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, 2015 Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler. 7,501 posts (7,618 including aliases). 82 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, hi, spammers!

Have fun, mods!

For probably the 10th time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.

Samy wrote:

Wasn't sure which -- feel free to move this to Advice forum if that's better.

Anyway, I'm going to plunge into Pawns for the first time. I'm set on buying at least one box (to get bases), plus up to $60ish on top of that (so either 3 APs, or one box and one AP). Which boxes/APs would you recommend for a starter? Is there anything I should be aware of when taking the plunge? Would you advise getting a box or two APs?

APs I own: RotRL, Sk&S, MM, IG
APs planning to buy: RoW
APs probably skipping: ShS, WotR, GS

I suggest:

Bestiary Box
NPC Codex Box
Bestiary 2 Box that order, unless you already have plenty of character type minis, then Bestiary 2 Box comes second.

Alternatively, if you don't really care about having exactly the correct pawn, consider two copies of the Bestiary Box. Between them you should have decent proxies for just about anything. I also suggest converting some of the duplicates of lesser-used huge monsters into huge elementals, as those come up often (and -- puzzlingly -- are not included).

Irrational people cannot, by definition, be persuaded by reason. Stop trying to reason with them.

Nod, smile, and move on.

Trust me: You'll be happier in the end.

Scythia wrote:
This exploration of a paper about science denialism seems relevant. It goes over five of the features common to denialism. See how many you can spot in action.

You forgot to drop the mic and walk offstage.


One thing: "...somehow using his magic-infused music to break Meligaster's hold upon him." should probably end with "them."

Good backstory, imho not well served by WAR's Bizarro World anatomy and same-y art.

Also too close to my PFS oracle who is haunted by his dead wife. Please change. ;-)

Well, I...wait, was was this thread about?

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Brock wrote:
I was always taught to leave a situation better than I entered it.

Mission accomplished.

Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale. :-/

That...was not a good movie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things...

We've made more progress in understanding the world in the 400 years since Galileo than in the 40,000 years before before him (granted, Galileo as the father of the scientific method could be debated, but if anything, the advent of the scientific method is even more recent than 400 years).

So yeah, science is useful for "figuring out things." :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People don't believe in evolution, either, despite literally tons of accumulated empirical evidence. Unfortunately, many of us simply seem to be driven by emotion, rather than by logic.

In the case of anthropogenic climate change, there are also substantial financial incentives for myopia.

Simon Legrande wrote:
There might be a dumber way to say this, but I can't for the life of me think of what that might look like.

Clearly that's because you don't work for the gubbermint.

So...government is mysteriously efficient at finding the most inefficient solution to a problem?

Makes perfect sense.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Except for the fact that the people with the most disposable money are those with a vested interest in disproving global warming, and the only people they can find to publish refutations also worked on tobacco studies for cigarette companies.

Now that is what I'd call an inconvenient truth. ;-)

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For goodness sake, it's not like the initiative rules stand up to the level of scrutiny being employed here anyway.

The rules state that:

PRD wrote:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

Fair enough. However, note that "initiative count" is not defined.

Next, regarding ties:

PRD wrote:
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first).

Great! Not that nothing is said about changing the actual initiative check result; only the order of action is specified. And again, nothing about "initiative count."

Now look at effects ongoing effects:

PRD wrote:
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

What is an "initiative count?"

Is it a synonym for "initiative check result?" If so, then multiple people can go on the same initiative count (because ties do not result in changing the initiative check result). So if you have two combatants with the same check result, but with different initiative modifiers, they go on the same count in order of initiative modifier. Imagine a monk (initiative check 20, modifier 5) goes after an enemy bard (initiative check 20, modifier 6) and stuns him for 1 round, by the RAW the stun ends "just before" initiative count 20 in the next round, meaning the bard recovers before his turn and suffers no ill effects from the stun.

On the other hand, if initiative count isn't a synonym for "initiative check result," what is it? How does it work? The rules don't say.

TLDR; If you try to treat the rules of a game like a legal contract, you're asking for trouble.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

Blakmane wrote:
Aaron Motta wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.
Specific > general. The text specifically calls out exceptions to the above rule: namely, readied actions, attacks of opportunity, immediate actions. There's no conflict there.

So to be clear, then, you don't think that:

* Rogue 1 moves up and readies for the flank
* Rogue 2 moves into the flank
* Rogue 1 takes the attack action (NOT the full attack action) against the rules, correct?

Just want to be sure we're on the same page. :)

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."

A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

Personally, if the monsters are clever and practiced at working together -- say, a group of rogues -- I'll have one move up and ready an attack until the target is flanked. Mindless skeletons, however, I won't.

In either case, I don't allow the readying creature a full attack; that seems obviously illegal. The readying alternative, however, is perfectly legal, and applying a label ("interleaving") doesn't make it any less so. Besides, doesn't this game have more than enough terminology already? :-)

GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring. least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

That is some grade-A FUD.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Huh. You'd think the fact that there is a whole field of study dedicated to monitoring these changes might lend some credence to their findings. But I'm sure they're just another part of the conspiracy.

They're all bought off by the powerful grizzly bear lobby.

Check out this climate scientist living the good life thanks to all those kick backs from baby seals and bees.

Edit: Here is another one!!!

It's true what they say: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lies! I an hereby getting on the mass extinction denier bandwagon early.

What? The climate change denier bandwagon is just too darn crowded.

Dragnmoon wrote:
Any updates on the Goblin Pregens?

Seconded. Come on guys, this should be a surprise.

Thank you for clearly communicating this situation.

That said, do many people use outdated browsers?

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Unchained 2: Electric Bugaloo.

Funny how people kept posting after you had already won this thread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Art direction that completely excludes WAR and his legion of imitators.

Hey, a guy can dream.

Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman - Ceaser Slaad wasn't the one who started the left-wing / right-wing stuff. If you're going to call someone out, call out the correct person....captain yesterday.

Except opposition to transgender rights is clearly a right wing problem.

However, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness, at least for me. Maybe next time emotions will have cooled sufficiently to allow for rational discussion.

Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Ahem. The "right wing" has no problem with levity. We laugh at the "left wing" all the time. :-)

Because this thread wasn't contentious enough? :/

In the interest of getting back on track...yes, when I saw the picture of Caitlyn Jenner I immediately thought of Jessica Lange; in my opinion they look quite similar.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other than wholly impractical?

My money is on "they're GMPCs." :P

Crystal Frasier wrote:
And as every trans woman on the internet has been saying : Rachel Dolezal co-opting trans language and sympathy to try and justify her racist crap is incredibly transphobic.

I've literally paid no attention to anything the woman has said or written. I actually came up with the comparison on my own, and it honestly doesn't strike me as necessarily terribly different -- which is why I asked.

Consider the question withdrawn, and please accept my apology for any offense.

After a look at Wikipedia, I'm guessing it means Sexual Reassignment Surgery.

Also, please accept my apology for the use of the term "transsexual." The proper term appears to be "transgender." My previous post has been corrected.

So, at the risk of going way, way off topic, I had a thought the other night that I'd be interested in hearing people's take on.

If we accept that someone's identify transcends the physical in the case of gender (transgender), should we also accept that someone's identify is transcends the physical in the case of race (transracial)?

Yes, I'm thinking of Rachel Dolezal.

That is a good point...there's no question in my mind that Magic relies heavily on store play space. However, assuming it is the reason, though, they should just say so when asked...

Vic Wertz wrote:
It does fold to the usual 8x10 size. (Obviously, not every fold is the same size.)

Huzzah! Thanks Vic.

The_Minstrel_Wyrm wrote:

If I had to guess, I'd say 9x13 (that at least makes the most sense). It confused me also when the description still said it would fold up to 8x10.


I hadn't even considered that the folded-up size was wrong (duh!). I expect you're right; it's still 3x3, but folds to 9x13 instead of 8x10. But I hope not.

I'll just go on record as saying a 4x4 map that folded out to 32x40 -- but still folded down to 8x10 -- would have been much preferred. The smaller folded size is just too handy to give up. Heck, even one that was 4x3 and folded out to 32x30 would have been preferable to increasing the folded size (assuming that is what they did). 32x30 may not seem like much of an improvement over 30x24, but you'd might be surprised how many things would fit in the former, but not the latter (*cough* Blackros *cough*).

Can we please get official confirmation on the folded size?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back.
...except to look back at the Forums for it, for no reason :p

Yes, because clearly heathens who play 5E should be banished. They couldn't possibly have interest in other Paizo products, or friends here, or anything like that.


Edit: And your post has garnered several favorites. Score another one for petty human tribalism. :-/

Sir Awesomesauce McSnazzlepants wrote:

I punish rules lawyers, because I'M THE GM, MY SAY IS FINAL! Take your technicalities off my lawn, youngster! Back in AD&D days, GMs did what they wanted!

EDIT: I'm 25, but I have been playing TTRPG's long enough to out-Grognard the older Grognards! TASTE THE HALFLING CHAINSAW NINJA AND THE ELF CLASS!!!

I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive (by a number of years, in fact)! So YOU get off MY lawn, boy!

I certainly find myself stopping to look up weird rules interactions more often in a higher-level game.

As for what to run, I second Crypt of the Everflame; should fit nicely into 10 hours. The other (non-free RPG day) module I've run (The Midnight Mirror) was great, but would probably run long.

Bill Dunn wrote:

There are times you do sound like a broken record. ;)

Though, truly, I don't read your posts nearly as much as I used to because, at least in some threads, I know what they're going to be about...

Yeah, sorry about that. Probably a low-grade personality disorder at work.

...though the wife might say it isn't so low-grade. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.

The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting. In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion, but I just have no patience left for dealing with Hasbro/WotC's shenanigans after watching them completely botch 4E (which I really liked). It probably also doesn't help that I feel like I've seen this show before, having watched the slow car accident that was the music industry's response to MP3s...

Steve Geddes wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.

I've made a habit of jumping on your posts and singling out one word lately - take my word for it that I'm genuinely just curious and not picking minutiae...

Have you read the adventures for 5E? Or is 'mediocre' based on some consensus view? I dont think they're mediocre at all. Granted they're not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I think they do a great job of fulfilling the role they're designed to fill.

I've read (and run the beginning of) Lost Mine of Phandelver (not bad, but wholly inferior to, say, Burnt Offerings) and Hoard of the Dragon Queen (just terrible). I haven't read further, because I refuse to patronize a company which offers no eBook support in 2015. However, even if the (two?) adventures released since were great, there are still far too few.

5E would have been a wonderful opportunity to revive Dungeon (in PDF, of course), but for whatever reason they completely missed the boat. Frankly, some of their missteps have been so egregious that they strain credulity, especially after the 4E debacle; sometimes it feels like I'm watching the Keystone Cops of the RPG world. At first it was funny, but now it's just...sad. I wish they'd just sell D&D already, because they clearly see the RPG itself as the red-headed stepchild of the brand. :/

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them.

I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work.


Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rather, the OP is discussing things like "No blacks or women in my fantasy, that's not historically accurate" and "No guns alongside my rapiers and nunchuks, that's not historically accurate."

Perhaps...then again, ignoring the implications of introducing things like guns can be jarring, and history is pretty much the best guide we have when it comes to the effects of new technology.

Guns replaced bows. They're smaller, easier to use, more convenient, etc. You could have a setting with semi-automatic firearms existing alongside bows, but you'd really need to explain why bows are still in common use. It's OK for the hero to use a bow; he's special. But if half the armies of the world use bows, and half use guns, you'd better have a really good explanation as to why that is the case. "Because fantasy" is going to rub some people the wrong way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that verisimilitude matters, irrespective of genre.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
MUDs also have their own strengths and weaknesses. The specifics of that are not in dispute, but one of the key advantages of TTRPGs is that a human can judge the action, therefore any player can attempt any action he can imagine, and the DM can judge it. Games limited by computer programs can only allow the actions programmed into it.

Until we can program a judge, of course. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D...

I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting they want to sink D&D; only that they may do so inadvertently.

If I had to bet, I'd guess that 5E will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them. Their management team certainly seems to be circa 1990 or so.

But the truth is that we'll never know how 5E would have gone under different circumstances, because it isn't possible to go back and test it. All I know right now is:

1. 5E seems to be successful so far; and
2. I will not play it, because it doesn't meet my requirements. Whether it would under different ownership I cannot say.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I've heard that such a separate character-building game did manifest in 2E in a more limited form, particularly towards the end of its run.

Quite possibly. I had moved on to other systems by that point. Ironically, I was mostly playing Hero -- pretty much the ultimate in build-a-character games -- which I preferred for it's internal consistency. Of course, at the time I still thought simulation was a thing; now I wouldn't touch Hero with a 10ft pole.

Just goes to show how tastes change, I guess.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
The term "build" used in reference to characters makes me want to punch someone in the face.
What word would you prefer to use that describes the mechanical choices a player makes when filling out a character sheet?

I'd rather the game not be mechanically complex enough to necessitate a term. I certainly never heard of "builds" before 3E. What amounts to a separate character-building game simply doesn't appeal to me.

The term "build" used in reference to characters makes me want to punch someone in the face.

1 to 50 of 7,501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.