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. 7,494 posts (7,611 including aliases). 82 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 937 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Brock wrote:
I was always taught to leave a situation better than I entered it.

Mission accomplished.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things...

We've made more progress in understanding the world in the 400 years since Galileo than in the 40,000 years before before him (granted, Galileo as the father of the scientific method could be debated, but if anything, the advent of the scientific method is even more recent than 400 years).

So yeah, science is useful for "figuring out things." :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Except for the fact that the people with the most disposable money are those with a vested interest in disproving global warming, and the only people they can find to publish refutations also worked on tobacco studies for cigarette companies.

Now that is what I'd call an inconvenient truth. ;-)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For goodness sake, it's not like the initiative rules stand up to the level of scrutiny being employed here anyway.

The rules state that:

PRD wrote:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

Fair enough. However, note that "initiative count" is not defined.

Next, regarding ties:

PRD wrote:
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first).

Great! Not that nothing is said about changing the actual initiative check result; only the order of action is specified. And again, nothing about "initiative count."

Now look at effects ongoing effects:

PRD wrote:
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

What is an "initiative count?"

Is it a synonym for "initiative check result?" If so, then multiple people can go on the same initiative count (because ties do not result in changing the initiative check result). So if you have two combatants with the same check result, but with different initiative modifiers, they go on the same count in order of initiative modifier. Imagine a monk (initiative check 20, modifier 5) goes after an enemy bard (initiative check 20, modifier 6) and stuns him for 1 round, by the RAW the stun ends "just before" initiative count 20 in the next round, meaning the bard recovers before his turn and suffers no ill effects from the stun.

On the other hand, if initiative count isn't a synonym for "initiative check result," what is it? How does it work? The rules don't say.

TLDR; If you try to treat the rules of a game like a legal contract, you're asking for trouble.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."

A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lies! I an hereby getting on the mass extinction denier bandwagon early.

What? The climate change denier bandwagon is just too darn crowded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Art direction that completely excludes WAR and his legion of imitators.

Hey, a guy can dream.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other than wholly impractical?

My money is on "they're GMPCs." :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back.
...except to look back at the Forums for it, for no reason :p

Yes, because clearly heathens who play 5E should be banished. They couldn't possibly have interest in other Paizo products, or friends here, or anything like that.

Unclean!

Edit: And your post has garnered several favorites. Score another one for petty human tribalism. :-/


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

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.

The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting. In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion, but I just have no patience left for dealing with Hasbro/WotC's shenanigans after watching them completely botch 4E (which I really liked). It probably also doesn't help that I feel like I've seen this show before, having watched the slow car accident that was the music industry's response to MP3s...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them.

I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work.

S.

Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rather, the OP is discussing things like "No blacks or women in my fantasy, that's not historically accurate" and "No guns alongside my rapiers and nunchuks, that's not historically accurate."

Perhaps...then again, ignoring the implications of introducing things like guns can be jarring, and history is pretty much the best guide we have when it comes to the effects of new technology.

Guns replaced bows. They're smaller, easier to use, more convenient, etc. You could have a setting with semi-automatic firearms existing alongside bows, but you'd really need to explain why bows are still in common use. It's OK for the hero to use a bow; he's special. But if half the armies of the world use bows, and half use guns, you'd better have a really good explanation as to why that is the case. "Because fantasy" is going to rub some people the wrong way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that verisimilitude matters, irrespective of genre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D...

I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting they want to sink D&D; only that they may do so inadvertently.

If I had to bet, I'd guess that 5E will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them. Their management team certainly seems to be circa 1990 or so.

But the truth is that we'll never know how 5E would have gone under different circumstances, because it isn't possible to go back and test it. All I know right now is:

1. 5E seems to be successful so far; and
2. I will not play it, because it doesn't meet my requirements. Whether it would under different ownership I cannot say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I've heard that such a separate character-building game did manifest in 2E in a more limited form, particularly towards the end of its run.

Quite possibly. I had moved on to other systems by that point. Ironically, I was mostly playing Hero -- pretty much the ultimate in build-a-character games -- which I preferred for it's internal consistency. Of course, at the time I still thought simulation was a thing; now I wouldn't touch Hero with a 10ft pole.

Just goes to show how tastes change, I guess.


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+.

1 to 50 of 937 << 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.