bugleyman's page

bugleyman wrote:

Seems to be an issue with this post...it is showing up dated January 17th.

Fixed. Erik's plane is not *that* fast.

Ok, that date is now correct...but the month is still wrong. :P

As to the figures...not as appealing as the last few weeks, but I like the look of the Russian Soldier.

Seems to be an issue with this post...it is showing up dated January 17th.

In that light, though he may claim it, the old president no longer has any legal right at all. It's basically Russia propping up someone who no longer has a legal say or right.

If a very real way, legal is what the ultimate winners say it is. Sadly.

As others have mentioned, healthcare in the U.S. is fantastic -- as long as you're rich. Otherwise, not so much.

Which isn't terribly surprising, since the goal is to maximize profit, rather than the well-being of our citizens.

Thanks for the question!

Thank you for the answer, and for you hard work on this scenario.

This was an amazing privilege to get to work on. Mind blown when I got to see the scope of it. Love the map and art. I hope everyone has fun running through it!

Best of luck, Pathfinders! :-)

Hi Matt:

Love the Pale Tower Guard, especially as a common.

Yeah, so I went back and checked and there are clearly plenty of smalls. I think my brain was crossing minis and pawns when I posted. There are no small pawn bases, right?

Correct! In fact, at first I thought you were talking about the pawns for that exact reason. :)

Same here. I've ordered 3 sets from MM, as well as the smaller sets and they've all shipped and arrived within days of the publicized release date. My experiences with them have been completely positive.

-Skeld

I've never purchased cases from MM, just singles, but they were always prompt and fairly priced with those. YMMV.

Imo someone who can't commit to the whole session on a regular basis should have the common courtesy to excuse himself. If he doesn't he should be asked to plan to attend the entire session, or plan to not attend. Seems harsh, perhaps, but really the only fair way to handle it for everyone. My $.02.

Yearly refresh is more than speculation -- it was written that way in an earlier draft of the guide. I hope and expect that it will go yearly, but I won't be upset if it doesn't.

I generally don't double-check stat blocks in a scenario, as I find I have more effective uses for limited preparation time. If I notice a rule error anyway, unless it is very egregious I usually just go with it in the name of a uniform experience.

There are plenty of minis with small bases...I assume you mean tiny and smaller?

I don't have an official answer, but it could be the difficulty of painting something that small. Maybe they wanted to get more experience before tackling them.

It could also be they've decided it isn't worth it. In my experience D&D minis with Tiny bases simply didn't work all that well.

If it's any consolation, you now stand exactly the same chance with her that you did before. :P

But...but...they told me that if only believe, anything is possible! ;-)

They've done errata to it already here.

I guess I'm not understanding. I'm asking about an inconsistency in the Core Rulebook, which needs to be addressed in the Core Rulebook errata. I don't see what this has to do with Mythic Adventures.

To put it bluntly, it's ludicrous that this inconsistency has persisted through six -- six! -- printings of the CRB. I'd really like to make sure it doesn't make it through a seventh.

Bump

Can we get an official answer/addition to Errata please?

So?

So a fellow human took a large step on the road to self-actualization. Maybe we should just be happy for her, and skip the poorly-disguised attempt to turn this into a ideological football?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go weep quietly over my fantasies of Ellen Page having a secret crush on me. ;-)

I strongly agree. I feel like WotC is very much trying to relive glory days and repeat things that worked for them in the past. I also feel that where they are (sort of) trying new stuff, they are copying what has worked well for others-- partnering with WizKids, making an aerial skirmish game heavily based on Attack Wing/X-Wing/Wings of War. It doesn't do much to get me excited. Anecdotally, it's doing even less to get a close friend (who loves 4E and refuses to play Pathfinder) exited.

I think you could make a pretty good argument that Paizo's product line has started to looked more like Wizard's circa 2004 or so. Not identical, to be sure, but both had pre-painted plastic minis, inexpensive terrain options, and frequently crunch releases. I think it's just a product mix that works well, especially for very tactical RPGs.

Edit: Though as previously stated, I am surprised that they're not doing the minis themselves this time.

Stop being purposefully obtuse. If your philosophy requires that you engage in false equivocation in order to reconcile it with the world around you, get a new philosophy.

We can dream.

Irrelevant. It matters not what societal norms exist as long as you are willing to perform services in exchange for a predetermined amount of pay. Waitstaff know going into their role that minimum wage is all they can expect to receive from check to check. You know going into a job, any job, what your guaranteed rate of pay is. If that is insufficient for you then you shouldn't accept that job. Sales and other folks that work on commissions still have to accept the fact they may only make their rate.

You may find it irrelevant, but the minimum wage differs for tipped employees. That is simply a fact.

Whatever happened to Quests, especially as a source of new scenario writers?

Their employer pays them for their time. This is an arrangement both parties have agreed to. It's their job.

An arrangement worked out (and indeed, only legal) in the context of tipping as a societal norm.

It's amazing to me what people are willing to overlook to justify their behavior.

Aligned creatures (1) with 4 or fewer hit dice register as an aura power of "none" for the Detect Evil/Good/Chaos/Law spells.

1 = other than undead, outsiders, and those with class levels in specific divine caster classes

Wow, that's embarrassing. :P

Thanks for the link.

I'm pretty sure I've posed this question before, but I'm not sure I ever got an official answer. If I did, it has never made its way into the Errata.

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment.

(Emphasis mine)

The table on the same page, however, reads "Weapon Enhancement Bonus equivalent"

Clearly these aren't the same thing. A flaming longsword +3 has an weapon enhancement bonus of +3, but an weapon enhancement bonus equivalent of +4. Does such a weapon overcome DR X/Adamantine? While I'm strongly inclined to believe that the answer is no, the text and the table heading disagree.

May I get an official answer (and the wording made consistent via errata)?

I think you have to either be over 4th level or have a class tied directly to the divine in order for the Detect spells to work on you.

In many settings, the vast majority of people are NPC classes below 5th level.

Wow, I totally missed that. Is that in the CRB or elsewhere (not that "elsewhere" is a problem -- I'd just like to read more about it).

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is worth noting here that ordinary people will never light up under detect evil or detect good.

Really? That's interesting. How does one define "ordinary" in this context?

Also could you sign me up for the alpha test of your set of RPG rules.

Could we please put this one to bed? First, one needn't be an RPG designer to have or express an informed opinion. There simply aren't that many RPG design jobs, and there are way too many people chasing them. Which is a big part of why the pay is lousy. Second, Paizo didn't do the heavy lifting with Pathfinder. Sorry, but they just didn't. So if your litmus test for commenting is that one needs to have designed their own set of RPG rules, pretty much everyone at Paizo fails, too.

You are correct, I've lumped in a chaotic act in the evil category and was thinking in terms of extremes. I retract my previous statement.

Color me impressed, sir. *tips hat*

Apologies for the bit of snark on my part.

I will repeat just one more time. It is not the place of the customer to pay an employer's employees. I'm not signing up for that dodginess.

Then simply don't patronize places that pay their employees less than minimum wage. If you don't like the contract, don't be a party to it. But don't stick it to the guys making $2.13 an hour.

Increasing the minimum wage increases the amount people who are earning that wage make relative to people who aren't. Will some prices go up? Probably. But the minimum wage earners still come out ahead, and really that's the whole point.

But I forgot...minimum wage earners have it coming. They're the greedy ones!

*sob*

The contraction is simple. You've advocated committing one evil act to save one person. Then you have turned around and condemned another evil act in order to potentially save multitudes.

You're begging the question. I don't agree that stealing is always evil...which is kinda the point.

You're free to believe differently, but please don't confuse your subjective position as being objectively correct. I know doing so is popular, but still...

I wonder why is everybody so eager to cap the level off at 20th level.

While it is true that "20th level" only has meaning in the context of the system, all the math is built around it. Trying to bolt on bigger numbers after the fact hasn't worked well (see D&D 3rd edition Epic Level Handbook).

I like the simplicity of Ross's point, though:

Good = sacrificing self for others
Evil = sacrificing others for self

Agreed.

Killing someone who truly wants to die? You're still taking a life instead of helping them to see that life might just be worth living.

Can one really "take" something that is freely given? But semantics aside, it's their decision. Who am I to tell them they can't choose to die?

Stealing from the rich to feed the poor? You are taking what doesn't belong to you. Why not give from your own wallet before resorting to theft?

I did say "If it's between stealing from the rich and watching someone starve to death." If I could pay myself, I would. But that's not the question at hand.

The last one concerns me a bit. You're advocating taking a life of someone who wants to die. But then say it's wrong to use whatever measures it takes to save the lives of those who wish to continue living?

I'm not sure I see a contradiction there (which of course doesn't mean there isn't one). I definitely get that on one hand I seem to be saying morals aren't absolute, but then I'm turning around and saying it is absolutely wrong to torture someone. The thing is, I don't think we can ever be sure that torturing someone is actually going to save lives, and anything less than absolute certainty is unacceptable. Dunno, I have to think about that one more.

Exactly. Sometimes a feat or dip or trait is taken for RPing reasons. This is a good example. Sure, it's sub-optimal. But it's hardly Prone shooter. Several posters have made quite solid posts as to when it could be nice to have tactically.

I had a Wizard who had Pyrotechnics- and use it to perform fireworks shows, ala Gandalf. Why not? He had the archer fire a flaming arrow up really high (over 120', natch), then cast the spell, to "ooh, aah!". There was no combat use at all... but we had fun with it. Apparently the fun, however was of the 'badwrong" sort.

Why did a take a level in aristocrat? Because I wanted to. More badwrongfun, it appears, since several guys are pointing out that the pure mechanics of the game would not require it. Yeah, so? But according to some, this would be prohibited. "All that isn't mandatory is prohibited." "We know what the best options are, you may take those and no others. "

The funny part is...I agree with you. I just don't see how building straw men about "PHBs with one class" has helped you main your point. In fact, it rather seems a distraction...

If there were two goblin rocket bomb powers offered with identical descriptions but different mechanical efficacy, your example might have merit. But that isn't the case.

My example was (explicitly) fabricated to represent the opposite extreme of "the PHB with one class" (which also doesn't exist), in order to illustrate that building straw men isn't productive.

Given that you completely missed the point, I trust that you'll forgive me if I'm not overly concerned with your estimation of the merit of my example.

Oh! I think I understand where the confusion is coming from!

See, a tax is something imposed by a government.

A tip is an informal contract wherein you pay a surcharge to your server for handling your orders, that you have the ability to vary depending on how well your orders were handled.

If a tip were required by a restaurant, that tip wouldn't become a tax, because taxes are imposed by governments, and this would just be a restaurant requiring you to pay a surcharge.

Isn't it funny how in the middle of all of this you've managed to confuse a tax for a private business's surcharge and ended up railing against the very sort of thing classical libertarians hold that private businesses should have the freedom to do?

So weird!

Oh SNAP. Pass the Aloe. :P

Evolution is supported by literally tons of empirical evidence. It's as much a fact as gravity or electromagnetism (though if denying those were practical, someone would be doing that, too). Likewise, people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old are objectively incorrect. Facts simply don't matter. It's very fascinating, really.

You haven't been paying attention. The social "contract" goes that you pay for the service you get. The inverse of this is that if you don't pay then you get substandard service. So, it, in essence, becomes a bribe for what should be professional, prompt service. Which, receiving professional, prompt service should be the expectation in any setting where goods are traded for money regardless of any kind of bribe, or "tip," system in place.

When the minimum wage is greatly decreased for servers, tipping is part of the social contract -- whether you believe it should be or not. Happily, you can personally opt out of the contract by not patronizing establishments that pay servers $2.13 an hour.

I haven't seen anyone actually explain how tipping is immoral.

Gotcha covered. ;-)

How about this:

Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights.

What qualifies as "clearly terrible"? If combat efficiency isn't as important as thematics then a weak rocket ability might be an awesome option.

I think a point the Dr was making (at least what I was getting from it) was that it might be hasty to assume that the only measure for a class/ability/trait/etc. is weather it is comparable in raw power to another.

For the purpose of serving as a ridiculously extreme counter-example to "a PHB with one class it it"), how about a feat that gives you 1/every 2 levels, but is mutually exclusive with toughness. In other words, clearly and objectively inferior to other choices, better choices.

No one is going to advocate that, just like no one is going to truly advocate a PHB with a single class. We'd all be better served by leaving out the hyperbole.

Sure, because it's BADWRONGFUN to take any option that isn't optimized. Look at the Op's reaction to my taking a level of Aristocrat- it wasn't optimum! Oh noes!

And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it. But you WILL have FUN playing The Wizard. We have told you it is the best. Thus it is the most fun. You WILL comply with our concept of FUN otherwise you are having BADWRONGFUN.

That's certainly one extreme. The other would have a book chock full of clearly terrible options, which hardly seems ideal either.

I suspect these discussions would be more productive if we didn't treat others like caricatures quite so often.

I actually struggle with alignment quite a bit. I tend to reject moral absolutism.

Is it wrong to kill? Depends on the circumstances. If someone of sound mind truly wants to die, then I think helping him die quickly and painlessly is an art of mercy, and therefore good.

Is it wrong to steal? Again, it depends. If it's between stealing from the rich and watching someone starve to death, I think it would be arguably be evil to NOT steal.

On the other hand, I also believe that the ends does not always justify the means. Torturing potential terrorists, even if it saves lives, is wrong.

Maybe I'm just chaotic. Or inconsistent. Or both. :)

I like to think of myself as (trying to be) NG. I certainly don't always get there. I'm absolutely certain, however, that some people would call me N, or even CE, based on what I wrote above.

Fantastic art, just like Deep Forest.

It looks like a food service container to me -- the kind that might be used by a cafeteria, etc.

If there's an answer, it's just that it's just that way. :)

Happy 40th D&D. Here's hoping we've both got another 40 in us! :)

Did not see that coming. You would think that Hasbro would be pretty darn good at making what amounts to small plastic toys without relying on a third party. :)

Absolutely not you cannot kill the violinist, especially if the society for the preservation of music slapped him there without HIS consent too.

So one is morally obligated to allow the violinist to use one's kidneys for nine months?

Well, I give you points for owning that position, but I won't claim to understand it.

And now I really am off to bed. :)

If you can't draw a distinction between postpartum and close enough to part'em for state work then no.

If you are interested in understanding my position, it would be fastest if you just read the bit here about the violinist.

Frankly, I think it bizarre that males (myself included, of course) who aren't immediately involved feel entitled to an opinion at all.

With that, I'm off to bed. 'Night all.