bugleyman's page

Yes, it was. Had a bad morning, took it out on seebs. Totally inappropriate, and entirely my fault. Sorry, seebs; if I wasn't past the 1-hour delete/edit window, I'd delete it. My apologies.

Well done, sir. +1 respect point. *tips hat*

The desire to attack anyone who criticizes the company is mysterious to me. Pathfinder is a really good system. It has in many ways hugely improved on 3e/3.5e D&D. But it has flaws, and sometimes the designers make bad calls. Getting angry and defensive about discussion of those flaws does not make the game better, or make discussion more productive.

UNCLEAN! YOU MUST BE CAST OUT! ;-)

Seriously, though, I think it might be like fan loyalty.

Why is it important to you that people who actually enjoy talking about the rules and analyzing them be treated with derision and hostility?

I don't get it either, but it sure happens a lot. I can only assume it is out of some sort of misguided one-true-wayism.

seebs, rules don't actually say anything.

They are written, and require reading.

There is a fundamental difference between the two.

And you call others pedantic?

Thanks for reminding me why I generally avoid the rules forum like the plague...

I nominate him.

I'm sure others would, too.

And many others would not. How about we all stick to speaking for ourselves?

And I'm sure the 20 minutes you spent pondering this yourself is likely to produce a far more accurate assessment of its practical effects than the months spent by teams of professional game designers and the years of actual gameplay from the entire community.

Wow, that was uncalled for.

First, I don't get the reverence afforded game designers. I don't mean to be harsh, but the pay sucks for a reason. This ain't rocket science, folks.

Second, who nominated you to speak for the "entire community?" (Though if your goal was to make that community seem even more insular, then congrats: You have succeeded.)

All this silly debate about free speech. It's really simple...just ask yourself one thing: Is it money? If so, then it's speech. Wasn't that easy? :P

Except it's not applied differently. The poor would be limited to the same amount as the rich.

Class warfare. ;-)

Oh noes! Class warfare!

Someone had better get out there and defend the poor, victimized .1%, before their "free speech" is compromised! And I know just the man to do it...

What does "multiple" mean in your world?

Also, what does "establish" mean? Because if you just ignore what I wrote, it's no wonder that you're wrong.

I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say...it's completely incoherent.

In any event, you have failed to construct and support a rational argument, and I no longer have the patience to hand-hold you through remedial logic in the face of your breath-taking arrogance.

Enjoy your serfdom in the "plutocracy is freedom" theme park. I understand there are balloons.

An Obamacare Dwarf or something who comes around and uses Wealth Redistribution when you gain a level to make sure you spent exactly the proscribed amount on consumables? He comes in and takes the extra wealth that sneaky players tried to not spend on consumables and refills up the players who wasted too much. . . right? That happens? (this is a joke, sorry if its over anyone's head or wasn't clear initially)

How about we just leave the politics for the political threads?

I don't have to establish it. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, to my point.

As some wise and handsome fellow said upthread:

Your argument is predicated on the premise that the SCOTUS is infallible. One needs look no further than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott to see that this is untrue. Unless, of course, you agree that blacks people are “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race..."

To which you replied...well, nothing. Nothing at all. :P

Doug:

Until you establish that money is speech -- which you have not -- the rest of your argument is moot. Seriously...you keep rephrasing the same argument and ignoring your debunked premise. Did you think no one would notice? :P

Tell me if im wrong, but gravity is an observable fact

As is evolution -- it's just not as intuitive. :)

A theory is not "proven science" it's a model, frequently in contest with other models to explain the same phenomena. It's an important distinction.

No, that would be a hypothesis.

A theory is as close to certain as it gets in science. As is often pointed out, Gravity is "just" a theory, too.

"Gravity is not a version of the truth. It is the truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a tenth-floor window."

-- Richard Dawkins

I'm not convinced that this is the intent and it's certainly not what's written.

Magical flight is not called out at all, only winged flight.

The omission may be by design.

It may -- but it sure would be nice if it were explicit. :(

There's always room for more bards.

He's right.

Did he say it was only exciting because it was radioactive? I'm not a doctor, I don't know the relation between its toxicity and radioactivity and which one was at play in the referenced account. But he was making a point that "nuclear weapons" aren't a big deal, using uranium as proxy. I don't think that makes citing cesium disingenuous.

In any event, I don't think most people need help figuring out that the argument "I have touched uranium, therefore private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons" is suspect. ;-)

Guys, this really isn't hard.

The more money we allow in politics, the more money is necessary to be competitive. Candidates, at least those that aren't sitting on a few hundred million dollars, have to get this money somewhere. It would be stunningly naive to believe people who fork over that kind of money aren't buying access and influence, just as it would be stunningly naive to believe that candidates who accept that kind of money don't end up beholden to their benefactors.

All of the "Why do you hate freedom of speech?" nonsense is a red herring. White noise. Don't take the bait. Instead of fruitlessly trying to reason someone out of an unreasonable "money=speech" position, we should be focusing on how to fix the problem: Money in politics.

You don't stand outside a burning building arguing about whether putting out the fire violates the rights of arsonists.

PS: You can't keep agreeing with the idea that money=speech while also trying to argue that having more money != more speech.

Sure he can. He'll just continue to not make sense. :)

Heh. And even a new court is sort of beholden to repeated rulings of past courts. What we want -- removal of "I haz the moneyz so I picks alls the candidatez" -- requires a Constitutional amendment at this point.

Don't forget "...and whoever wins owes me big time."

We'll, credit where credit is due... Doug certain has a very healthy self-esteem.

bugleyman: I think you may have misread James' comment. They are stepping away from releasing/planning them at the same time, not from doing AP sets altogether (Erik mentioned before that this is a fairly taxing endeavour and unlikely to be repeated when they did Shattered Star).

Ah...you may be correct. Disregard that comment, then. :)

Further thoughts a few days on:

De-coupling the minis from the adventure paths should lessen the pressure to include sculpts of the odder minis simply because they're featured in an adventure. In my opinion, this is an improvement.

Big savings for subscribers built on the back of a probable revenue hit to Paizo (as opposed to Wizkids) should make a sub much more appealing (as opposed to third party online buying). No doubt a calculated (and in my opinion, canny) risk.

Still mourning the probably demise of the builder series. I don't get it...they're such a perfect impulse purchase. :(

Keeping a line like this alive has got to be tough. Obviously the more miniatures one accumulates, the less marginal utility each additional mini offers. Eventually even Hasbro couldn't keep it going -- I hope Paizo/Wizkids can.

Why does this have to be some complicated?

You'll probably catch some flack for it, but I think that's a fair question. Why indeed?

As sad as I am to see the Builder Series on life-support (or flat out dead, as the case may be), on a positive note the new case subscriber benefits are much improved.

Sailing ship

Ship cost: 10k
Carrying capacity: 150 tons
crew 20
Speed 50 miles/day
Cost/ton 15ton/k
Cost/day 40 GP
trip time 40 days
trip cost 1600 GP

Brachiosaurus: 9k GP
Heavy lift belt (saddle): 2k GP x2
Mule back chords: 1k
clear spindle: 4k
total: 16k
carrying capacity: 240 tons
crew 1 + spell casting
speed 2000/day
cost/ton 15ton/k
cost/day 10th level teleportation x2= 1000 GP + 10 GP animal handler

The setup for teleprotation carries freight just as well as ship (better as zombie) and costs less to cover the same distance. On top of that it is 40 times faster and much safer.

Before you say that 10th level casters are hard to come by, boots of teleportation would pay for themselves in less then two months. I know the higher caster level would cost more but reducing the uses per day would drop in more then the increase.

One pair can replace 40 ships and 1 mage could make 7 pairs in a year.

So why would merchants risk ships when magic would be available and it is 40 times better and almost risk free.

Since there would be a 3 percent chance of not landing on target you could just leave the 3rd charge on the boots.

Because it would fundamentally change the world in a way that many find jarring.

This is a perfect example of how "simulationist" RPGs...aren't.

The problem with the Builder Series is that not enough people bought them.

Has WizKids considered, or made any attempt to measure, whether the Builder Series aided in new customer acquisition? The assumption that the impulse, $3 item builder mini doesn't ultimately lead to higher sales of ~$400 cases may be unfounded. In other words, killing the Builder Series may kill a stream of new customers.

I have no data to support this idea, of course...but I certainly hope the people who do have the data have considered the possibility.

Very, very sad to see confirmation that the builder series isn't doing well -- those were by far my favorite releases.

Desalinization is not ever an economical answer, it's incredibly energy intensive, highly consumptive in terms of fossil fuels and has a resulting high carbon footprint. And there is the question of the salty sludge leftover.

It is most certainly economical when the alternative is dying of thirst. ;-)

Remember that B.S. "scientists against evolution" petition? Mostly computer scientists/software engineers, not physical scientists.

Well, that's...disappointing.

Wait, do we have such an agreement? I thought most people just agreed summoners (or some versions thereof) are annoying and step on the conjurer's toes, not that they are stronger. They rival full casters, but outclassing them, eh, that is rather doubtful.

It's not about the strength, it is that it is a class with an archetype that is already mostly covered elsewhere and with confusing/clunky mechanics.

My objection was primarily conceptual...I've not done enough with Summoners to know whether they're too powerful, but I do know that they heavily intrude in the conjurer's conceptual space.

Advanced Class Guide. There is no mythic content in this adventure.

Great; thanks for the clarification.

I dislike the summoner on the basis that there was already a specialist wizard devoted to the same concept; on the basis that its "six spell levels" include spells that are ordinarily 7th, 8th, or 9th (unlike the inquisitor or bard); and because the eidolon, while great for player freedom, didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced.

Seconded. But it's the "taking the conjurer's stuff" that I most dislike.

Ah! That explains the unique brand of logic.

Did you hear about the programmer whose wife sent him to the grocery store? ** spoiler omitted **

As someone who spent three years on a C++ chain-gang...I resent that!

P.S. IT deployment could mean programmer, but probably means something like sysadmin. Depending on the structure of the organization, of course.

Question: Is "strange, rarely seen powers" an allusion to mythic, or to the advanced class guide pregens?

Smashing the statue just looked like a much better use of the action economy.

For many groups of PCs, it probably is. That's actually something I appreciated about the encounter: You can outsmart it, or smash it, depending on the tools available to the characters. :)

Where we were cheated, I know it's something he didn't do on purpose as he just isn't that kind of person. Great GM and enjoyable to play under. I think he just missed that it fulfills two requirements if you recruit each of Kafar and Nefti. And we recruited both.

I see he is signed up to play at another table (on Warhorn) for Sunday, so I'll talk to him then.

Thanks.

Good approach, and great attitude! GMs have a lot on their plate -- especially with this scenario -- and sometimes they just miss stuff. Almost certainly the case here.

0/10. I didn't immediately see a test, and lost interest shortly thereafter. In fact, I -- Oh shiny!

Hell, I though the puzzle was too simple. Just swap lanterns until you get the right one. I thought we actually had to do some angle calculation at first.

It could be that I misunderstood the puzzle...I thought that the lamps themselves were intended to be interchangeable, so that the only thing that mattered was getting *a* lamp into the hand of each of the four correct statutes. But even if that is correct, you guys did get very, very lucky when you place two of the lamps.

BTW Doing calculations (with knowledge engineering, IIRC) is an option.

I'm just going to respond to this, and then stop on this topic since we're derailing a thread that's useful to GMs in this scenario specifically, but have you made use of the Shared GM Drive? If I didn't have the time/want to spend the time doing statblocks for templated monsters, I'd just head over there and download someone else's work. I do respect your position and your views on lowering the barriers to GM entry, and the drive makes the best of a situation in which GMs don't have the choice.

I appreciate you respecting my opinion. And yes, I do use the drive and it is fantastically helpful (thank you). Unfortunately, in this particular case, when I prepped the scenario two days after release, there was nothing there yet. Come to think of it, I should have uploaded the stat blocks I generated. I will remedy that tonight.

You DO realize that a 4 year degree is not a guarantee of a position in your field once you get out right?

Don't forget that the cost of living is zero!

If D&D Next isn't identical to BESM Tri-Stat, WotC is dead to me.

Now, now Scott. Just because many threads are variants of:

1. Enumerate some impossible to reach goal.
2. Assert that D&D 4E/Next has failed to meet that goal.
3. Conclude that WotC sucks.

...doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Oh wait...it does. :P

A pity my social characters are out of tier. :)

Nonsense! It's just an excuse to make another one.

I'll quote myself: Repeated rulings by the Supreme Court do, in fact, start to make a moral argument.

Oh, you quoted yourself? I guess that's it, then. /s

Until then, the plain language of the Constitution clearly says "free speech shall not be infringed by laws." The Supreme Court has upheld that speech does, in fact, relate to money.

Therefore, if you say "we need to stop 'the rich' from giving money,' what you're really saying is you see nothing wrong with limiting free speech. I initially laid out how ridiculous this looks when applied to other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Your argument is predicated on the premise that the SCOTUS is infallible. One needs look no further than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott to see that this is untrue. Unless, of course, you agree that blacks people are “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race...”

If you wish to continue to look ridiculous in light of all this, you are free to do so.

Oh, someone certainly looks ridiculous, but I don't think it's who you have in mind...

Do I sense another Blakros Matrimony?

That was my impression as well.

I'm assuming you mean "does not equal."

Correct.

In which case, you're at odds with multiple decisions from the Supreme Court.

I'm aware of that, but it's beside the point. I'm not debating legality. If all you care about is legality, why are we even having this conversation? The SCOTUS upheld the ACA.

As for which sides spends the most? I don't give a crap. The solution to our problem is to get money out of politics, not add more.

You are advocating for plutocracy in the guise of "freedom."

They should have grew a pair and pushed single payer. I'd rather pay a little more in tax and just cover the people that need it (and let people with insurance keep that if that's their thing, and allow companies to offer it as a benefit if that's their thing) than force everyone to pay a private for-profit entity for coverage.

I don't disagree. However, single payer would almost certainly have failed to make it through Congress.

That sure helps people getting out of prison get back into normal life.

Yeah, but criminals deserve what they get, right?

Labeling people is the first step toward dehumanizing them. :(

I actually don't mind the lack of statblocks - I find that having to add templates and things makes me really read over monster abilities. In essence, I've found that it's improved my preparation (though added to the time I have to spend.)

I believe that forcing GMs to build stat blocks is punitive (it's forcing for me, anyway. I can't apply Advanced and Savage to the same creature in my head). As you noted, it increases prep time, which discourages GMing. Shouldn't we be lowering, not raising the barriers to GMing? Even when sufficient time is available, I feel it could be better spent elsewhere. Finally, even if scenarios included the stat blocks, one could still apply the template(s) manually if desired. Why not give people the choice? Do the work once so that every GM that runs the scenario doesn't have to do it.

Question about A1: The sheet of beaten gold with the ritual is written in Aklo and describes a ritual to be done. The ritual does not require being able to understand Aklo. With these descriptions, I'd rule that if no one in the party speaks Aklo, then you can't learn about the ritual at all, so no one can actually do it. If one person understands Aklo, then everyone in the party can complete the ritual. Sound correct?

That's the way I interpreted it.