bugleyman's page

Well, let's see: Who hasn't pissed on my childhood?

Oh right. David wins. :)

I think the tone set by a system changes a lot. For example, in a system such as 4th edition, where anyone who sleeps the night comes back to full health the next day with all surges and no lingering wounds, no matter how much damage they took, I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story, particularly in a seige situation. Wounded soldiers will be back to full health the very next day without expenditure of magic or resources, spurting chest-axe-wound be damned. Yes, you still have to feed them, and that's a resource, but it diminishes the impact. And of course, one can say, full health after full sleep is just a PC ability, but then, by setting PCs apart from ordinary soldiers, you're making another choice that sets the tone of a story.

I'm saying game rules influence what can be done, and what is or is not extrordinary... so... yes, I believe the game rules are important to the story.

Heck, I could convert Second Darkness to using the Toon rules, but I'm not gonna. n.-

I don't doubt that you, laboring as you are under such a fundamental misconception, can't make certain stories work, but the contention that making those stories work is downright impossible has been demonstrated to be false.

Congrats man!

James Jacobs wrote:

This is also a good idea, but far less likely to manifest. it'd be great to have maps that show prevailing winds and climates, trade routs, continental plates and fault lines, longitude and latitude, ethnicity spreads, migration patterns, resources, and a whole lot more. There won't be enough room for that many maps though. We're gonna have to pick and chose the best and most useful ones. And there's a pretty good chance we'll only be able to pick and choose the BEST one.

I'd love to see a computerized map of all that stuff where you can just click the layers on and off

Actually... if all goes according to our current plan, there won't be a need for Advanced Player's Guide II. We hope to be able to say all we need to say in one book, and don't WANT to set a precedent of doing a new one of these every year.

Another option is, of course, available. We could just do a straight up reprint of the book. Update the rules to work more fluidly with Pathfinder but not make any adjustments to the actual contents of the book except where ABSOLUTELY necessary (this would probably result in replacing the domains on page 159 with the big table of deity information from the inside front cover of Gods & Magic, and replacing the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class with a pared-down-from Pathfinder #27 Hellknight class), and then just release that as a reprint. The resulting book would be close to identical to the current hardcover, with errata and typos fixed, and since this book would be pretty much the same it'd be treated as a mere reprint—no special treatment at all to subscribers (with the possible exception of granting access to the updated PDF).

Frankly, this route, while probably the "safest" in regards to annoying customers who don't want to feel like we're trying to "trick" them into buying a new version, feels hollow to me. We have a MUCH better grip on our world now, and we have a hearty and healthy rulesset to attach to it—I think that a version with an additional 68 pages (bringing it up to about Bestiary size) with its information reorganized (placing all feats into a "Feats" chapter rather than scattering them throughout the book, for example), would result in a MUCH stronger book. Of course, that extra 68 pages wouldn't all be new material—much of it would probably be reprinted and updated to the new rules from older sources (I suspect about half of those pages would be Golarion-specific monsters taken from the first 24 volumes of Pathfinder, updated to work with the PRPG rules, for example) but some would be brand new content...

In any event, I'm encouraged. It sounds like you guys have a good grip on the balance to be struck here.

* If you do go this route, redo the design and layout to match the corebook.

If you are ok with computer use my advice would be.

Buy a SINGLE copy of the PHB & DMG for the whole group.
Buy a SINGLE subscription to DDI.

You now have the all the "written rules" you need and access to every class/race/monster in 4e.

Actually very cheap, remembering the character gen prints out "power cards". That and given errata power cards are a very silly item to purchase.

So in some ways 4e is the cheapest D&D to date!

S.

Otherwise...this.

Click your name.

Sign in.

Click "sessions."

I know I can locate sessions in which I've played by looking under my characters, but is there a way to see a list of sessions I've GM'ed?

Agreed. And having a few more base classes is a Godsend to DMs -- tinkering around with 8 million options is fine if you're a player who has a lot of spare time, but what if you're a DM who's thinking, "I've got a session tonight, and 4 hours to get ready -- and I need an encounter with three knightly types, one of whom is kind of sneaky, two nature priests, and a combined archer-sneaky guy type."

So, is it is easier prepare this group as --

Level 11 Cavalier
Level 10 Cavalier
Level 7 Cavalier/Level 3 Rogue
Level 10 Druid
Level 9 Druid
Level 6 Ranger/Level 4 Rogue

-- or try to build those six characters from scratch using nothing but a huge list of feats and abilities?

The first way, you could probably do it. The second way, I wouldn't even try.

I remain of the opinion that base classes should be generalized and flexible, with customization carried out by feat, or prestige class, because I think proliferation of base classes leads to too many similiar classes down the line. I don't want to have a "spearman" class, an "archer" class, a "great weapon" class, etc. I'm just no fan of classes for classes sake, which is what the cavalier strikes me as (just as it did when it showed up in 1E's UA). YMMV. :)

Nevynxxx wrote:

Problem is, how do you prove that a person owns the first edition?

There's this thing called a "record". I know they have them, because I can still download my Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Which means they know I bought it.

Problem is, how do you prove that a person owns the first edition? It's the same as selling PDFs with the hard copies anywhere other than as part of the subscription....

I could see sticking the PDF as a free item on the Chronicles subscription being valid though.....

I happen to have picked up both the PDF and the hardcopy. I'd be OK re-buying the hardcopy, but it would stick in my craw a bit to have to pay full-price again for the PDF, knowing there were no associated printing and distribution costs.

Can I remove individual items from the "My Downloads" section?
It's getting a little cluttered and it would be nice if I could eliminate some of the free material.

For what it's worth, I believe that some sort of "download organization/filtering" is on the TO-DO list.

Since the PDF is kept updated (and is a steal at $10), owners of the original printing can always print out the corrected sections, then paste them straight into the book. Presto! :)

I personally love how Paizo is keeping the PDF updated to reflect the latest printing. In fact, Paizo's entire PDF model is very customer-friendly, for which they deserve much credit.

I can see where hardcopy is problematic, and I think most people will understand that. But in the case of the PDF, if you're only incurring 20% of the development cost, then I'd expect some kind of consideration for owning the prior version.

What about a PDF "upgrade" fee? Say, charge a few bucks to owners of the 3.5 PDF to get access to the updated "pathfinderized" PDF?

Alternatively, if it's a completely new book (new layout, etc.) done to match the core rules, then I'd say full price for the PDF would be more appropriate.

The key is not to make customers regret buying the older version. Cover your costs? Sure. Trying to profit on selling the same material twice? That, I believe people will resent. I'm confident you guys can come up with a compromise that works for everyone (or at least, for most people).

Could even break it down further really like in True20:
Warrior - Combat Wombats
Expert - Skill MOnkeys
Adept - Casters (Wisdom = Structured Divine, Intelligence = Structured Arcane, Charisma = Spontaneous Arcane or Divine)

Most Classes become multi-classed characters:
Paladin: Warrior-Adept
Ranger: Warrior-Expert
Barbarian: Warrior-Adept (for "Rage powers")
Bard: Expert-Adept
Monk: Warrior-Adept (for "ki powers")

-Weylin

Someone pointed out that the paladin is kinda the same, and I agree, but Paizo had no choice with the Paladin; backward compatibility required it. There is no such backward compatibility requirement with the cavalier. I honestly don't see the point of a cavalier class. It's a fighter with specialized feats. I think it sets a bad precedent, though I'm sure I'm in the minority.

It also isn't about "disliking options." It's the way those options are presented. I didn't like Base Class bloat in 3.5, I didn't like it in 4, and I don't like it in PFRPG.

...
I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.

Surkin

Is Pathfinder d20? Does it fall under the auspices of the GSL?

I believe the confusion stems from WotC's unfortunate choice to use the label "d20" for both a license and a game system. The d20 license is no more, but d20 products live on under the OGL, even if they can't legally be called "d20." Further muddyng the waters, there is a d20 logo on 4E books, even though 4E is neither compatible with products released under the d20 license, nor was it released under that license. In fact, I'm not really sure what the d20 logo on 4E books is supposed to mean to consumers.

Yes, it is really that confusing. :P

I think the answer really depends on the intent of your question.

On one hand, 4E is d20. Ihe books even have the d20 logo on 'em.

However, if you're asking if 4E is compatible with the 3.5 SRD, then the answer is no.

As far as why many publishers have been dumping their books: It is no longer possible to product anything under the d20 license; One must use the new GSL.

I'm sure if you wanted to, you could start your own thread making personal attacks against atheistic socialist 4e players. Would that make you feel at home?

...What I don't really agree with is the suggestion that 4e makes it impossible to do a Paizo-style AP.

Ah, Edition Wars; how I've missed you. Ok, not really.

Liking (or not liking) 4E is purely subjective, and I'm fine with that. The problem arises when people think their opinion that 4E "isn't D&D*," or is "obviously inferior," or "limits roleplaying" is an objective manner.

I happen to believe WotC has made some real bone-headed moves over the last eighteen months, but I continue to think 4E is a very well-done system, and one that I prefer to 3.5/Pathfinder. But I'm aware that my position is an opinion. ;-)

*Of course 4E literally IS D&D, but I don't think that is what is meant by this remark.

I would guess this is based on the number they'll be printing for each book. Fewer prints mean more cost per book. They probably plan to sell more of the races books than the Dark Sun adventure, so they will print more of the races book and therefore can sell them for less.

Some of the 32-pagers have battlemaps.

A few thoughts:

3D Dungeon Tiles -> Very nice. Dungeon Tiles are going up to $12 -> not so nice. I'm not buying them anymore anyway, but why mess with success? Price elasticity and all that.

The "set" of tiles which will remain in print: Great idea.

Slow down of power books is a good thing (imo).

The 32 page releases are all over the place in price. Some are $10, some $12, some $13. Hopefully they'll be consistent when they're actually released.

I'm happy to see smaller modules, as I don't think the $25 ones were a very good value. I do like the delve format, and hope they keep it. Thirty-two page, color adventures for $9.99 with a bi-monthly release schedule would be wonderful, but alas, it doesn't appear to be.

Softcover monster book!?

I'm surprised by the lack of a Dungeon Delve 2.

Minis seem to be slowing down, though perhaps that's just my imagination. I wonder how the line is going after packaging (and pricing) re-shuffle last year...

Bill Lumberg wrote:

Set wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of tuna, but mixed with horseradish or spicy brown mustard, it's pretty yummy,

Did you suffer an injury to your taste buds?

No, my mom is French, so my taste buds came pre-damaged. :)

I love horseradish. I worked at a bar when I was 14 and drank virgin bloody maries at work, just because of how awesome the horseradish was (and when it was my turn to make the mix, I put in extra)! I'm also a fan of sauerkraut, V-8 and other sour/tart flavors. The only flavor I don't get is salt. I loathe salt (although even salt is good on a raw tomato or hard-boiled egg!).

self-flagellation

I would have given you a 3, but the "hit a nerve" card is pretty over-played.

It is my firm belief (and you are allowed to disagree) that vaccines and medicines are the reasons that humans have so poor immunity systems nowadays that the swineflu is even considered a threat.

And by the way, I am lazy and selfish, but only ignorant of how anyone could call me selfish for not wanting ti introduce a foreign substance to my body. The last time I took a vaccine it was required for me to travel, and that was about six years ago. That was also the last time I got sick. Coincident?

Two of my three children have asthma, as do I. We'll all get it as soon as possible.

As I said, it can work, it is just harder to keep track of, something that is a bad idea for lazy, dumb, or busy people raising children (which is something like 99.9999% of the people raising kids).

As an aside, I was told in a class I took in college (ok it was weight lifting) that beans and rice both have incomplete proteins and that you need the other to complement it to get a complete protein. That is why you see so many ethnic dishes with both beans and rice. I don't know if this is true, don't actually care enough to verify it since I get plenty of protein myself (picks bit of dead carcass from between teeth).

Sorry, but people making false assertions on message boards irk me. Yeah, I know: WTF am I doing on the Internet? :)

Let's try to be polite here.

Would other posters please use the correct terms ("dietitian") in future fallacious appeals to authority?

Thank you.

...we -need- meat if on the mere grounds that proteins of vegetable origin are comparatively poor in quality so yes, if you try to raise your children on a strictly vegetarian diet you -will- have a case of malnutrition, and criminal charges of child neglect...our organisms -need- animal protein to properly develop...

But I'm sure the "dietists" in your family know best. :rolleyes:

Eating meat is easier for dumb/lazy/busy people to help their children to develop properly. Once those children are adults, if they want to become vegan and be responsible for their own welfare, then that is a legitimate choice.

Not my cup of tea, though. While I can see being vegetarian, vegan is too far (for me).

That's so I don't have to listen to you little young bastards whine about how tough your life is. Tough! I can tell you about tough. I had to walk to school barefoot, through 10 feet of snow, uphill - both ways! And we didn't have books. All our lessons were engraved on stone tablets, and we had to carry 50 lbs of them around each day.

And we liked it! :D

True to an extent. Not all environments are suitable for "crop" growth. Some areas do not make farming a good choice, but there are plants that grow there, plants that are not consumable by humans but are by other animals. Having those animals go and graze in those areas, thus gaining access to "energy" that was "going to waste", that we can now consume indirectly by consuming the grazing animals is not inefficient.

Edit: And please don't misunderstand; I'm not suggesting we outlaw beef, or anything ridiculous like that. I'm merely saying that becoming vegan for environmental reasons makes sense, even if it isn't a choice I'd make for myself.

bugleyman wrote:

I assume you mean the world? Because our population less immigration *isn't* growing, but it is aging.

Yes, by "us" I mean the world. I'm not totally U.S.-centric (although I can be lynched for that in these here parts).

You got a problem with old folks? Damn whippersnapper!

Yes, if those programs are run as Ponzi schemes, which is essentially what Social Security is. Restructuring those programs would help in the long run, once past the initial hurdle.

Far more efficient than changing our diet would be for us to bite the bullet and control our own population, a la China. With only 1-2 billion people on the planet, everyone in the world can raise cattle for mass consumption, with significantly less impact on the planet than we have today.

Then why did we evolve as omnivores?

** spoiler omitted **

From an efficiency standpoint, though, it is pretty self-evident that the higher up the food chain one goes, the less efficient the consumption of resources becomes. Think of it this way: Everything below us on the food chain is just a way for us to get solar energy in a form we can use; the more layers of inefficiency (steps in the food chain) that energy has to pass through, the more is lost.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.

Razz has a reputation to consider when it comes to hyperbole. How can you expect him to be reasonable?

Ah, I think that was a little before my time here started.

Silly me.

Wait...when did Razz come back?

I'm not quite following you. What are you hinting at?

They sell all their copies of one book and have to make an immediate re-run because people are being killed for their Pathrinder books, so they do a higher print run the next time. They sell really well again. And so forth and so on. They continue to do what they're doing, since it seems to make people really happy.

All the while, they keep selling rules stuff as well as all the stuff they've been selling all the time. I haven't seen any slacking in Chronicles or APs or anything else.

Could you spell out what your concerns are? I tried to see where something bad is happening, but I got nothing.

Edit: Well, the "no concerns" part isn't entirely accurate; I do think it extremely likely that Paizo will make some missteps, but ultimately I hope (and expect) that they'll find the right balance.

As soon as we realized that we needed to develop our own core rulebook, we also realized that we needed to support it. After all, if you don't support a core rulebook with at least a few releases each year, gamers begin to perceive the system as dead. However, we also decided that we didn't want to overwhelm the basic system with tons of new rules every month, so we set our sights on releasing maybe 3 or 4 products a year: probably a couple of hardcovers and hopefully one smaller product, like this year's GM screen. I'm sure that if you look at posts from us (especially those by Erik Mona) right after we announced the RPG, you'll see that's what we've said from day 1, and it's still exactly where we are.

The number of *copies* of each book we're planning to print, though, that's another story!

Wait and see, my padawan. ;-)

The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.

Stop and think about it: Even with high expectations, Paizo was clearly taken aback at the fantastic response to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook at Gencon this year. One could almost write the transcript of the meeting! What largely started as a way to keep rules in print in support of adventure and setting products has become an end unto itself; look at the schedule: Advanced Player's Guide. Bestiary 2. I promise you there are half a dozen more waiting to be announced.

Is shift in focus a bad thing? That isn't for me to say. Paizo seems to be providing what it's customers want, just as it should be, and that's rarely a mistake. What I can say with certainty is that organizations don't emerge unchanged from periods of growth like the one Paizo is currently undergoing. This isn't a dig at Paizo, or at the path they've chosen. Nor is it a defense of WoTC, which has soundly pissed me off over the past year. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that those of you who are so quick to condemn WoTC might want to consider into what, exactly, Paizo may be growing.

How does that Kelly quotation go again? "We've met the enemy..."

I must reverse my position: I think Obama completely deserved the award. I also think he should send the money to me...

Eiy yei yei!

I'm out.

We know that out subjective experience can be wildly wrong, about all sorts of things. Based on that, i have trouble accepting that forming your belief systems on Subjective experience alone is irrational.

Blogs go through editing. I blame editors.

Edit: Editors that, I should note, are slammed with work right now as we move quickly toward getting ourselves back on track. So if they missed a few things in a blog post, that's not the end of the world is it?

What?

Scott was certainly a champion for third-party publishers, and his ENWorld posts of the last few years suggest to me that a lot of the softening between the two revisions of the GSL was due largely to his influence...