bugleyman's page

I think this discussion dances around the most important issue:

Which of the X-men characters is the most appropriate to use in marketing a breakfast sandwhich?

I'm going with the Blob because I'm lazy and that's the obvious answer.

Batman. It's clearly Batman.

Stupid commercial is stupid. Still hope the movie is good.

Hey Doug's Workshop...try watching this; You might learn something. It's even free (Socialist!) on Netflix.

I have to warn you, though -- it is narrated by a well-educated (read: lefty elitist intellectual) former Secretary of Labor (read: government stooge), so it may not be to your taste. Heaven knows you can't trust those university types, what with all their studying and facts and stuff.

We are going to run the trilogy in back to back slots on a Saturday at an upcoming convention. We have some copies of MA to give away per prize support (thanks!) but I know we will not have time to go through an intro to mythic and character build choices between parts 2 and 3.

You may want to "let out the seams" and do parts 1 & 2 on Saturday, and part 3 on Sunday as the big finish. Otherwise it will be hard to do part 3 justice. It was the only thing I ran that day, and IIRC we were close to six hours, and I could have easily give them debate scene much more breathing room than I did.

Yet another place where 3.5 did it better.

The above seems to be a horrible amalgamation between the original 3.5 generic "Frightful Presence" rule:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#frightfulPresence

And the original 3.5 dragon-specific frightful presence entry:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm

*facepalm*

That's where I think that RAW, and RAI diverge. It does specify frightened or shaken at the front, but when it's explicitly saying what the effect of the failed will save is, it's shaken, our panicked, no mention of frightened at all.

Seems to me we've got a matter of editing problems, where the rules changed and a quick slap-dash edit was made to the wording that left the job half done. RAI, I'd probably guess it was more meant to be Shaken on success, Frightened on fail, Panicked on fail if your HD is more than four less than the source of Frightful Presence. But when it comes down to the pure RAW, shaken or panicked on a failed save with no mention of frightened in that section.

Is it what the writers were going for? I doubt it, but that's what it says when it's in the consequence section of the crunch.

Yeah, that sounds likely.

I agree it seems like an odd section, and I'd guess something's a little lost in the RAI, but as written is fairly clear, within the radius enemies need to save against a mind based fear attack. On a success, they're safe from it for 24 hours, on a fail, they're shaken. If the enemy's hit dice is less than the frightful presence user by 4 or more, they become panicked instead of shaken on a failed save.

Now it seems odd to me that we go from shaken, to panicked, with no stop at frightened, but RAW there you are, no more, no less.

The RAW don't seem clear to me at all. How do you square your (shaken | panicked) interpretation with the explicit mention of frightened:

Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken.

?

If the passage read "panicked or shaken," then the RAW would be unambiguous (if unwieldy). As it is, the RAW are contradictory.

Paizo should seriously consider hiring (or at least contracting with) a technical writer to review rules text. Not that I personally want RPG rules that require that sort of review, but if that's the game you're writing...

Also, they should avoid using condition names if they aren't actually referring to conditions.

Any thoughts on this?

A few:

• Why the hell is this sort of thing still ambiguous five years and three printings of the Bestiary down the road?
  
• Can we get a 2nd edition yet?
  

Unfortunately not every PFS player reads the forums, and even those that do may not have seen those posts (I haven't, though I have seen posts that speak of such posts).

Indeed. Sadly campaign leadership seems committed to the idea of amending the rules through message board posts -- despite the inevitable confusion that doing so continues to engender.

Because all contracts are always exactly the same.

A jerk? Don't be one.

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.