bugleyman's page

Tariffs have to be legislated...

For the most part, that is not actually the case in the U.S. All the president needs to do to unilaterally impose tariffs is decide that the imports in question are “fostering U.S. dependence on unreliable or unsafe imports.”

There's also the fact that the president-elect doesn't have a record of caring one whit about formalities like legality, but that's dancing pretty close to politics, so I'll leave it at that.

Try miniaturemarket.com

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

This is one of the more common ways rules are written to lead to gray areas.

If an inn has a sign that says "no red dragons"* Can a green dragon book a room?Conversationally The answer should be yes. There is no reason to specify red dragon specifically except to allow other dragons. Logically the answer is "unknown" because the exclusion of a red dragon doesn't automatically allow a green one. (Denying the antecedent would be the fancy name for it if I've had enough coffee to read wiki right...)

If the intent is allow the DM to decrease the difficulty of the encounters to account for taste, newguy not losing their first character, or dice being cursed it should be specified under the DM may. Otherwise the implication of increasing vs. changing the difficulty has to be weighed against the lack of such a rule where it should be and different dms will read those two things very differently.

*honestly one snore and there goes the roof

100%. Honestly, if you find yourself having to explain why you wrote something a particular way -- which Alex just did -- imo that's a strong indicator that it needs to be rewritten.

So. Much. Better.

If I'm reading this correctly, it should let GMs work around obvious editing problems and other errors without wondering whether they're running afoul of "run as written."

It also adds some flexibility. For example, the new mention of maps would not only allow GMs to use similar flip mat if they have a great thematic match that just isn't exactly the one specified, it should also allow subbing in better alternatives for some of the earlier maps that were made using flip tiles (which in some cases were quite poorly done).

I think this change, if enacted, would make for better player experiences at the table, and let GMs facilitate those experiences without having to worry about whether they're bending the rules. In the end, I believe that is precisely the sort of changes we want to be making.

Edit: Random, but I wonder why I show as a one star 1E GM on the OP board. I have four (as I said) if I click on my profile. I blame TOZ.

Mythic bugleyman wrote:

Mythic in a nutshell. ;-)

House rule mythic proficiency is now +11

Ok, that was pretty clever.

For anyone who might be interested, there is actually a sequel inbound.

Also, I don't remember seeing preview images before, so if they got added, bravo! More of this, please. (Alternatively, if they've always been there and I just don't remember, blame it on me being old :P ).

I just hate that MW doesn’t keep old threads around. I went back to reread the one game I played on there and it was gone, all that work deleted.

I've never used MW, but perhaps they support easy exporting?

Yes, there does seem to have been a downturn. I certainly post far, FAR, FAR less than I used to (which some would say is a good thing, but I digress). I also agree that some of the problem is a lack of features that have become commonplace on other forums (ignore feature, SPAM mitigation, etc.).

I think it's worth mentioning, however, that there is real value in Paizo maintaining its own forums, however clunky. For those who may be unaware, Reddit in particular has been up to some shenanigans recently with respect to charging search engines prohibitive amounts for the API access necessary to index the site, effectively locking out smaller players and ultimately contributing to a tiered, pay-to-play Internet. In my opinion that sort of behavior is extremely bad for everyone.

I guess I really don’t get the concept. Why have the adventures linked, but not be targeted at the same characters? It seems like a strange way to present a narrative and feels like an ersatz yet abbreviated AP... As for any comparisons to Dungeon about the only thing I see is that they are wildly different in level and vary in length. Dungeon adventures often ran the gamut of campaign settings, length, tone, level and obviously, theme.

I think the idea is that they're not presenting a narrative, but several independent (though admittedly related) narratives which can be dropped in wherever convenient for a particular group (much like Dungeon adventures).

At least that's my hope. :-)

Perhaps Paizo could just produce a "core" pawn set that isn't bestiary specific? Have it include PC classes and races from PC/PC2, as well as a bunch of sheets of more generic monsters. For instance, half a dozen medium skeletons, half a dozen corporeal Medium size, some medium size incorporeal undead, half a dozen small quadrupeds (rats, for instance), half a dozen mediums quadrupeds (wolves/dogs?), a few oozes of various sizes, martial humanoids that could stand in for orcs/hobgoblins/city guard etc. Light on larges, even lighter on huges (like a single sheet for the real heavy hitters). Or possibly drop huges all together if that is required to keep the price down. Include bases -- as this will allow you to stop selling a ton of separate base SKUs -- and target half the size (and close to half the price; maybe $40?) of the monster core pawn box. As for art, I'm quite sure they already have nearly everything they would need for such a product.

In other words, stop trying to represent specific monsters, and instead produce an evergreen product that will serve as a base for newer players who can't afford/won't spring for minis and don't have an established collection to draw on. Call it the Pathfinder Core pawn set. Tactical play is so integral to Pathfinder 2E that there really needs to be a cost-effective, always-available point of entry product.

Dungeon was absolutely fantastic; I'm just not sure the economics of the format make sense any more, at least not in print form.

I do like that Paizo is doing an adventure anthology, and will scoop it up in PDF just to support the format.

Edit: Ninja'ed by JJ.

Listen, I'm running a city adventure, Curse of the Crimson Throne. I need this book today:)

It seems like a very useful book. I've always wondered why the NPC codex didn't seem to get much traction.

Sometimes you want to be able to find them easier?

Easier than My Account -> My Profile -> Posts? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Personally, I think whatever value might be there is overshadowed by the potential for abuse, but it ain't my website.

Will this copy and remaster the statblocks from gamemastery or are these 100% new? Or whats the ratio of remaster/new?

This seems more akin to the NPC Codex from 1E than the 2E Gamemastery Guide.

Elfteiroh wrote:

olimar92 wrote:

This better be a thick book for a $70 price tag. The Monster Core is cheaper.

The 4 "Core" books (Player Core, Player Core 2, GM Core, and Monster Core) are set to lower prices than all other books "for now", as mentioned in the Paizo Pricing & Sustainability Update blog post.

So yeah, no other books' price should be compared to them.
based on the blog post linked above, $69.99 should be for a 256 pages book. Being advertized as having 250+ stat blocks, plus a couple extra templates to change the ancestry/theme of most of these stat blocks, that sounds like a close approximation (the Gamemaster Guide had often 2 blocks per pages, so there will be some contraction there to make space for the lore.)
(If the Monster Core book wasn't specifically one of the loss leader books, it would probably be $79.99 based on that same blog, as it had a bit more than 370 pages.)

Then don't name the new one "Core" if it's not, in fact, core :/

^ This right here. It doesn't contain the core rules. It doesn't carry the core pricing. It isn't core in any meaningful sense of the word, no matter what is written on the tin.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe that words have meaning, and so die inside a little bit when a perfectly good word is sacrificed on the altar of marketing. :-/

Just bought the Player Character Pawns Collection. To me it is a complete disappointment. Sorry to say that but the characters the ones I was most interested in are rappresented very bad... Half-Elf bard seems an idiot hippie with a violin... elf druid is a female character only and I was interested in a male one... human sorcerer seems a Shaolin monk... honestly, I wouldn't buy it again now i have seen the content...

Did...did you favorite your own post? Why is that even possible? :-P

Question: I had to buy the Abomination vaults pawns in PDF form because the other set was no longer in stock. So my question is what is the exact type of cardstock used for the regular pawns? Thanks.

When I looked into this in the past, the closest analog was what is commonly known as "chipboard: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=80+pt+chipboard. Specifically, the 80pt thickness is what I've read is the closest match for what Paizo uses.

Print the pawns on a full-page sticker sheet, adhere to the chipboard, cut with Exacto knife. Should get you very close.

How about a weakness to piercing that only triggers on crits? If a crit is a hit to the most vulnerable area, for Achilles that could well be the heel.

Updated with a third PDF that have the inside of the screen split per pages.

Excellent! Thank you.

Edit: And bought. I figure if I'm going to b@@&* when things aren't well done I should put my money where my mouth is when they get fixed. Seems only fair. ;-)

Any chance we can get preview images for flip-mats back?

Some third party sites will post them once the maps come out, but it would be very nice to be able to see what flip-mats look like without having to go looking.

bugleyman wrote:

What's up with those bases? Intended to be the best of both worlds between clear and black?

Thankfully I don't buy pre-paints any more, or all these base changes might give me OCD...

It's the way the renders look, they are not actual pictures of the minis here.

I do understand we're looking at renders, but previous renders don't have that ring around the base. Do we know for sure whether the minis do?

If so, it seems like it might actually be a good compromise between not obscuring the art on the map underneath but still clearly showing the space a mini takes up.

RIP indeed, good sir. You brought joy to many, and that is no small thing.

Gorum's death resulted in the Godsrain, an event witnessed on all worlds where he was worshiped. By "was worshiped" I interpret that as "had a robust following." Gorum was never worshiped on Earth, so the effects of Godsrain were not noticeable on Earth (no one saw him fighting in the sky with Achaekek, no war shards came down, no red or silver rain), but the larger effects of the War of Immortals could theoretically have some impact anywhere in the multiverse, including on Earth.

If we'd killed off Lamashtu or Asmodeus, then that'd be a different story.

Are the details of the Godsrain available anywhere yet? I know there are forthcoming products, but in the meantime as a PFS GM I'd like to have the gist of the occurrence (since it has canonically already happened).

Personally, as someone who has written more than a few bits of technical documentation, I have come to believe that one of the "problems" with Pathfinder 2E is that it is inconsistent with the level of specificity in the wording of the rules. Sometimes the rules goes into exacting detail, which, while helpful, understandably creates the expectation that the entire rule set will be written with a similar philosophy. But then, in other places where it is much "looser" with wording, people are left to draw inferences...inferences which are shaped, in part, by that expectation of clarify. I believe it is this inconsistency which has spawned many of 2E's biggest "RAI" vs. "RAW" debates.

The "you don't need an appendage in order to administer first aid" arguments of yore were a perfect example. You had people arguing, in apparent good faith, that someone with no limbs could administer first aid, solely because the game didn't explicitly state that a hand (or limb) was required. Which seems rather ridiculous, until you see other places in the rules which do explicitly state that a hand is required, even though the activity in question obviously required less manual dexterity than treating wounds. Personally, I feel that is like arguing that gravity isn't necessary in order to come down after a jump because the rules don't explicitly state that it is, and yet this argument spawned dozens of pages of (sometimes quite combative) back-and-forth. My big takeaway from that is that that simple existence of amount of debate meant that that the rules were unclear, almost by definition.

My point is that PF2E tried to move the rules into a much more codified direction, which I think was a laudable goal, but their implementation was hit-and-miss.

My advice to Paizo: When the time inevitably comes for a 3E, if you continue on the path of codification with the rules, please involve a technical writer. You'll thank yourself later. ;-)

What's up with those bases? Intended to be the best of both worlds between clear and black?

Thankfully I don't buy pre-paints any more, or all these base changes might give me OCD...

Just wanted to re-iterate here, as I've mentioned in my review that unless you need a bridge from PF1 to PF2, this is not a good "World Guide" to purchase. Some areas of the Inner Sea get incredibly short shrift.

Razmiran for example, a perfect place to set an adventure where almost everybody in authority needs killing gets cut from 2000 words in Inner Sea World Guide to just over 500 in Lost Omens World Guide. And 250 of those are basically bringing you up to speed. Absolutely zero words are spent on the geography or places of interest. If you wanted to actually set an adventure in it, it's near worthless.

This is repeated with several different locations.

So if you are looking to get into Pathfinder 2e, I would strongly urge you to buy the Inner Sea World Guide PDF as well, or else you'll be making a lot of stuff up on the fly.

I hope that in the wake of the Remaster 2E gets an updated version of the Inner Sea World Guide. It kinda sucks to have to fall back to the 1E ISWG to get the full picture, not to mention that it feels a bit odd that the closest thing we have for 2E -- The Lost Omens World Guide -- is half the size of the new Tian Xia World Guide.

It happens when the review is removed (like in the case of the review having slurs in it) or the account that posted the review being deleted.

Referential integrity is a harsh mistress. ;-)

I have been seeing the same behavior, only it is very intermittent.

So...every time I open my organized play, I am greeting by the following message:

Your GM credits and/or organized play points are out of sync.

And I am presented a button to "Refresh Points."

Putting aside the fact that I have to click this button again every time I load the page(?!), why in heaven's name does this button exist in the first place? If you know there is an issue with the data -- which you must, because you're telling me -- why is user interaction required in order to correct it? It's not clicking a button is providing any meaningful input that might be required to solve the problem. Even if the fix is something you don't want to run on the entire database proactively, say for performance reasons, surely just quietly running it when the page loads for a particular user is a vastly superior design?

Sorry for the rant, but even in the context of the laziest of evaluations, this behavior seems utterly baffling. Please, someone, make it make sense! ;-)

Here's the D&D stone giant It has a rounded head, and more round features overall.

Here's the Pathfinder stone giant More elongated and angular head, and rockier features overall.

To me, Pathfinder stone giants do have a very distinctive look, one that we have had from book 3 of Rise of the Runelords on.

Agreed. I remember thinking they looked distinct right when Pathfinder #3 was released.

Yes, the two busiest months of the year for gaming companies.

So busy that they can't take literally one minute to post in the official product thread confirm there is an update coming...even after a customer (not me, btw) emailed and asked?

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more.

And look, I get it. Fans are gonna leap to Paizo's defense on Paizo.com. However, let's take a moment to remember that customers holding companies accountable is basically the only way things ever get better. Good companies value feedback, even negative feedback, because they use it to improve. But whatever Paizo does (or doesn't) do, there is one thing of which I'm quite certain: They don't require your protection.

We will get an email when they do update the PDF. And no email yet.

Unfortunately I don't own it in PDF (specifically because the current format renders it difficult to use for my intended purpose).

Probably because that's how they sent it to the printer. They needed it to be one big page as it's how it's printed. The person that converted it to the "consumer" version probably didn't realize it would be different for us...

...which would be more understandable were this not at least the sixth GM screen Paizo has released in PDF. They really should have this down by now (or at least be quicker to correct their mistakes; it has been two months!).

:-/

Just checked. The download I just did is still one big piece. I suppose it can be segmented using the PDF reader's Take a Snapshot tool, but that takes some work. Really wonder why it was done like this in the first place.

Yeah, that is really puzzling, and I'm sorry to learn they still haven't fixed it.

That said, thank you for taking the time to check; it is appreciated.

Any word on this getting chopped into individual pages?

Paizo's reply to my email last week.

"Thanks for reaching out. There are plans to update the PDF, although it may take a couple of weeks before the new one is uploaded. Let me know if you have anymore questions!"

It looks like it is just a matter of time now. ;)

Would someone who owns the remastered screen in PDF mind chiming in to let us know whether the PDF has been separated into individual pages yet?

Thanks!

I've never had the impression that Paizo has been raking in undeserved YPMs (yachts-per-month). They're not gouging, I'm confident. That doesn't make products more affordable to more people, but ultimately these are the dollars required to a} pay the wonderful people who make the products and b} actually print and ship the products.

Agreed. In fact, I don't feel like anyone here really believes that Paizo is price gouging (and really, it's not really possible to price gouge on a discretionary good, meaning the term doesn't really apply to Paizo in any event). To me it seemed more like a general complaint aimed at groceries, rent, etc.

Now if Erik Mona starts giving Taylor Swift a run for her money as far as private jet usage goes, then something might be up. ;-)

Edit: "Yachts-per-month" was pretty great.

Physical copies have been expensive. The costs have only gone up. I didn't bother with a physical copy of my last publication. The cost of proofs for originals and updates isn't worth it on a small scale.

Paizo is able to access discounts from their scale, but they also have to handle distribution and accommodate markup. I don't know how they're able to do it in this industry. I'm happy to send them my money to support P2, and I wish them all the success. I'm fortunate enough to be old and able to afford it, but I understand everyone has to make decisions about how to invest their resources. If you like the hobby, recognize that it's a high cost, low margin industry. Even if you only purchase pdfs, that's a great way to support Paizo. If you go for books, know that they're not making more off of them, and it's a lot more work to produce.

Personally, I think I'm done with print books. The only RPG products worth buying in print anymore are things like pawns, GM screens, etc. Everything else just works better (for me) in PDF. Not only have tablets have gotten so reasonable that using them is actually more cost effective than buying books, but PDFs have other benefits. The latest Errata, portability, search-ability, (frequently a) discount on related VTT assets, etc.

On PDFs: I am a long time customer, and admittedly have had a love/hate relationship with Paizo over the years (they make great stuff, but also some really bone-headed mistakes, like $9 for a PFS scenario -- wtf?). But one thing I can't fault them for is that they have stood by PDFs since the beginning, and have not once tried to move (legal) access to their content behind a monthly subscription. As far as I'm concerned, that alone warrants both praise and continued patronage.
</soapbox>

The supply chain is still working through some of the lingering effects of the pandemic.

Fluctuations and shortages are still happening fairly frequently.

One of the exacerbating causes is the "bullwhip effect" which magnifies the bumps and potholes. The 'beer' game is a tool that is often used in first-year engineering classes to teach young engineers about how these effects can impact their jobs and their projects.

See
Bullwhip effect

Ongoing pandemic effects on the supply chain

Cool post; you taught me something new!

Canadians who caught their grocery chains engaging in active price fixing on bread red handed would like a word, especially as those same chains have spent the last couple of years all jacking up prices in tandem on everything and posting massive profits while telling us "this time its legit, honest!"

I doubt Paizo is doing that, but the idea that it doesn't happen when we know for a fact that it does is laughable.

Don't forget this. Automated price fixing, plausible deniability included!

bugleyman wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Unless of course you are one of those folks that presumes collusion on pricing between companies which is a rarity and a crime. It doesn't occur anywhere near as often as anti-capitalists like to promote. It's myth that isn't in line with how markets and money operate.

I know, right? Just look at this filthy anti-capitalist:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Which is why price fixing is a monitored crime.

Yes, but you also argued that price fixing is uncommon, and further, you literally stated that those who believe otherwise are "anti-capitalists." Meanwhile, there is Adam @$@# Smith arguing that price fixing is quite common indeed; inherent to capitalism, even.

So was Adam Smith "anti-capitalist"? Or did you misspeak? Because it doesn't seem like you can have it both ways.

For me, "Samo" brought to mind Chinese actor Sammo Hung.

Like I said, maybe it's just me. ;-)

Unless of course you are one of those folks that presumes collusion on pricing between companies which is a rarity and a crime. It doesn't occur anywhere near as often as anti-capitalists like to promote. It's myth that isn't in line with how markets and money operate.

I know, right? Just look at this filthy anti-capitalist:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Printing prices have gone up massively over the last few years, though I agree I would have expected WoI to be $64.99.

Took a swing at transcribing the list of creatures from the back of the box by hand. Numbered list on PathfinderWiki, bare text list copied below under the spoiler.

** spoiler omitted **...

Thank you for doing this, but it really shouldn't be necessary. Come on, Paizo.

Hmmm. A large theater for the upcoming AP? That will be very nice if it’s going to be used multiple times. I would like to see images of the maps to see if they’ll be closer or much different than others that I already have (especially the inn). Is Paizo still posting images of maps under the specific product?

Sadly, no. They stopped doing that a while back, for reasons that -- as far as I know -- remain a mystery. In any case, not having the images make flip-mats much less appealing.

Turns out people like to know what they're buying. Why knew? ;-)

They have not said that they meant to write something other than what they wrote

I'll never understand why people do things like this. Like seriously, why? You replied to an honest question with unwarranted glib mockery. Did that make you feel clever or something?

This is how communities wind up with a reputation for being insular and toxic. Knock it off.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Game rules aka stuff that isn’t flavor isn’t copyrightable.

I'm not trying to win anything here. I just want to make sure any of my investment in PF2e ORC material is in the free and clear in terms of being free from a successful future WotC legal challenge.

Sorry, I don't get it. Aren't game mechanics copyrightable? Wouldn't text taken verbatim (unmodified) be a copyright violation?

Text taken verbatim would indeed be a copyright violation, because that text is an expression of an idea. Meanwhile, ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, only patented, and most game mechanics generally don't meet the criteria for patent.

Names can also be trademarked as part of brand identity, which I believe is the basis for claim to specific monsters.

At least that is my understanding, but I am not a lawyer.

I'd think if we don't see anything in the next 2 years, we're good.

If only it were that simple. ;-)

bugleyman wrote:

itschase wrote:

I hope there will be smaller sets of pawns with just the new creatures introduced in the Monster Core series as I already have the pawn sets from the 3 Bestiaries.

I'd be surprised if such a product were financially viable. However, just one pawn box has never been enough, especially for low level baddies. So I'm hoping that this + my 2E bestiary pawn box will be about perfect.

But for your sake, I hope I'm wrong and they do release a set of just the stuff that is new to Monster Core. ;-)

Hmmm... How about a pawn box of multiple copies of the various low level baddies, the ones most likely to form armies? Like a couple of dozen kobolds or goblins, etc.

Even a single extra *sheet* of pawns, if carefully designed, would solve SO many problems. Focus on low-levels (where the most play occurs) and a mix of pawns that could serve as good proxies (say, zombies for corporeal undead). Something like:

4 zombies
4 skeletons
2 wolves
2 mediums spiders
4 giant rats
2 ghosts
4 hobgoblins
4 orcs
2 oozes
4 heavily armored humanoids
...etc.

I get that there will always be a "just one more sheet', but this particular sheet would be a HUGE boon to utility -- especially with the pawn line becoming much smaller in scope. A single, evergreen box could met 99% of the need.

I'm really hoping the third time is the charm for this (otherwise truly excellent) product.

Ed Reppert wrote:

So yesterday, as reported, I couldn't download this. Today...

The website says the zip file is 63.95 MB. Downloaded, got a 177 byte zip file. Tried the "problems? click here" link, got a 177 byte zip file. Unzipped it, got a zero byte file named "PZO2106E (ORC) - Flip-Mat". :-(

Sometimes, the old files stays in some cache somewhere. It happened to me once. Have you tried using a different browser/device to download it? That one time I "fixed" it by downloading it from a different device once, and it refreshed the cache on the original device somehow. (Computers', and even more so the internet's, internal workings are like the Dark tapestry.... you shall never gaze too long into it...)

Web browsers were never intended to be a robust application platform...we've just stretched them beyond their original purpose so far as to be almost unrecognizable. I know just enough about web programming to know that it isn't always obvious when a cache needs to be flushed. :-(

Maybe try private browsing mode? Or better yet, try with a completely different browser.

After a quick look, it seems there were indeed monster (and corresponding pawn) changes; more than seem strictly necessary, in fact.

One immediate bit of weirdness: The reef claw pawn is large, though the monster remains listed as small in the monster reference. I wonder if the pawn is wrong, or the remaster is substantially changing the reef claw.

Edit: Looking more closely at the pawns, it seems like the first two sheets are unchanged, but the last two sheets show a surprising amount of variation. Some monsters have been removed, others added, and several monsters which haven't been swapped still got new art.

I'm sure there are many interesting tidbits to be had here about the conceptual changes to some monsters. (I'm looking at you, ghoul stalker.)