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. 6,553 posts (6,654 including aliases). 70 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 576 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


2 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.


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 person marked this as a favorite.

So I ran my first session of 5E over the weekend. We began the Starter Set adventure using the basic rules.

The game moved along well. We spend a total of five hours, which included character generation and dinner. During the ~3.5 hours we actually spent playing, we got through five combats and wrapped up the first section of the adventure. It reminded me of "reset" 3rd edition with many of the corner-case rules removed. I particularly liked the "hybrid" prepared/spontaneous spell-casting model shared by the cleric and the wizard. Someone at the table described it as a "D&D greatest hits," which I think was very appropriate.

We tried going map-less for a combat, but it just didn't feel quite right. Then we tried a grid with minis, and while that was close, it felt a bit "fiddly" for the rules-moderate nature of the game. We decided next time we're going to use minis and maps, but without a grid, and just measure distance with string. That should offer a visually appealing tactical representation without the restrictive feel of a grid. Since the rules don't assume a grid, it seems like the best balance. It also seems appropriate given D&D's war-game roots.

One thing I noticed was the need to read and re-read the basic rules. With several iterations of D&D and Pathfinder rattling around in my head, it was really tough to keep everything straight.

Naturally the lack of customization in the Basic Rules was very confining, but the experience left me really wanting to see the Player's Handbook. I still fear WotC is going to make bone-headed mistake at the last minute, but I'm excited in spite of myself: 5E might end up being close to my "ideal" D&D. If so, it will become my "go-to" game for fantasy role-playing, but it seems highly likely that I'll be sticking with Pathfinder for organized play unless most of my friends switch (thanks, network effects!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brian Torrens wrote:
I have access to some high-tech printing equipment and running on thick cardstock isn't usually an issue.

*Activates +4 laser-stare of envy*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Supreme Court 2014: The only freedom that matters is mine. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Brookes wrote:
Your level of Emerald Spire is one of my favorites!

Would you say you found it...inspiring?

Yuck yuck...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been offered copies of Paizo PDFs with the watermarks removed on multiple occasions. I didn't accept. Not because I'm incorruptible or righteous, but because Paizo PDFs are legally available for a fair price, and I want to support the people that make them so they'll keep making them. On the other hand, refusing to offer legal PDFs hurts only customers, as those willing to pirate are not stymied. I had simply hoped that the powers that be at WotC would have figured this out by now. Heck, I had hoped that they'd have figured it out years ago.

In any event, even if all discussion of piracy related matters is forbidden, care should be taken before accusing people of advocating piracy (which no no one in this thread has done).

In short, I don't take well to being accused of things I haven't done. :-/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.
Silence is better for Wizards then promises they don't deliver. I think Wizards is wise to say nothing until they can back up what they say. It makes waiting harder but is helping show that currently Wizards delivers what it says it will deliver.

Yes, but...my point is that the decision on PDFs should have already been a firm "of course."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Wow. Poor form.

Indeed. Especially since I'm pretty sure *wisdom* is my dump stat (as I keep participating in these threads). >:(


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Wright wrote:
I was having an interesting discussion. You don't have to click on the link, my friend.

I didn't click on the link. What I did do was get a hostile PM from someone in this thread ("intelligence is obviously your dump stat").

OVER A FREAKING GAME.

So while I'm glad you find it interesting, I'm tired of the edition war bickering. I'll leave you guys to it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I can think of many people I know that would firebomb Paizo HQ if 2Ed were announced ;)

Sadly I'm not sure you're mistaken.

Sometimes treating a game like SERIOUS BUSINESS wears more than a little thin. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hereby certify this thread as 100% Ed approved!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
At least I'm consistent and not changing my views 180 degrees every other season. :)

Yes, because clearly disliking something a company does without deciding they're irredeemably evil for all time makes one a hypocrite.

P.S. Look! Over there!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:
I don't think Pathfinder 2E is going to be churned out as quickly as Hasbro is putting out new editions of D&D. lets hope 5th ed does a decent job.

And in my opinion, a new edition of Pathfinder can't come soon enough. Then again, I'm much less bothered by "edition-churn" than I am bloat. YMMV.

You seem to be taking a lot of this personally...it might help you to take a step back. RPGs aren't religions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:

What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.

This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.

Personally, I'd think long and hard before I started hurling accusations of D&D "stealing from Pathfinder."

As for the rest -- the basic rules are free. You will be able to use just those to play any of the published adventures. If you want to build your own stuff, you will probably want to pick-up a Monster Manual. Personally, I'm not seeing the angst here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
To me, it's D&D NextNextPlus, in order to differentiate it from the inevitable D&D NextPlusPlus which will come out in 2019.

Yes, Gorby, we get it. You hate all things WotC. Thanks for that. :/


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

3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"

Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"

Go figure.

In fairness, Scott, you could be talking about an entirely different group of people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I do wonder why you are so sure of that, and why it cannot be both.

Exactly. They'd be crazy to not use what they learn in a future edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Well, that won't stop people, in particular the ones with a long-standing axe to grind with Paizo, to run around the Internet screaming "paid beta of PF 2.0 out next year - WotC did that to you with Bo9s and now Paizo is doing it again".

Uhm, I'd be delighted if it were that. Either way, I'll definitely be picking it up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssian wrote:
...MMO on paper that they tried to sell to us as "4E."

sigh


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's not just you. Lots of people have problems with Pathfinder. Some of us put up with those problems and play anyway, others don't and find some other game that doesn't irritate them. Whichever you choose, I hope you have fun doing so.

This. Exactly this.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Furry Grognard wrote:
It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder.

Alternatively, it might be the kind of fantasy RPG one plays after advancing past the needless complexity of systems like Pathfinder.

Or maybe it isn't a question of being "advanced" at all, and just one of preference? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Put down thy sword, o mighty edition warrior.

Never!

You can take my life, but you can never take...my EDIIIIIIIITION!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Because the point of tabletop RPGs is teamwork, and everyone using their strengths to complement each other. Unless we are playing Paranoia of course.

If I want to shine solo, I'll play a CRPG.

That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.

Reporting as ordered!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Dave the dragonborn shouldn't get angry over what the female dragonborn do or don't lack. Tate the tiefling is more interested in whether he gets a spikey tail or not

Oh man. I spent at least two minutes coming up with an awesome* breast related pun and no one spotted it. Or everyone ignored it. Please someone humour me!

*ok, wasn't that awesome if no one saw it!

lack (lactate)?

Lack. Tate........yeah, you!!

Yeah, A for effort, but I think the period creates a conceptual divider that's hard to get past (it did for me, at least). Or maybe you just need a better audience. Sorry!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Dave the dragonborn shouldn't get angry over what the female dragonborn do or don't lack. Tate the tiefling is more interested in whether he gets a spikey tail or not

Oh man. I spent at least two minutes coming up with an awesome* breast related pun and no one spotted it. Or everyone ignored it. Please someone humour me!

*ok, wasn't that awesome if no one saw it!

lack (lactate)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.

If we're going to use silly analogies to try to declare things being irrational, let's at least attempt to get a little bit closer:

It would be more like "boycotting" Ford because you didn't like a single vehicle from the company between 2008 and 2013. The 2008 Ford F150 (the 2008 Monster Manual?) is just one drop in the bucket.

You may be surprised then, it seems, that people have dropped companies (including car manufacturers) for a lot less. I also doubt anyone here is in a position to determine if that's "rational" or not.

Why would you expect me to be surprised? I made the same point in the post you quoted. And yes, deciding you will never, ever buy something from a company from now until the end of time because you don't like some of their past products is irrational. But certainly one has that choice. And as they say, haters gonna hate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

Honestly, this (like most of these issues) seems far more likely to be upsetting players than the people who create the things.

I think there's a huge lack of understanding amongst the fanbases that the people involved in the different parts of this industry actually get on rather well outside of their own companies, for the best part, and that they tend to quite happily feed off and improve on one another's ideas.

Here's a shocker - Paizo and WotC staff are even friends on Facebook, and sometimes even joke with one another about friendly competition (I know right? It's like Pro Wrestling isn't it? These people who are fighting each other onscreen are travelling around in the same cars together! *gasp*)

As much as I know some people would love to see Paizo grind WotC into dust beneath their feet, I also know that's absolutely the last thing the majority of people at Paizo want (seeing your friends suddenly jobless is not a good feeling). Perhaps we should start respecting the fact this is a friendly industry, and not a cutthroat one. That doesn't mean people can't to continue to hate whatever they want to hate, but it does mean they shouldn't try to turn it into a two-sided war between factions.

Agreed. Let's keep the factions in Organized Play, please. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
dnd next feels so much better for me.....too old to be counting squares and pushing bits plastic about

I'm looking forward to something that can easily be played without minis -- which certainly wasn't the case with 4E (or 3.5E or Pathfinder, for that matter).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The company put those people there. The company has put the next batch of designers there too. It would of course be different if the old bunch were laid off because WotC were unhappy with what they did with 4th edition, but as far as anyone can tell, they were simply laid off because christmas.

I'd strongly disagree...I got the distinct impression that Bill Slavicsek was shown the door in the wake of 4E's failure to meet expectations. I certainly don't think they planned on 4E being replaced this quickly. But I can't prove that, of course.

My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.

Then again, GRAWR at WotC is pretty commonplace here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.

You do understand that the leadership responsible for 4E (which I assume is the source of your vehement dislike) is gone, right? It seems silly to blacklist an entire company for the actions of a few, especially when those responsible are no longer there...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

We're talking about a fantasy game race. The word "need" doesn't enter into anything.

This is just a case of certain people having just enough suspension of disbelief to allow for owlbears and beholders, but not enough to allow for breasts on something with scales.

Actually, it seems to have more to do with inferred motive than it does suspension of disbelief. Though I think we've milked this topic for all it is worth...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Even more important, do you thread toilet paper...so you have to pull it forward from underneath, like a scurvy villain?

Just so I can sleep at night, I refuse to believe anyone has ever actually done this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smurf?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug OBrien wrote:
13th Age seems decent from what I recall of my initial read through last year.

I like what I've seen so far. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure if it were the industry leader, it would have its share of "overzealous" fans. It's just that the vehemence with which people on the Internet (and on these boards in particular) defend their hobby preferences against any slights -- real or imagined -- can be a little...trying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely an E6 game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
anlashok wrote:
The text and table are both pretty explicit in what they say.

Correct. The problem is that they don't match.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Hence why the "don't be a jerk" rule doesn't work very often. The people pulling this don't believe they're being jerks.

Exactly. "Jerk" can be pretty subjective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Sometimes I become concerned about its life choices, but this. :)

You and me both, but I think we're firmly in the minority. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.

Yes, but that's what we do. If your guy isn't in office, then everything is the fault of the guy who is (who, BTW, is about to destroy America. Any minute now.) If he is in office, well then Congress did (or failed to do) it.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Needs to apply Godwins law to gamer over reaction...

*shrug*

Whether you were being serious or not, I'm not a fan of no-reveal reveals. To be fair, I don't really care for it when tech-companies do it, either.

I look forward to there being something substantive to discuss.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wait.. what have they announced?

So far? Nothing. It was basically the announcement of a forthcoming announcement. Apparently that's a thing now.

1 to 50 of 576 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.