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. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 6,648 posts (6,751 including aliases). 70 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.

1 to 50 of 619 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just got back to AZ from attending this convention. Ran two tables of Cairn of Shadows, got to play on five others -- it was a blast! Just a really well run Con; I wish I had found it sooner. I will definitely be back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VOTOZ wrote:
VOTOZ is online.

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm...I hope they get the flow of the rooms right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few baiting posts. Guys, this one is starting the unravel at the seams. Please be aware that all kinds of gamers come to, that edition warring is ultimately unproductive, and remember to be civil to each other. Thanks!

Hey! Edition warriors are people, too!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.

I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on the presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder. Though admittedly, there would still be some work involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only there were a simple putting Season 6's special rules in the Guide to Organized Play's "Season 6 Special Rules" section.

I swear, is there anything people won't argue on the Internet? :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jail House Rock wrote:

YES YES YES. It is awesome, but it should be better. Please start a second version and publish it ASAP.

Also, can you break the WotC connection? It seems you have enough proprietary material to let Pathfinder RPG run on its own (and finally bury WotC once and for all.)

Edit: Can a purely Paizo IP version of Pathfinder RPG put WotC down for the count? If so, publish it now.

Absolutely, unequivocally not possible for Paizo to "put WotC down." D&D could disappear tomorrow, and WotC would continue merrily along with Magic.

Besides, why would you want such a thing? Enjoy people being laid-off? Think competition is bad? :P

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.

The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:

Except that the creature could be completely dissimilar to anything you've ever heard of, or a creature that actively pretends to be another type of creature, and you still wouldn't need a feat to ID it, unless it had the Robot subtype, apparently.

Look, I understand that I'm not going to get things changed. Paizo has obviously decided that this is how things work and my opinion really doesn't matter to them as a whole. I just don't understand why this is where they chose to draw the line in what skills could do.

"This is a CR 1 Robot. You're a level 20 Wizard with 20 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) and a super high intelligence, but you don't have the Technologist feat so you can't identify it. You can, however, go over there and pilot the Tsar Tank with no further training needed."

Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*

I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.

I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.

Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.

Pan wrote:
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.

Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts/replies. We're really not interested in having edition wars on

Great! Now what am I supposed to do for a living? ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taking the Divine Protection feat on pretty much any Oracle...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Southeast Jerome wrote:

If the new 1.5e core rulebook were demonstrably better, i.e., better organized and indexed, and easier to use at the table, then I think plenty of existing players, myself included, would happily purchase it, even if there were no new rules.

Just as importantly, if they could also make the intro to the game less intimidating and confusing for new players, perhaps by integrating some material from the Beginner Box and this fall's Strategy Guide, I think the game would be able to compete for new players much more effectively. As it is, the core rulebook is very intimidating and confusing to someone new to RPGs, and the same ruleset with a better layout would be an easier sell and would grow the player base.

It would also be easier to use at the table, which to me is a paramount concern.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be delighted to buy digital copies of the books, but if they're going with a rental/SaaS model, pass. What an excellent way to hobble your new edition. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait...we can change our avatar? ;-)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...and with the PHB officially released yesterday, still no PDFs. In fact, they seem to be pretending PDFs don't exist.

Lame, lame, lame. This is a fear-driven decision that does nothing to reduce piracy while completely eliminating PDF revenue. Frankly, this is tone-deaf enough to make me re-think the entire edition.

13th Age in PDF? Check
Pathfinder in PDF? Check
C&C? Savage Worlds? Fate? Check, check, and check.

And somehow I have still purchased EVERY SINGLE ONE (in both formats, for heaven's sake!)



1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Morphling wrote:

TL;DR version:

OP wrote:
Paizo released a book which included lots of cool options which are not mandatory to play the game, and this is bad because of reasons.

Way to marginalize all viewpoints that aren't yours! >:(

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

My opinion on a "revised" rulebook: I thought that's what Pathfinder (and 3.5 for that matter) was supposed to be. Revisions on a ruleset that was considered flawed or in need of fine tuning and cleaning up.

I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.

Irrespective of whether such flaws exist, the Core Rulebook has presentation and organization issues that could be addressed without actually changing any rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?

Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

I'm not saying that's good or just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since you asked: Pure, unadulterated bloat. There isn't a single archetype within that I couldn't already realize without the book. Worse, much of it is demonstrably more powerful than what came before. The Arcanist in particular seems obscene.

However, as a PFS GM, I am expected to have access to this resource. The fact that the PDF price is so reasonable makes that a lot easier to swallow.

Just so I don't sound like a total downer: I really liked the art in this book. The anti-paladin is priceless. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

for a lot of people, those names are more awkward to use and kind of harder to convey what it is the monster they are facing is. At any rate, I assume that everything in the game books is in the english translation of whatever language the PC's and NPC's actually use. So just because I use the term Tyrannosaur, doesn't mean myself as a player is literally saying the same thing in common.

I mean...PC's face minotaurs, and minotaur is a greek derived name that basically Refers to the Bull of Minos. I don't see how a group of characters facing a Tyrannosaur is any more odd than characters facing a Minotaur, or any other monster pulled from real life mythology.

I hereby sick my RageHate ClawBeast of Rage on you. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Well the dinosaur names are back (i.e. Allosaurus, not Sharp-tooth meativore or whatever). So that is a good sign.

I do think WotC went a little overboard at times, but I never really understood the disdain that gets heaped on the use of "in-world" names, at least not for dinosaurs. After all, it seems unlikely anyone would refer to them by genus in a world largely devoid of the scientific method.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

** spoiler omitted **



Or perhaps the answer will become clear upon reflection. ;-)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really need to see the concentration system in play before I can form a comprehensive opinion about where casters sit on the power curve, but one thing seems clear from reading it: Casters are going to feel quite different.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

The organization doesn't bother me half as much as the fact that 2/3 of what I'm trying to look up isn't in the index.

Ok, I'm adding "better index" to our list of 2nd edition demands! ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
It's already its own thing, since APG. And there's nothing wrong with keeping a game for 3.5 players alive, forever.

The organization of the core rule book sucks. Sorry, but it does. It comes from essentially taking the 3.5 PHB and gluing the 3.5 DMG to the end of it.

In my opinion, Pathfinder needs to be completely re-written in the vein of the Beginner Box. Not with an eye toward simplicity, but with an eye toward clarity, consistency, and usability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vhayjen wrote:
A reaction to another company's release(s) is not good business for said reactionary company. Paizo is doing fine the way they are. To be successful, Paizo should keep doing what they're doing and not be concerned with any other company.

On the other hand, being caught flat-footed because you ignored the competition isn't fantastic, either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Though if I were going to cut things down that far, I'd probably go all the way down to:


...and call it good. :)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:
This book convinces me more and more that we need a revised and updated Core Rulebook to update some of the classes and clean up the rules a bit.

Preach on, brother!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards and Sorcerers no longer share a spell list -- the wizard list is larger. I'm assuming you know how prepared casters work from basic. Sorcerers still know a very limited number of spells, but can always cast any of them as long as they have the slots...basically, they're all always "prepared." This bit is pretty much unchanged from 3E.

Meta-magic is now solely the purview of the sorcerer. Rather than taking higher level spell slots, meta-magic is powered by a new resource: Sorcery Points. You basically get one sorcery point per sorcerer level (starting at 2nd), and use these to power meta-magic (among other creating extra spell slots on the fly). Sorcerers are all about flexibility when it comes to magic...they can mess with spells in ways wizards cannot.

On one hand, I like that the wizard and sorcerer are more distinct. On the other hand, I still don't personally feel the need for two (or three if you count warlocks) full arcane casters. In fact, if they were going to bring over a class from the 4E PHB, I would have preferred Warlord to Warlock. Warlord healing would have fit in perfectly with 5E's hit point and healing paradigm.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:

That was a large swath of posts removed.

So, Bugleyman. Got any previews of the PHB for us? I don't have the moneys to get one myself, or I would possibly be reading my own copy and adding some previews myself.

I haven't had time to more than skim it, and there's quite a bit of material on, but if you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Many spells seemed to have been combined. For example, prismatic wall and sphere are now the same spell, you just choose the shape. It looks to be a strict super-set of basic -- nothing is more complicated, there are just many more options. Some chapters -- equipment -- appear to be identical, just with art.

Speaking of the art, it's pretty fantastic. It reminds me of the original 2E books w/ the full color plates; many non-battle scenes, just showing fantasy characters doing cool stuff. Also plenty of ethnic and gender diversity. I recognize some WAR and William O'Connor...overall a very diverse mix.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the risk of violating the code of conduct: Jack Chick can get bent.*

* I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Danbala wrote:
They may not put out all that much once the initial books are out.

I'm sure this will strike some people as crazy, but that would be fantastic. Contract out ongoing adventure production to people who specialize in adventures, keep the rules releases to an absolute minimum.

I can hope. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:

I do kind of wish Wizards had done a CRB instead of a PHB / DMG combo. I was adverse to the CRB concept coming over to Pathfinder, but to be honest I prefer having the one book.

Argh, no thanks. I really dislike the single book approach. To each their own, though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be shocked if 5E doesn't beat Pathfinder this quarter, and probably next. It's 2015 that will be telling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Of course, every new generation is lazy, selfish, and entitled according to the generation that preceded it. Society is always going to hell in a handbasket.


thejeff wrote:

I'd love to be, but sadly the entitlements just aren't enough to keep me comfortable, so I have to go to work every week.

I...get to work a not highly stressful computer job that I enjoy and that pays well enough.

And this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
You know like you can't really point out anything specific about something that you don't like, but you end up really disliking the whole? That kind of feeling.

At the end of the day, preferences are feelings, and they don't have to be logical (not to imply that yours aren't). We like what we like. All too often I tend to forget that (my wife is convinced I'm half Vulcan).

For myself, I was drawn to Paizo during the Dungeon era because they were by far the best source of material for my ongoing campaign. The fact that the mechanics they used were all core was the ideal situation for me -- very little additional crunch (which I tend to dislike), but tons of first-class creativity. This situation persisted through the 3.5 adventure paths. Alas, nothing lasts forever. And in fairness to Paizo, I don't think that was a sustainable business model once 3.5 went out of print.

When 4E was released I embraced it wholeheartedly, only to watch WotC make a series of bad decisions that I believe ultimately doomed what I found to be a very promising set of rules.

As 5E approaches, I find I (again) like the rules, but revelations about organized play (you can't play the adventures at home, for example) have made it unlikely that I will be leaving PFS. PFS is by far and away the best-run OP campaign with which I've ever been involved (PFS>LG>LFR imho). So while I'm of mixed feelings about the Pathfinder RPG rules (I prefer something more rules-light, especially as I get older), I have other reasons to stick around.

My sincere hope (which is often enough to invite curses here :P) is a cleaned-up, simplified 2nd edition of Pathfinder in the next few years. I simply don't care about spending $50 or $100 for new rule books, because the time and effort saved are more than worth the expense (assuming improvement, of course). Something with the clarity, simplicity, and organization of the Beginner Box would be fantastic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Hasbro for the movie Battleship.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
So a business shouldn't have the ability to determine who gets to distribute their product? That's wrong, to you?

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall, I think WotC made some legitimately bad choices during the 4E era. Personally, I liked the rules, but they made it increasingly difficult to support them as a company through what I believe were increasingly customer-hostile actions.

As for 5E -- Once again I like the rules, but I harbor some doubts about WotC. I do think it is worth noting that many of the people behind D&D have changed, and so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they have learned their lesson. However, the silence on PDFs and the OGL do not bode well.

I'm buying the 5E core. Beyond that? Wait and see.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Edition changes happen. I find getting upset about them silly.

Cutting off people's access to their PDFs, on the other hand, was unacceptable. And abandoning the OGL? That was a self-inflicted gunshot wound...which they seem on the verge of repeating. *boggle*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Yes. Give me my 400 USD of PDFs back.

Yeah, but...

Ok, I've got nothing on this one.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.

I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.

The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).

People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.

It like this was made for you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And now for something completely different: I wish WotC would update the Basic PDF to have the page numbers in the correct corners... :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
When I first paged through 4e at the book store it looked to me like a video game rather than an RPG.

Completely agree. Except for the lack of a controller, display, and graphics of any kind, it was just like a video game!

Pardon the sarcasm, but this little bit of edition warring needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

Sadly, that's all too common. We tend to turn on each other quite readily. :-/

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone said "pray for Gaza," so they' antisemitic? Reminds me of the Seinfeld where everyone was calling Jerry an "anti-dentite" because he disliked the dentist.

Sometimes I seriously consider moving into a cave in the mountains. :-/

1 to 50 of 619 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.