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 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,692 posts (7,809 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Here is my list of where I would start. You could play for years with just the stuff on the list.

Once you have the items on my list, I'd say the NPC Codex & NPC Codex Box would be very helpful, given the prevalence of humanoid enemies in your typical game. However, that might be less important since you have the tokens that came with the Beginner Box. Some people also really like the Combat Pad. Personally, I prefer index cards.

I suggest that you avoid supplementary mechanics at this point -- at least until you get a firm grip on the Core -- but given your stated preference for Sci-fi elements, you might want to look at the Technology Guide. Despite being part of the campaign setting line, it's the best resource for super-science and tech elements in Pathfinder.

Cort Odekirk wrote:

Because you can transition a Core character to RPG by playing in an RPG game. This is a planned feature if you wish to move a character into mainstream play. You just are not allowed to go the other direction (for obvious reasons).

Used correctly it give players flexibility. Unfortunately we've had some problems with GM's reporting the wrong version of sessions and inadvertently transitioning characters against their will.

You misunderstand.

I meant that, in the function which is invoked during reporting, check the play history of a given character. If ALL sessions -- including the one being reported -- are flagged as core, then set the core flag on the character. Otherwise, clear it.

It would prevent you from having to manually update the flag when the reporting changes. ;-)

Uhm...why not just insert code in the reporting process to see if all sessions on a character are now core and set the core flag appropriately? Hardly seems like there could be an issue of computational intensity...

Maybe he just likes kids. Seriously. Why bother with your own when there's a ready selection all around?

As has been noted, you can't "delay" one attack of a full-attack. You either delay all of them, or use them all on your turn. You could ready a single attack, but once you have multiple attacks that's a bad trade.

How many of these do you have to sell before you will consider doing yellow, white, purple, and possibly orange? :P

Update: Ordered. :-)

Holy crap! I've been one of the people asking for this, but I never thought it would fly.



I definitely think I gave short shrift to the briefing/debriefing other Pathfinders when I ran this, a mistake I would not repeat.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I think we just rushed the mission briefings and debriefings a bit too much. I look forward to taking a little more time on that part when I run this in the future.

Guilty. I was (needlessly, it turned out) worried about time.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I was more miffed that I missed the option to raise the dead Pathfinder.

I certainly would have allowed you to pursue that option had you brought it up; however, in hindsight, perhaps I should have explicitly asked if you wanted to do so.

Seems I made a bit of a mess of things. :-(


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Meh, I'll just mark the ring off. It doesn't see much use anymore.

If you prefer, though as the GM I'd be satisfied with the lesser expenditure. Apologies for the lack of clarity at the time the scenario was run.

I've tried a variety of techniques:

I have several hundred 2" circles I've punched out of thing black plastic (Wal*mart has very thing black plastic folders for like $.39 or $.49 each around back-to-school-time; you can get dozens of such circles from one folder). Of course, you also have to buy the 2" punch.

Another approach I've tried is to either blow up and print the map, or draw it on gaming paper, then cut it into pieces. I've even gone so far as to mount the roams on foam core. This is more expensive, because you have to consume supplies for every map, but it is especially effective for hidden rooms and the like.

Finally, I've done draw-as-you-go. The maps are uglier, and this tends to work best with simple maps. Complicated maps can slow things down too much.

I've also seen, but not tried, people using (or other vtt) on a monitor that they lay flat on the center of the table. I think this is probably the ultimate solution -- at least until someone nails holograms -- but it requires the biggest upfront investment. Thankfully, the price of such a display keeps coming down. It also requires a bunch of extra work if you're GMing on the go.

Basically, they all have advantages and disadvantages, so there is no "one size fits all" solution. Or if there is, I haven't found it.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Are items granted to the subordinate teams returned to PCs at the end of the scenario? My oracle intended to loan the Kernaug Group her Scholar's Ring so they could use the Legend Lore ability, and expected it back. The potion of tongues was less of a concern, but I wanted to check if I should mark both of them off.

The scenario doesn't specify, so I would think it would depend upon what was communicated to the team when you provided the item. If you expected it back, you got it back. However, in that case, I'd say the amount of aid that counts for is reduced -- this this case, I'd count it as the cost of having a Legend Lore spell cast for you, which would not have been sufficient to earn you the bonus (which in turn would have resulted in the group not getting the 2nd prestige).

However, I believe the fault was mine in not being 100% clear about the status of the ring, and the value of the ring is far in excess of the amount of aid required to earn the bonus.

I suggest the following: You needed to provide 2,500 gold to get the full bonus; How about you keep your ring, but consider the potion consumed and add and expenditure of (2,500 gold - the value of the potion) on your chronicle? That way, you earned the bonus (and therefore the 2nd prestige), but you aren't unfairly penalized for the lack of clarity on your GM's part. :-)


Just re-reading this prepping for tomorrow, and noticed that the subtier 12-13 statblock for Loaralis give her 2 bites, while the subtier 14-15 statblock does not. Is that correct/intentional?

Yankee Beatdown

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's a fantasy world. The rocks can be happy if they want to be. You can ask them.

Pathfinder fails to establish that rocks are sentient. Therefore, all that is accomplished is confusion and dilution of the definition of "happy."

People..."evil" has a meaning. Applying the label in a way that ignores the definition of the word is no more useful than declaring that rocks are happy.

"See? It says rocks are happy right there in the rules!"

Still meaningless. :P

pH unbalanced wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.

A screwdriver can be evil...if it is composed of evil.

On Golarion, a person, or a screwdriver, or a spell is evil in exactly the same way that a solution is acidic.

Evil as a physical property is illogical. Not only is it not real, but it can't be explained, except by repeating that it is evil.

It's fine that that doesn't bother you -- that's great. Suspension of disbelief for the win. That doesn't mean it makes sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
All we really know is that the spell is evil. That's all we've got in the rules. Why it's evil is left undefined.

Which is the whole point, really. No one is disputing the rules say those spells are evil. They're pointing out that it an arbitrary designation that doesn't bear any relationship to the already established meaning of the word "evil."

The rules could state that love is evil. All that would accomplish is chaos (as is the case here).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."

That's an archetypal circular argument.

But I have way, Way, WAY less of an emotional investment in this topic than some appear to, so by all means, have fun. :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?

Enslavement? :P

Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").

Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:

Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.

Does the idea disturb you in any way?

How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?

Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?

Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.

"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."


thejeff wrote:

And we're off again with a new contestant making the same argument.

House rule it. Add some consequences that make it make sense to you. Suspend your disbelief so you can enjoy the game.

Or you know, rant about how one more thing in the Pathfinder rule set doesn't make sense as world building.

Dude...what's with the hostility? the guy asked. I'm not the one ranting...

P.S. You're better than that.

People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.

Consider using Animate Dead to create skeletons in order to protect orphans from attack, or to evacuate a burning building full of invalids, or to work the fields and stave off starvation when there aren't enough laborers.

They might as well have a rule that says down is up.

*drums fingers*

I need this to kill-, er, challenge some characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules for beyond level 20

Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome. I strongly suggest you join a message-board gang if you want to survive. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.

That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.

Objective good is the entire issue! there actually a debate going on about how many lbs. of adamantine are in an adamantine golem?

Personally, I don't find that interesting or enjoyable. To each their own, I guess. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should a creature made of adamantine bypass DR/adamantine? I think the answer is obviously yes, but by RAW, it appears the answer is no.

This is why overly codified rules can be as bad/worse than vague rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:

So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?

What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?

p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide

"If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same

You forgot to drop the mic at the end.

Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

The thing that annoys me about made-up names in RPGs is when players decide to make jokes about them, and then use the joke-name at all times.

** spoiler omitted **

In my Rise game...


"Commander Bayden" became "Master Batin'"

I was sad. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:


You can move around using a only one leg.

Prerequisites: Dex 13

Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.

Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:

1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.

2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.

To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.

Blech. No thanks.

Aelryinth wrote:

or Hide in shadows/move silently into Stealth, or Open Locks/Remove Traps into disable device?


For whatever reason, the Open Locks Remove Traps thing doesn't bother me as much as the others, but yeah. :)

Axial wrote:
In my opinion "Norgorber" doesn't sound serious or intimidating enough,

"Norgorber" makes me thing of someone with a serious case of chest congestion. :P

It would be less wrong than combining Spot and Listen into Perception. ;-)

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Almost all jobs today are MAD.

The reason for this is that the SAD jobs, by and large, have been automated away. There's no job requiring only Strength that can't be done better, faster, and cheaper by machinery, and of course machines have unlimited stamina and hence will beat any human at the Constitution department. Even Intelligence, untempered by common sense or social skills, is pretty valueless because those are the jobs that computers have been used for since the 1950s.

(Did you know that "computer" used to be a job? A "computer" was a person that you would hand complicated math problems to, like adding up a column of numbers. They didn't have to understand the actual problem they were doing, or why they were extracting square roots of strange numbers. So they were essentially human adding machines and/or calculators. Now, of course, I have a calculator for those tasks and it cost me less to buy the calculator than it would take to pay an hour's salary to a human.)

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd draw a clear distinction between being effective and getting promoted. Personally, I think CHA is probably the most important stat for the latter. Since I have the charisma of a burning, venomous cactus...

P.S. Thanks for not misspelling "column." :P

ShinHakkaider wrote:

This is my Marvel movie Order of Awesome.

Captain America 2: the Winter Soldier
Iron Man
Captain America: the First Avenger
Avengers 2: Age of Ultron
Iron Man 3
Thor 2: the Dark World
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2

Very close to my own, though I'd probably switch Thor and Thor 2, and both Ant-Man and Guardians would slot in above Avengers 2.

I suppose I should clarify what I mean when I say Int is useless in Corporate America. For some jobs, it is necessary, but not sufficient, if you wish to do well. No one with an IQ of 75 is going to excel in, say, financial accounting or product engineering. Marketing or management, however, and all bets are off. ;-)

In any case, things like drive, charisma, and the ability to read a social situation and position oneself accordingly seem far more important than intelligence when it comes to climbing the corporate ladder. Hell, sometimes self confidence, warranted or not, is the most important factor. YMMV.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

Commoner 1


Profession (linguist) +2

I'm not sure I'm buying it. No one with a Wis of 6 would have such a firm grasp of their own limitations. ;-)

Here's one thing I find interesting about Str in particular: It's not fixed.

I'm 6' tall, somewhat stocky, and a very fat 280lbs. I figure my strength is 10 based on the following: I'm stronger than almost any woman I've met, I'm easily stronger than my 17 years old son, and I have heft 50lbs without much difficulty.

BUT if I undertook a serious strength training regimen, my strength would be 12 in two months, and probably 14 in six to nine months.

Con is the same way, though to a lesser extent.

Hell, Int is probably the hardest stat to change. Wisdom comes with age, and I can exercise to increase Str, Con, and Dex. I can make a conscious effort to be nicer to people, or just come to empathize more with them and therefore treat them better. But there's not that much I can do to make myself smarter. More knowledgeable? Sure. But not smarter.

And for the record, high Int isn't all that great. I'm someplace north of 130 (though honestly probably not very far), and I can tell you that, in Corporate America at least, intelligence is roughly as useful as a bucket of steaming hamster vomit. Actually less so, because you could dump out the vomit and be left with a perfectly good, albeit dirty, bucket. :P

Diffan wrote:
Cha 14 - I've been known to change some people's minds, even convinced a few people to enjoy 4th Edition!

CHA 20!

(I kid; I like 4th edition).

captain yesterday wrote:
My favorite Marvel movie to date is Ant-Man.

I liked Ant-Man, but apparently a little less than you do. No biggie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. This is the first time I've seen the majority of people give themselves high wis and low cha instead. Maybe it's due to the TTRPG gamer demographic becoming older, more self-reflective, and realizing that they're introverted nerds.

I think people who would understand, let alone answer, this particular question probably have a higher than average Int and lower than average Cha.

For myself, My IQ has been empirically measured to be at least 130 on multiple occasions. I've tested into MENSA, scored in the 89th or 90th percentile of the LSAT with almost no preparation, and excelled in honors and "gifted" courses throughout my academic career.

On the other hand, in the unlikely event that anyone doubts my Cha of 7, I invite them to review my posting history. ;-)

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That rather depends on who else is in the room... ;-)

Ok, fine. So it was a broom closet, and the janitor wasn't present. :)

Deadmanwalking wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I'd say an IQ of 140 is a solid 18. There's no 1 in 216 people have an IQ of 140+; it's probably more like 1 in 300. IQ 145, which is 3 standard deviations above the mean, is .15% of the population, or ~1/666.

Well, I'm well below genius level, which makes for issues with giving me a maxed score. Heck, I've met several people smarter than me personally, and I'm not exactly inclined to met huge numbers of people (the people I get to know do tend towards the smarter end of things, though).

So...such people definitely exist, and that's not even counting the people way smarter than me like Stephen Hawking.

Right....of course, then we're getting into questions like "what level is Stephen Hawking?" :P

I have certainly encountered people far smarter than myself. If we're going to say 18 is the maximum human intelligence, then my own intelligence is more like a 12 or 13. I guess it really depends on what, exactly, a straight 3d6 is intended to represent.

As for you, IQ 145 is the definition of genius, so 140 is not far off. Remember, of course, that 145 is the bottom of genius. And when you're talking about smart, it's all relative. My IQ is around 130, and I like to put it this way: I'm often the smartest person in the long as I'm in a fairly small room. ;-)

1 to 50 of 7,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.