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. 7,676 posts (7,793 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,004 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?

Enslavement? :P

Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").

Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules for beyond level 20

Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome. I strongly suggest you join a message-board gang if you want to survive. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.

That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.

Objective good is the entire issue!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should a creature made of adamantine bypass DR/adamantine? I think the answer is obviously yes, but by RAW, it appears the answer is no.

This is why overly codified rules can be as bad/worse than vague rules.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:

So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?

What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?

p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide

"If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same
rewards."

You forgot to drop the mic at the end.

Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

The thing that annoys me about made-up names in RPGs is when players decide to make jokes about them, and then use the joke-name at all times.

** spoiler omitted **

In my Rise game...

Spoiler:

"Commander Bayden" became "Master Batin'"

I was sad. :P

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:

Hop

You can move around using a only one leg.

Prerequisites: Dex 13

Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.

Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:

1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.

2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.

To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.

Blech. No thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

Commoner 1

STR 4
DEX 6
CON 8
INT 8
WIS 6
CHA 4

Profession (linguist) +2

I'm not sure I'm buying it. No one with a Wis of 6 would have such a firm grasp of their own limitations. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. This is the first time I've seen the majority of people give themselves high wis and low cha instead. Maybe it's due to the TTRPG gamer demographic becoming older, more self-reflective, and realizing that they're introverted nerds.

I think people who would understand, let alone answer, this particular question probably have a higher than average Int and lower than average Cha.

For myself, My IQ has been empirically measured to be at least 130 on multiple occasions. I've tested into MENSA, scored in the 89th or 90th percentile of the LSAT with almost no preparation, and excelled in honors and "gifted" courses throughout my academic career.

On the other hand, in the unlikely event that anyone doubts my Cha of 7, I invite them to review my posting history. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yes - because everyone here has an Int of 14+. >.<

It's like how 90% of everyone thinks that they're an above average driver.

It's entirely possible for 90% of a population to be above average. If you don't see why, you are very likely confusing mean and median. Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake...even for someone with an Int of 14+. ;-)

***

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta agree with BNW on this one. Feats should make you better at something or allow you to break the rules in some way, not serve to restrict everyone else.

Sometimes more rules = fewer options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Given the sheer amount of pirated material I have personally seen over the years, I think a certain reluctance to embrace easily-transferred electronic formats for new releases intended to generate fresh revenue is hardly incomprehensible.

What's incomprehensible is the persistence of the idea that not releasing PDFs somehow impedes piracy.

But dead horses and all that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
The sad thing is these same people would be complaining if various NPCs were named John or Bob or Jane. You know, easily-pronounced names.

Because the "problem" is them? Nice. >:(

Let's be honest...Paizo has come up with some pretty bad names. That's kinda unavoidable, though, given the volume of stuff they create. For some people, some of those odder names can server as an amusing shared experience. It's no problem if you don't share those experiences, but this thread doesn't have to be about criticizing -- or defending -- Paizo. There is nothing "sad" here. This is not SERIOUS BUSINESS(tm).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

PDFs, as we all know, are the work of the devil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Suggestion: Never use five exclamation points in a row!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The loss of the pronunciation guide in the upgrade of the campaign setting was unfortunate. It's one of the few ways that the new version is inferior to the old. Not something it made sense to cut, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChaoticAngel97 wrote:
Probably Desna or Cayden, if I were to actually worshiper someone. I'm not a religious guy here on Earth so more than likely I wouldn't be on Golarion but if I was going to worship, it'd be one of the above two.

Interesting that you feel that way. I'm a "hardcore" atheist, but on Golarion I wouldn't be. Although, perhaps "venerate, respect, or serve" might better describe my behavior than "worship." Of course, that gets into the question of whether Golarion's gods are really capital-g Gods according to a contemporary U.S. point-of-view.

But that's another thread. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ford Prefect wrote:
I've been to the center of the universe, and it most definitely isn't Murica (wherever that is).

Filthy lies!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sarenrae.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

The OP is 100% correct.

If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong.

And I would say "you're doing it wrong" is a confrontational response rather than a response trying to understand why the person is doing it that way.

You don't teach people better discussion skills by simple negation of what they are doing. You can help them learn better discussion skills by showing them a different way.

But a flat 'if you do this, you are wrong' doesn't help anyone learn anything.

Wow, that's too meta. Seriously, though, you have a point. If the goal is to change people's behavior, I should probably avoid that sort of language.

But here's the thing: The older I get, the less I engage with people. Because the older I get, the easier it is for me to tell when people want a conversation (rarely) and when they want a fight (almost always). The unfortunate truth is that many (most?) people simply aren't worth interacting with, and a refusal to even try to understand the other guy's position is a big red flag. More than once I've taken the time to understand someone's argument to their satisfaction, but when I've asked them to pay me the same courtesy, they reply with "why should I want to understand your argument? It's stupid." Never mind that they just admitted they didn't understand the thing they were rallying against, but they've demonstrated that real communication was never the goal.

To me, that really is simply doing it wrong.

TDLR; Lots of people just want to win, and anything that lets an old curmudgeon like me quickly identify (and subsequently avoid) those people -- like them arguing in bad faith -- is a win. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Though it's certainly possible that the reason you can't explain your opponent's argument to their satisfaction is because they're explaining it badly. Or because they're arguing in bad faith.

Or perhaps you simply misunderstand, but do so in good faith.

I have on occasion attempted to restate someone else's argument as best I understood it and been accused of putting words in their mouth.

Of course.

But then you can just try again. If the other party is arguing in good faith, they will be open to this. If they're aren't, well then they just outed themselves, didn't they? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The OP is 100% correct.

If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. Yes, it is easier said than done. On the other hand, if it would never even occur to you to try...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*BOGGLE*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea of a smaller version of the Core Book -- but is it going to come with a magnifying glass? :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming they know how to design software, Apple should be totally unable to "unlock" a phone. That ain't how encryption works, folks.

My understanding is what the government is actually asking for is them to build a permanent back door, which they're right to refuse.


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


2 people 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?

Nope.


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,...

TomG:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there is that.

OTOH, if anyone was crazy enough to shell out some cash for it, take the money and run. :)

There is such a thing as damaging a brand. Why would Paizo want most people's first impression of Pathfinder to be a despised B movie?


2 people 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

1 to 50 of 1,004 << 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.