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. 7,841 posts (7,959 including aliases). 80 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 17 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,074 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somehow we're now confusing a higher IQ with a lack of douche-baggery. Trust me, the two are NOT the same. As it happens, I've also observed RPG gamers AS A GROUP to be more socially awkward than average. Unsurprisingly, there's no study to back that one up, either (though for some reason it seems to be much less controversial =P).

Besides, what does IQ matter, anyway? I'm a card-carrying Mensan, and I'd much, MUCH rather be handsome. It seems eminently more useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

But i don't want to have to learn to speak lizard.

I spit when i make the TSSSS sound.

That's a common rookie mistake.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to molting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Clinton is amazing.

Just think about it: She somehow hides billions in "dark money" using an organization NAMED THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, while managing to hob-knob with the lefty-elite, arm the Saudis, AND still be one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history.

President? Screw that. Someone that effective should just take over the world (a feat she is no doubt pursuing at this very moment!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but what about Fantasy Age? ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally dislike the term "adventurer," because I don't like the idea of so many people running around doing this that they need a name.

Imagine if the Rebel Alliance had just hired "a party of adventurers" to blow up the death start, or if Gandalf had simply posted a want-ad for "some adventurers" in order to take the ring to Mordor.

Not for me, thanks. To me, that's one of the negative corollaries of an overly codified and stimulationist ruleset.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Well...sort of. With WotC, they don't sell PDFs of the core rules of the most recent edition. However, they do sell the core rules for every other edition they ever published. You can go on OBS right now and buy PDFs from the core rules of OD&D all the way through 4e essentials. The only one you can't buy digitally is the most recent one.

With Paizo, it's the exact opposite. You can very easily purchase the most recent edition of the Core Rulebook in PDF, but if you want any of the older editions, you are out of luck.

You seem to be confusing "edition" and "printing." There is only one edition of Pathfinder (unless you count the beta, I suppose).


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

err, no it's not true of the printed product (it gets delivered without having to download it). I get my subs and never need to visit the website at all.

However, I don't think many people list "not having to go and get it" as the advantage of the subscription anyway. They list things like "getting it early" and "free PDF".

I can see that there might be an advantage offered with a digital subscription, but "not having to go and get it" doesn't seem to be much of one to me.

Yeah, I guess I don't understand what you mean, then.

If you don't have a book and want it, without a subscription you would have to spend the same 15 seconds to order it as you would a PDF. Shipping, while a delay, requires zero effort on your part. I think that's the point of wanting a PDF subscription option...not having to order things.

But maybe I just don't get what you're saying?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Freund wrote:
Keep the modules coming. Keep the setting books coming. But please, for the love of sanity, stop publishing rules, and stop using them in your modules and setting. It really does cause GMs like me to refuse the run the game, and turn to other systems that are inherently self-limiting by virtue of fewer rule books.

100% in agreement...in fact, this is a large part of why I rarely play Pathfinder any more. Unfortunately, I believe people like us are in the minority, so it's tough to (fairly) blame Paizo for NOT catering to us.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
At the risk of starting an edition war, I feel that the last two editions of Dungeons and Dragons are more niche rpgs. That is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just how it feels to me.

Interesting. If anything, I'd say 5E is about as "mainstream" as RPGs get. Which, in fairness, is "not very." :P


7 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Myself, I haven't purchased any 5e books of them. I would have if I could get PDFs of the core books (or if there was a complete core book reference online along the lines of the PRD), but you can't. Yes, in fact, the lack of availability of fully useful PDFs is the reason I haven't purchased hardcover D&D books.

This. Even putting aside the casual, patronizing contempt with which they treat their customers, this was the an absolute deal-killer for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Capitalism!

Exactly. A little competition is good for everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This doesn't surprise me. I think Paizo is going to find continued growth much more challenging with a solid version of D&D in print. Furthermore, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To many people "I've got mine, and tough luck if you've lost yours" is a thing, otherwise Social Darwinism would never have made it into the dictionary."

Don't forget the irony that the FUGM people usually did so only through the forbearance of their betters. They just don't know it, because they assume everyone is as rotten as they are.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Something occurred to me yesterday. You know how people dislike Hillary because she's been around for 20 years and she's a Washington Insider?

If she were a man, we'd call that "experience."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're not with him, you're against him...and accidents happen. Just sayin'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Trump only fires the best nukes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Thing is, we don't have an actual national ID system. Because we're paranoid or something.

Mostly we make do with state issued driver's licenses, which have basically all of the drawbacks of a national id and few of the advantages. Since that covers the vast majority of people, including everyone with any power or influence, there's little provision made for those who fall through the cracks.

It may even be worse than that. Here in AZ, we stamped our feet and refused to update our driver's licenses to meet the necessary standards for federal air travel, because it was going to be "too expensive." We then turned around and created an entirely new form of ID card that does comply, meaning now anyone who wants to both drive and fly has to get BOTH forms of identification.

Really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Donald Trump's demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character."

All hands abandon ship! Warp core breach on decks 7,8, and 9!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Voter ID" laws are a 21st century poll tax, plain and simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's complex. Nothing can be as simple as "no protectionist tariffs".

Dude, EVERYTHING is complex. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But "trade agreements = bad" -- which is literally what Trump is selling -- is a load of bull$#%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
A letter from a Bernie delegate on how the Clinton-Kaine campaign shouldn't take those votes for granted.

"If an appreciable number of those Bernie voters opt to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate in the fall, here comes President Trump."

So...congrats? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Edit: Not directed specifically at you, Turin. Rather, to the author of that article.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we agree that opposition to trump goes beyond mere partisanship yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Personally, I'm kind of hoping that we can use 3D printing to create good housing at a fraction of the current costs, and that with a drastically reduced cost of living, people might be able to do a lot more with what they're able to get from their work.

That seems like the opposite of what 3D printing is for. Genuinely curious...how do yo see that working?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
It's not mindless repetition. It's a point of concern having a commander in chief that doesn't care enough to secure confidential info in a lesser job. Or at least it should be.

"Point of concern" is pretty far removed from "lock her up."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I'm looking forward to the next 50 pages of partisan bashing, myself.

Second verse, same as the first!

If you want to write off the concerns about Trump as "partisan bashing," there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. World-weary cynicism is all the rage, and easy to affect. I get it.

I also, however, think this goes well beyond garden variety partisanship. I'll freely admit I don't think W should have been president, and I'm unlikely to find the 2020 Republican nominee any more tasteful. That's partisanship.

This isn't that. Trump is a threat to the integrity of the system and our national identity. Neither he, nor anyone like him, MUST EVER be president.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

His presidency was a legacy of crises one after another, and the issue was a sense of inaction by him and by Congress to do anything about ANY of them. The metric system was a nice example: "OK. The rest of the world is on the metric system. We are going to convert."

"Wait! Some people don't like it!"
"Oh, maybe we should reconsider..."

Yeah, sometimes being decisive can matter more than the decision itself. Maybe not often, but sometimes. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm going to miss that bond. I'm going to miss a lot of things from this POTUS.

You and me both. ;-)

P.S. You just have to laugh at the "worst president evar!" the GOP was trying to sell for so long. They appear quite relieved to turn their attention to Hillary and let that particular canard go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The private server thing is a complete non issue.
And if Russia DOES provide emails originating from her account?

Depends whether they did it specifically at Mr. Trump's behest. In which case, criminal charges might actually be in order...

...for Mr. Trump.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

People. Stop. This isn't funny any more. We are flirting with disaster.

I know we're all jaded by the incessant hyperbole in politics, but Trump is genuinely dangerous. He is fascist, racist, sexist, and a gleeful authoritarian. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. Don't take the media's word for it. Just look at what Trump himself has said. Take *his* word for it.

Opposition to the cynical demagoguery Mr. Trump is selling has to transcend partisan bickering. This man must never be president.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:

And yet if you or I (or anyone else on these boards), were as "negligent" with top level security as Mrs. Clinton, we'd have been thrown into the deepest, darkest of prisons before you could say "scandal"!

Just look at Gen. Patraeus... All he did was share TS emails with a single person, and he was coerced into resigning from the C.I.A. Not only was Hilary accused of sharing TS emails with several people, her account is said to have been hacked by Russia!

Just goes to show that her supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.

I know, right! Look at all that time Patraeus -- who was actually guilty -- got!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bill O'Reily's response to Michelle Obama's speech.

Well Bill, I guess that makes it OK, then.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
No, I didn't. Read closer.

*rubs eyes*

RainyDayNinja wrote:
...every non-issue that people like you elevate to a crisis...

Yup, still there.

BTW, I think this is the part where you complain about this website being unreasonably left wing and go off in a huff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:

You sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

I'm no Trump fan, but every non-issue that people like you elevate to a crisis, just chips away at your credibility when it comes to the actually important things.

Wait...did you just complain about me putting words in your mouth, and then, in the next sentence, claim that "people like me" elevate every non-issue into a crisis?

I think I see the problem. :P


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:

Or, you know, that some people can recognize an obvious joke.

The fact that the media is presenting an obvious joke like this as a serious proposal is exactly why Trump's supporters don't care what the media says about him.

Oh right...the liberal (yet 100% corporate owned) media did it!

Was it an "obvious joke" when he called illegal immigrants rapists? Is the rampant misogyny also a joke? Or the part where he sure did admire Saddam?

Wake up. The only "obvious joke" is his candidacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

Donald Trump literally just told Russia to hack a former Secretary of State in order to obtain what he hopes is classified information, and promised they'd be rewarded for doing so.

That actually just happened.

And yet his numbers won't take a hit. Just goes to show that his supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I see this a bell weather sign of the times. It started with boxes such as AppleTV and Rokku. The Cable hegemony has been showing signs of breakup for some time. HBO, Showtime, and others are now offering services which require nothing more than Internet access to acquire. Home entertainment is going to become more of an al-a carte affair.

I don't disagree. However, CBS All Access, at least in its present form (very limited access to recent shows, ALONG with ads) is crap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, I saw that. That's Trump's style. All you small businessmen backing Trump. Remember that's how he treats you. Cuts you off, breaks the deal, doesn't pay and then fights you in court with better lawyers than you can afford until you settle for pennies on the dollar. That's what you're cheering for.

That's how we Make America Great Again...if you think the gilded age and robber barons were great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That the United States is a democracy is not a lie. A lot of people think that you need to be a direct democracy to be a democracy, but that's simply untrue. The US is a representative democracy, because even in the 18th century, it was well-understood that direct democracy is unworkable for something as large as a medium-sized city.

That's technically true, but strikes me as semantics. In common parlance, there is no distinction. How many people, do you suppose, when asked out of the blue would agree with the statement "in a democracy, the person who gets the most votes wins?" 99%? 100%? Will of the people, and all that?

Yet that isn't how our system works.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I've ever seen FUD quite like is currently being directed at Clinton.

Throw enough crap, and even though none of it sticks, the sheer volume of it starts to make it hard to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, are we still looking at a fascist megalomaniac vs. an arguably bland career politician?

I'll take the career politician for $200, Alex.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
To each his own. I consider Wrath of Khan the only one of the Star Trek films to have merit as a movie on it's own. None of the others would be worth watching if the Star Trek stuff were filed off of it, and several of them, First Contact in particular were painful to watch, and are in the category of "Never subject myself to this torture again!"

I've pretty much concluded Star Trek simply isn't a good fit for movies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was...meh. Better than Into Darkness, but worse than the first one.

It's still not Star Trek.

Spoiler:

Who casts Edris Elba, but then covers him in make-up for 90% of the movie? WTF?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it is -- by definition -- true that all illegal immigrants are criminals, that's not a very useful distinction. By such a binary standard, literally everyone you know is a criminal. I'm not terribly concerned about people whose only crime is circumventing our broken-by-design immigration system. I can promise you I would do the same in their place.

As for racism...this so-called criminality doesn't explain the anger directed against illegal immigrants. Misguided economic resentment from the less sophisticated is a part, sure, but even that doesn't explain why Hispanics are nearly always singled out (in Trump's case, as "rapists" and "murderers"!).

Hell, given our demographic prospects, the United States should just let any healthy person under the age of 30 who is not guilty of any meaningful crime into the country legally, and then tax their wages. Problem solved.

P.S. I also just fixed Social Security. You're welcome. ;-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to wonder if we all share some responsibility for Trump's viability as a candidate. Has daily political discourse become so hyperbolic that words like "fascist" and "criminal" have lost any real meaning?

Opposition to things like racism, sexism, and demagoguery should be non-partisan. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
On the right, it's all about scapegoats - you're worse off and it's all because of the lazy blacks living off your tax money and the illegals taking your jobs and the gays doing something or other.

LOL. The racism and xenophobia I "understand." But what DO people imagine homosexuals have to do with their economic marginalization?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Michael Steele: Hillary Clinton is "absolutely qualified" to be president.

My immediate reaction is to ask why the republicans aren't nominating nominating Micheal Steele. At least in that interview, he comes off as a rational, articulate, and respectful man. In other words, the opposite of Donald Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump understands very little, including the fact that he was born on third base (if not directly on home plate).

...or maybe he does, and he's a cynical evil genius. However, if that is the case I have no idea why he wants to be president.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure. In theory, one should always borrow as much money as possible as long as one can earn a higher return on the money than what is paid in interest. In practice, it doesn't matter what the expected rate of return is if you encounter a liquidity crisis. All the bridges in the world won't matter if we miss a bond payment.

If I had my druthers I'd up the capital gains tax, the corporate tax rate (which, despite what you may have heard, isn't anywhere near the "highest in the world."), and the social security tax ceiling. I'd also quash offshore tax shelters. Then I'd invest the resulting windfall in education, infrastructure, and paying down debt. I'd also ramp down military spending, and release pretty much the entire non-violent prison population as quickly as feasible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Niles wrote:
Man, if only there were a party that combined actual fiscal responsibility and individual liberties.

If only there were a VIABLE party. The only way Libertarians become viable in a two-party system is by replacing the Republicans.

Can we get on with that already?

1 to 50 of 1,074 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.