with.

The thing is, D&D will never mount a challenge to Pathfinder without the OGL. It simply won't happen. Maybe they're fine with that, but I can't see how that's any good for the actual D&D game (which is kinda what this thread is about, no?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What makes you think any of those things are directives from Hasbro?

As previously noted, the PDF announcement came directly from a Hasbro Executive.

And if you pay close attention to the thinks Wizards folks say ("we want to do a license!", it becomes rather clear that something is holding them back. It makes sense that this is Hasbro.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't doubt for a minute that D&D is barely on Hasbro's radar, especially resource-wise. However, what I see as the problems with 5E aren't resource related:

1. Lack of PDFs. These already exist as part of the production process. At most they require some work to lock down permissions, etc. No way this is a resource issue; Hasbro simply fears digital distribution (and have said as much).

2. No OGL. Again, likely not a resource issue, as they could simply release 5E under the existing OGL. Clearly the people at Wizards want to do something with a license, but Hasbro with it's very limited understanding of the RPG market, likely forbids it. They just know that "the OGL created Pathfinder, our greatest competitor," completely missing the fact that the genie is out of the bottle, so all they're accomplishing at this point is discouraging the sort of support they *do* want (modules, etc.) out of fear of someone forking 5E (which they could already do, if determined enough).

3. No character generator. Quit trying to write software and give Herolab the license. Again, not a resource constraint. This one I really don't get, unless Hasbro thinks they should be making all that money themselves and somehow still haven't figured out that they can't do software.

In short, the mishandling of 5E is related to Hasbro's lack of understanding of the market. What they *should* is allow D&D to operate autonomously, or nearly so, but we know that isn't the case because you have Hasbro execs making statements about piracy, etc.

Will Hasbro kill D&D? I dunno. But they certainly aren't doing it any favors, at least not as an RPG. They may be great for the value of the brand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

In that case, I'm extremely puzzled that they stopped selling PDFs of books through third parties "to prevent piracy", whilst still selling PDFs directly.

I wonder if that means they've done some kind of calculation about "shelf life" or similar - make PDFs available after a period of time, in the hope that lost sales to piracy is covered by increased sales to actual customers.

They don't sell the actual core rules. As observed up thread, they only recently started selling the 3.5 PHB, so at this rate we can expect a PDF of the 5E PHB around 2026 (twelve years after the print release).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That was my understanding.

They have explicitly stated this is the case.

Really? Do you happen to remember where?

Here, for one. Though admittedly, this is second hand, because the first hand account formerly right here has recently gone missing. Yes, I kept that second link around just for the occasion when people asked; frankly it was so bizarre I'm surprised they kept it there as long as they did.

Steve Geddes wrote:

The "we don't want piracy" argument didn't make sense to me, given they put out more material in PDF only form during 4E than in print form. Even now, they're producing new PDFs - they just seem to have this distinction between print products and digital.

If they were scared of pirates, wouldn't they avoid digital altogether?

I gave up on them being rational a while ago.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
...and now the 3.5 PHB.

On one hand, that's good, and I'm glad for anyone who wants to buy that book in PDF.

On the other hand, now they're only two editions back from the current, so...yay? At this rate we can expect the 5E PHB in PDF sometime after 7E comes out.

Like I said: Obtuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
That was my understanding.

They have explicitly stated this is the case.

thejeff wrote:
It's mind-boggling stupid to think it actually makes it any harder. The lesson the music companies eventually learned - Make the product available in the format the people want at a reasonable price and you'll make far more money than you lose in piracy. Don't do so and people will pirate it just to have the format they want.

WotC is obtuse when it comes to digital distribution. It's sad, but eventually they'll adapt or die, and I've go plenty to play in the meantime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"4e is about as 'dead and gone' as pathfinder" is patently untrue. Surely there are more fruitful matters to debate?

1 to 50 of 917 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.