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. 6,648 posts (6,751 including aliases). 70 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just got back to AZ from attending this convention. Ran two tables of Cairn of Shadows, got to play on five others -- it was a blast! Just a really well run Con; I wish I had found it sooner. I will definitely be back.

Hmmm...I think you forgot the "total disdain for game balance" prerequisite... :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VOTOZ wrote:
VOTOZ is online.

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.


TOZ is not to be trusted. I find all of this highly suspect. ;-)

Cori Marie wrote:
Monster Codex Box is in the new catalog!



I still don't understand why they don't just reproduce Season 6's special rules directly in the guide to organized play (I humbly suggest the section entitled "Season 6 special rules").

That would instantly and completely address the issue in a way that should be acceptable to everyone. Then we can go back to arguing about whether the rogue is under powered. :P


Finlanderboy wrote:
When my brother died my grandmother made jokes about how it was my fault. It did not stop me from hating her.

That's utterly and completely terrible. You would think that a parent would know better. :(

No one's going to second my suggestion that we hit up the cartographer for leaks? You guys are such wet blankets.

Maybe if we ask nicely, we can get the cartographer to spill some details.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm...I hope they get the flow of the rooms right.

Isn't the real question: Time Travel -- has it happened? ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.

I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on the presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder. Though admittedly, there would still be some work involved.


pauljathome wrote:

Changing the game in fairly fundamental ways really shouldn't be done in an obscure splat book together with a single developer comment buried in a thread.

If they want to do this they have to make it a LOT clearer. If it is still possible it should be in the guide. Absent that, at the very least in the FAQ.

Agreed, and I would add that I see no reason why it wouldn't go in the Guide. Frankly, putting it there seems like a no-brainer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only there were a simple putting Season 6's special rules in the Guide to Organized Play's "Season 6 Special Rules" section.

I swear, is there anything people won't argue on the Internet? :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jail House Rock wrote:

YES YES YES. It is awesome, but it should be better. Please start a second version and publish it ASAP.

Also, can you break the WotC connection? It seems you have enough proprietary material to let Pathfinder RPG run on its own (and finally bury WotC once and for all.)

Edit: Can a purely Paizo IP version of Pathfinder RPG put WotC down for the count? If so, publish it now.

Absolutely, unequivocally not possible for Paizo to "put WotC down." D&D could disappear tomorrow, and WotC would continue merrily along with Magic.

Besides, why would you want such a thing? Enjoy people being laid-off? Think competition is bad? :P

Quark Blast wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.
What does that even mean?
It's the edition-that-shall-not-be-mentioned because it sparks edition wars. But it's also proof that changing up the rules serves little purpose for the long-term success of a game/game company.

I think at best it could be called evidence of that. Then again, look at the 2E->3E transition. I don't think it's that simple.

jorunkun wrote:

Well - what I'd like to see is a cleaned-up core rules book. Reduce complexity, cut bloat, add the most popular options from later books. A sort of compendium / best-of approach.

Would buy. :)


Andy Brown wrote:

The Technology Guide is Campaign Setting rather than RPG line, which would appear to exclude it from this section, even though it's on the PRD.

However, given that the Technology Guide is on the PRD, it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.

Strongly disagree. It's hard enough to keep up on the hardbacks.

Also, supplements shouldn't impose changes on the way core rules (skills) work.


Couldn't this problem be solved by including the relevant rules in the guide to organized play? People who want to take the feat would still need to buy the book, but everyone would be fully informed.

As it stands, people who don't own the tech guide and don't see threads like this one have no way of knowing that knowledge skills don't work normally against tech items. This is a recipe for table variation.


Arkos wrote:
Unless you have a hangup about having to purchase a new book, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the rules. But whatever, I'm certainly not the PFS police.

The problem is people who haven't purchased the tech guide -- or read this thread -- will have no idea that, say, plain-old knowledge (engineering) isn't supposed to work on tech. As a result, the potential for significant table variation exists. Happily, this can be addressed by adjusting the guide to organized play.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.

The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Is John's post above not clarification on the issue?

To the few dozen people who have seen this thread, sure.

As for everyone else...I'd strongly suggest enhancing the "Season 6 special rules" section of the Guide to Organized Play.


pauljathome wrote:

My personal solution until this gets clarified will be to ask if any character has the Technologist feat. If the answer is yes I'll enforce the technology rules and let that character really shine.

If the answer is no, then I won't enforce the technology rules and I'll let the players experience what is IMO the far better experience when they get to know some of what is going on.

I really like that solution. It rewards people who have spent the resources but doesn't punish people when no one in the group owns the technology guide.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that as PFS GMs we are afforded the latitude to choose which rules to enforce...hence my resolve to avoid running tech-heavy scenarios.

Yes please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:

Except that the creature could be completely dissimilar to anything you've ever heard of, or a creature that actively pretends to be another type of creature, and you still wouldn't need a feat to ID it, unless it had the Robot subtype, apparently.

Look, I understand that I'm not going to get things changed. Paizo has obviously decided that this is how things work and my opinion really doesn't matter to them as a whole. I just don't understand why this is where they chose to draw the line in what skills could do.

"This is a CR 1 Robot. You're a level 20 Wizard with 20 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) and a super high intelligence, but you don't have the Technologist feat so you can't identify it. You can, however, go over there and pilot the Tsar Tank with no further training needed."

Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*

I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.

Pan wrote:
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinions seriously. As long as those pinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".

Don't get me wrong -- I do understand that some of the changes I would personally like to see would probably be unpopular. And I would guess that the safest course of action for Paizo, at least for the time being, is to keep doing what they've been doing, and so that's what I fully expect. I'd still like to see a re-write of the core to make it look a lot more like the beginner box, but I'm not holding my breath. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.

I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.

Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.

Pan wrote:
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.

Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taking the Divine Protection feat on pretty much any Oracle...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Southeast Jerome wrote:

If the new 1.5e core rulebook were demonstrably better, i.e., better organized and indexed, and easier to use at the table, then I think plenty of existing players, myself included, would happily purchase it, even if there were no new rules.

Just as importantly, if they could also make the intro to the game less intimidating and confusing for new players, perhaps by integrating some material from the Beginner Box and this fall's Strategy Guide, I think the game would be able to compete for new players much more effectively. As it is, the core rulebook is very intimidating and confusing to someone new to RPGs, and the same ruleset with a better layout would be an easier sell and would grow the player base.

It would also be easier to use at the table, which to me is a paramount concern.

fjw70 wrote:
They have said that the digital ebooks available through the DungeonScape app will not be subscription based and will be a one time purchase.

If that's the case, why not just sell industry-standard PDFs?

If they're trying to employ DRM shenanigans, all they'll do is annoy people. And someone will crack it, especially on an open platform like the PC. That's the open secret of content encryption -- you have to give your customers the key in order to read the content.

Cintra Bristol wrote:

I've posted a review. See it for some information about the set contents.

WotC has clearly already benefitted from the lessons WizKids has learned doing Pathfinder minis. The smaller minis are separately bagged and tucked into the hollows of the plastic shell holding the large minis. Between that and the separate bases and posts for flying minis, I had no damaged minis in my case of this set, and no bad paints either.

A comment for Paizo - the lower MSRP for each booster means my local FLGS is willing to stock these on speculation - and they're selling rapidly - where he can't stock the Pathfinder boosters because people in my area just won't buy a booster at that price point.

Paizo should examine this set and have some serious talks with WizKids about options for quality improvement. Both the separate-flying-bases, and the fewer paint steps (and resulting reduction in paint-step-related flaws).

Interesting. The gallery on Miniature Market makes the figures look absolutely terrible. Especially the faces.

Are the minis you received noticeably better?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be delighted to buy digital copies of the books, but if they're going with a rental/SaaS model, pass. What an excellent way to hobble your new edition. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait...we can change our avatar? ;-)

I have no idea how Divine Protection got published in its current form. No idea at all.

Buri wrote:
Well, push come to shove, you can always scan your books and run an OCR on the pages to create a searchable index. Most people don't want to do that, though.

Unfortunately, with recent assaults on fair use, that might not actually be legal. IANAL, of course.

Gorbacz wrote:

Any platform that allows some Warren Worthington The Fourth to wake up one day with a hangover and to shut down my access to it permanently gets a big 'no'.

Of course Lisa Stevens and DTRPG owners can do that as well, but at least I have my PDFs on my computer.

Never thought I'd agree so strongly with the bag man, but...this. Exactly this.

Pan wrote:
My guess is the PDF isnt available because it will be under morning forge or moning star, whatever that company is thats doing their digital stuff. Not sure if you wil be able to get PDFs through them eventually or if it will be a new DDI type thing.

Unfortunately, the data not living on my hard drive is a deal-killer for me.

I also think it is a very clear sign that someone over there just doesn't get it. I had hoped that they would learn from 4E.

Maybe it's time to give some serious thought to starting that 13th Age game instead.

Gorbacz wrote:
But everybody knows PDFs are what pirates use to steal your corporate bonuses! Heard that at the golf course last week. Also, Earl told me about this crazy new Iphone thing. Wonder if Microsoft's gonna have much success with it, personally I'm sticking with my Nokia. Reminds me, gotta check how much my shares of them are.

I may have gone with "Blackberry." But otherwise, this seems spot on. Sadly. :(

Apologies if I sound entitled, but I want to support D&D. I just can't understand why WotC seems so hell-bent on making doing so so painful.

Guys, please: Take my money. Don't make my only option your competitors!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...and with the PHB officially released yesterday, still no PDFs. In fact, they seem to be pretending PDFs don't exist.

Lame, lame, lame. This is a fear-driven decision that does nothing to reduce piracy while completely eliminating PDF revenue. Frankly, this is tone-deaf enough to make me re-think the entire edition.

13th Age in PDF? Check
Pathfinder in PDF? Check
C&C? Savage Worlds? Fate? Check, check, and check.

And somehow I have still purchased EVERY SINGLE ONE (in both formats, for heaven's sake!)




David Bowles wrote:

"4e uses 1 square on the diagonal."

That is completely absurd by the way. I can make my PC move faster by a factor of radical 2 by just changing the path?

I don't like the one square diagonal rule. However, 1.5 isn't really correct, either. When it gets right down to it, √2 is irrational, and therefore any decimal representation must necessarily be imprecise. It just depends on how much approximation one is comfortable with.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Morphling wrote:

TL;DR version:

OP wrote:
Paizo released a book which included lots of cool options which are not mandatory to play the game, and this is bad because of reasons.

Way to marginalize all viewpoints that aren't yours! >:(

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

My opinion on a "revised" rulebook: I thought that's what Pathfinder (and 3.5 for that matter) was supposed to be. Revisions on a ruleset that was considered flawed or in need of fine tuning and cleaning up.

I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.

Irrespective of whether such flaws exist, the Core Rulebook has presentation and organization issues that could be addressed without actually changing any rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?

Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

I'm not saying that's good or just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.

Azazyll wrote:
I do not understand the current rules-light fad. Completely not to my taste. I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Do you have kids?

When 3E was released I thought it was brilliant. Now? Ain't nobody got time for that. :)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pretty sure I'm going to stay Core-only for my 5E campaign.

If you're referring to the game I'm running, I'm completely sure that you are correct. :)


roll4initiative wrote:
I use D&D Dungeon Tiles quite a bit in my PFS games since I have a lot of them and not very many PF map packs or flip maps (slowly collecting, though!). I had a very good representation for each of the maps in The Confirmation, but, not exact. Some rooms were a few squares too big or small. I like to err on the side of too big when a cavern or room seems just too small for 2 large bad guys and 6 PCs. Is this allowed or should we draw the maps on blank battlemats if we don't own the actual map pack or flip mat?

I think that's an excellent question.

That is: No one cares who produced the maps, but are we free to use close approximations when it comes to size, etc.? I would think not. Obviously the impact depends on the situation -- making a 50' wide room 45' wide means a heck of a lot less that making a 10' corridor 5' wide -- but in general the campaign leadership errs on the side of consistency.


Left to my own devices, I might abandon using a grid altogether. But for PFS, we're not left to my own devices. The rules are explicitly expressed in squares, and so I run PFS games with squares.

Not really any wiggle room there. How, for example, do you intend to apply the cover rules?

Yeah, I'm definitely not suggesting we light the torches or anything, but when I run a game, I prefer everything to be available at a glance in order to keep my attention focused on other things.

1 to 50 of 6,648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.