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. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,603 posts (7,720 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.

1 to 50 of 971 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

1 person 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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Those of us who've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years have done so because we didn't want a new edition.

I've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years, but that isn't why. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't claim to speak for others.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One day I hope to be wise enough to quit reading these threads.

One day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.

You're absolutely right, and it's quite distasteful.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, if it's not a problem for ME, then it's not a problem. AMIRITE?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TomG wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Except that in this scenario, I'm the doctor. As it happens, I have a master's degree in information management and bachelor's in information technology, both from, *gasp*, an actual brick'n'mortar research university.

Substantially similar post eaten by forums.

As long as we're out-degree-ing each other, I'm a professional web developer with a degree in computer science and PhD in Computer Information Systems from a top-tier research university.

As much as he's starting to sound trollish (and he's probably just really frustrated with people with their fingers in their ears), Orfamay Quest is correct. Adding CAPTHCA to the forum will do little observable good, and almost certainly observable harm.

1. As "Orfamay Quest" pointed out, these are humans posting, not bots, so CAPTCHA is irrelevant.
2. As others pointed out, most CAPTCHA types have been solved with a high degree of accuracy. That doesn't really matter, because even with a low degree of success, an automated program can retry quickly enough that its effective success rate is still pretty high. In other words, CAPTCHAs are mostly machine solvable anyway, so even if the perpetrators here *were* bots (and they're arguably not), CAPTCHA would likely only discomfit them temporarily until they prepped an automated solution (which is easy to do).
3. Several years ago researchers identified rings of CAPTCHA-breakers that instead of trying to automate solving would instead offload it to another site. For example, to solve Site A CAPTCHA, Evil Guy Z would reproduce it on Site B (a high traffic pr0n site, for example) and use the human-generated solutions to crack Site A. Yet another (of many) ways to circumvent CAPTCHA.

The long and short of all of this is CAPTCHAs take time to implement (and I'd rather have that time go toward more important features), provide negligible benefit, but measurable harm.

CAPTCHAs can work on low traffic sites that use common platforms (WordPress, for example,...


I stand humbled before your superior degree-fu. It seems you are actually the doctor. ;)

However, my original suggestion was actually to apply a mix of techniques, including CAPTCHAs, user registration confirmation, etc., in an attempt to both combat bots and inconvenience human spammers. Doubtless custom, domain-specific development would also play a role.

I appreciate that CAPTCHAs aren't a silver bullet, but I'm sure you are aware, one of the basic principles of computer security is that you can't make a system impregnable; rather, you can make it an unattractive target, and you can try to slow determined attackers long enough for humans to notice and intervene. CAPTCHAs and user registration confirmation in particular struck me as an easy-to-implement start of a comprehensive strategy.

My original suggestion was also born of frustration, as this isn't a new problem. Nor is it clear to me why it isn't been treated as a higher priority. Personally, I would have long since tried these things (and more), especially given the importance of this site to Paizo's revenue.

Finally, while I personally find them annoying, no CAPTCHA has ever stopped me from signing up for a site I cared about, so I don't really buy the argument that they'd harm the community. But I'm prepared to accept the idea that I'm atypical in that respect.

TLDR: A reasoned argument stating the weaknesses of CAPTCHAs -- but also acknowledging that that hadn't been my only suggestion -- would have been treated as such. However, "LOL UR STUPID CATCHAS ROFL N00B!"? Not so much.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

As the T-shirt puts it, "I'd be less Grumpy if you were less Dopey."

The opening post on this thread suggested CAPTCHA technology. He was answered in the second post explaining that it wouldn't work. The IT manager for Paizo chimed in on ninth post of this thread to explain that CAPTCHA wouldn't work.

Anyone still suggesting CAPTCHA-based technology at this point is making a contribution to this thread of negative value.

Imagine the following conversation with your doctor.

* "I'm afraid you've caught a serious viral infection."
* "Well, is there something you can do?"
* "Yes, but the drugs are very expensive."
* "Well, why don't you just use penicillin?"
* "Penicillin is an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "Yes, but why don't you use amoxicillin?"
* "That's an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "How about norfloxacin?"
* "That's also an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "How about tetracycline?"
* "That's not an anti-viral, either."
* "Well, how about penicillin?"

Except that in this scenario, I'm the doctor. As it happens, I have a master's degree in information management and bachelor's in information technology, both from, *gasp*, an actual brick'n'mortar research university. So while I'm admittedly NOT presently employed as an web developer, I'm at least as qualified as -- no offense -- Random Internet Poster #2340934 to comment on the situation.

But appeals to authority aside, you might consider the possibility that everyone who isn't you isn't necessarily a moron. Or not; it's up to you. Either way, the snark is not helpful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were Paizo, I think I'd stay away from movies. Hard to imagine getting much further from core competencies. Also, all three D&D movies were bad. Heck, even Battleship and the Transformers movies were bad.

Just say no. :P


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to say I'm not prejudiced. But that would be a lie. If I'm being completely honest, I have to admit I'm a bit put off by trans-gendered people.

I realize, intellectually, that this is irrational and horribly unfair. I'm disappointed in myself for feeling this way. However, pretending I don't won't fix the problem, either. All I can do is be aware of it and work on being a better person.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Flag it and move on. Engaging just prolongs and this one isn't entertaining.

But...this site deserves a better class of troll.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:
No they are talking about imagine behaviors. No one seen this behavior at all. I am actually talking about the behavior on this thread. Thanks again for proving you are bigot.

2/10. Troll harder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a white, heterosexual, cisgendered man, I probably engage in this behavior to some extent.

I don't want to. In fact, I try not to. But personally I struggle if someone is playing a cross-gender character. Not because I think it's icky or wrong, but because I am receiving constant sensory input telling me that the person in front of me is a male (or female, or whatever). It's hard to engage my imagination to the point where I "see" something different.

There's probably not much that can be done, expect perhaps in the most egregious of cases. Although threads like this can help raise awareness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

Ah yes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be progressive. You can't discriminate against white straight males because they are white straight males even while calling every minor thing a sign of discrimination.

Blackbloodtroll is bullying because blackbloodtroll purposefully label the other players as white straight males so demonization is easier. Blackblootroll wants to feel comfortable calling out their so called bad behavior, and wants permission from the community to call out their so called bad behavior. Blackbloodtroll wants to bully them into changing their behavior that blackbloodtroll dislikes with the consent of the community.

If blackbloodtroll was trying forcibility change a parties behavior for any other reason instead of so called sexism, racism, or homophobia what would you call it?

Right...sure thing, pal. You're the victim here... :P

What would I call it? Hmmm. Decency? Empathy? Consideration? Take your pick.

Not much point to going further, as this post -- along with yours -- is likely going to be swept up by the mods in short order.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some hostile/baiting posts and their responses. Let's leave whatever drama or upset that may have happened in other threads out of the conversation.

Too bad; I enjoy master baiting posts.

Erm, wait... ;-)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Literally 80% of the recent threads on the front page are spam.

Guys, come one. CAPTCHAs? How about requiring folks to activate their account by e-mail before use? Or better yet, how about both?

Neither of these are silver bullets...nor are they intended to be. Rather, they're intended to push the amount of effort required to spam high enough to make the spammers look elsewhere for easier targets.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:

"more flexible mechanics"...

Cops & Robbers has the most flexible mechanics of any Roleplaying Game I've ever seen... doesn't mean it's fun.

If you've got a DM who can't figure out how to apply Skills and mechanics on-the-fly, get a better DM.

The only way to get truly "flexible" mechanics is to stop playing games with any mechanical rules at all and instead just sit around in a group telling a story of how awesome your guy is.

That's not fun, and it's not even a "game" - that's masturbatory.

Pardon, but that's a false dichotomy. There aren't only two choices: Pathfinder or no mechanics at all. There is a whole range of possible options between the two, none of which deserve to be dismissed as "masturbatory." That's classic badwrongfun-ism.

Also, "sitting around in a group telling a story" is a tradition across many cultures, and an important mechanic for passing knowledge from one generation to the next.

Of course, none of this really has anything to do with some guy's opinion of Pathfinder. Maybe find something other to do than tell someone why his opinion is "wrong?"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, but League of Legends is a computer game; additional mechanics mean nothing to a computer.

Obviously it's a matter of taste, so there is no right or wrong answer, but to this forty-something parent trying to squeeze in time for an RPGs -- often via PFS -- additional mechanics are a hindrance, not a selling point.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.


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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People don't believe in evolution, either, despite literally tons of accumulated empirical evidence. Unfortunately, many of us simply seem to be driven by emotion, rather than by logic.

In the case of anthropogenic climate change, there are also substantial financial incentives for myopia.

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. ;-)


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.


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.


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.

That is a good point...there's no question in my mind that Magic relies heavily on store play space. However, assuming it is the reason, though, they should just say so when asked...

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.


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

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

There are times you do sound like a broken record. ;)

Though, truly, I don't read your posts nearly as much as I used to because, at least in some threads, I know what they're going to be about...

Yeah, sorry about that. Probably a low-grade personality disorder at work.

...though the wife might say it isn't so low-grade. ;)

2 people 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.


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 to 50 of 971 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.