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. 7,451 posts (7,568 including aliases). 81 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

arioreo wrote:
I was kinda hoping paizo would produce differently coloured bases (blue, red, green for instance) though your suggestions might work too.

I have expressed the same wish myself; however, it probably isn't worth it for them. :-/

On the bright side, I find that the "loom bands" are cheap, easy to find, and work on all three bases sizes. Just stretch them over the clip that holds the pawn before placing the pawn in the base. Works great for me.


Stretch some of these around the bases...

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

Thanks again for everyone who had provided updates.

Not really any surprises here. Occult Adventures looks to be the most interesting (much more so than I expected, at least), followed by Bestiary 5, and then by Ultimate Intrigue (in which I really have no interest). A very...conservative slate, imho. I had hoped -- though not expected -- to see a revised core or something else which would really shake things up. Oh well, maybe next year.

In the meantime, I'm really looking forward to Flip-Mat: Bigger Basic.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Edit: Please tell me that thing about the Rusty Dragon mini set case incentive is a joke.

Why? It's pretty awesome.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
am ded. five hour special killeded meh.

Disgraceful. :P

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

Sweet; keep those updates coming for those of us who are home-bound this year! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I assume that's why they keep on making new ones...they are on the third iteration of it already.

I'm not sure that's a valid inference; they probably had to commit to the second -- if not the third -- set before they knew how well the first one sold.


Skeld wrote:
From my outside-looking-in POV, the card game seems to be doing fine. I'd be more concerend about "splitting focus" with the card game if they didn't have a dedicated set of developers working it.

I appreciate that there are separate folks working on it; I just think extra people means extra coordination overhead, splitting mgmt attention, etc. There is much to be said for small and focused.

Then again, my perception is probably colored by my personal feelings about the card game. I find it to be decent, but unremarkable, which isn't good enough to compete in the midst of a card and board game renaissance. There are just too many exceptional card games out there (Sushi Go, Coup, Machi Koro, Love Letter, Smash Up, etc.) for me to care much about PACG.

It also seems like a new core set every six months is a tough sell. Sure, lots of people will buy the first, and maybe the second, but then what? I can't see much of a market for a fourth or fifth variation on the same (expensive) game.

Time will tell, I guess.

Skeld wrote:
PFO looks, to me, like a blackhole. It's sucked in a bunch of resources and hasn't produced much. At least the impression of my players that jumped on the KS is that they are wholly unimpressed and wouldn't bother with it at all if it weren't currently getting KS benefits. Maybe Paizo/Golblinworks will turn it around, but I'm not holding my breath.

Truthfully, I've never been able to see why anyone ever thought that PFO was a good idea. But again, time will tell.


Steve Geddes wrote:

You may be right about the ultimate trajectory (I don't really have any datapoints so I haven't got a clue). However, given the speed at which the first printing sold out, I think it should probably be given credit as being very successful initially.

I can't imagine Vic, Lisa and the rest (Erik and Chris, perhaps?) being so risk averse with print run sizes that a moderate success would sell out in a few months.

I have no data either, just anecdotes and speculation, but what amounts to tossing the whole game every six months just seems like a fatal design flaw to me. The card game also seems tertiary to the the RPG, and so possibly germane to a discussion about whether Paizo is splitting its focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
So don't make it sound like I'm invalidating anyone, that was not my intent. Sorry if that was unclear. I guess I see a difference between want and need.

Sorry for getting my hackles up.

If you want to be technical, I guess I don't need indoor plumbing, but I sure as hell wouldn't willing live without it.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Why do people need HeroLabs? I seem to get by just fine without it.

First of all it's HeroLab. Singular.

Second, good for you. However, people are different, and probably feel that they need for Herolab for a variety of reasons. Just because you don't share those reasons doesn't make them invalid.


I definitely think companies have a tendency to grow, grow grow, sometimes without even a clear reason why. Is Paizo there? I frankly have no idea. However, in my opinion there have been some warning signs:

1. Trying to write a VTT in-house. Pathfinder definitely needs VTT support, but please just get in bed with Roll20.net already.
2. PACG. I think this is going to go from moderately successful to marginal to money sink.
3. Pathfinder Online. Not sure this really counts, though, as Lisa had the foresight to spin off Goblinworks.

All just my $.02, of course.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the Sandpoint Box a thing yet?

How about now?


Excellent; really appreciate the responsiveness on Paizo's part.


James Sutter wrote:
That said, yeah, 50% ads would have been *decadent*.

Have you ever opened up a Cosmo (the magazine, not the person)?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Americans complaining.

Yeah, most of us have it pretty good (white males especially -- but once again, that's another thread).


thorin001 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Honestly don't see how anyone with a clear grasp on the english language doesn't see 1.5*dex on 2HF and 1* and .5* on 2WF.
They do, they just do not want to allow any bonuses to work.

Ah yes, the "other guy must be disingenuous" gambit.

Again, I don't care what the ruling is -- I just want it to be clear. While you may think it is clear, I do not find your arguments convincing. This does not mean I'm (a) lying, (b) illiterate, or (c) stupid.

Do you guys really not get why your behavior is a problem?


thorin001 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

Then it is your contention that this rule

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

can be interpreted to mean that your attack bonus with a melee weapon is actually 'level + Wisdom modifier + size modifier. Since the words have no meaning.

And that, my friends, is as close to a white flag as you'll ever see on the Internet.
Pointing out the absurdities of an argument is not raising a white flag.

Nope. But gross misrepresentation of an argument -- which is clearly what you engaged in -- is. Words can be ambiguous != words have no meaning whatsoever. Clearly fallacious.

It's OK; people on the Internet willing to admit when they're wrong are as rare as hen's teeth. I won't hold it against you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Americans complaining about fuel prices...

'Murica.


Things I have learned in this thread:

* I don't know the difference between RAI and RAW.
* I don't have a good grasp of the English language.
* I'm being willfully obtuse to support my preferred interpretation (which is especially odd, as I don't have a preferred interpretation; I just want clarity).

Oh well. :P


Definitely depends on the terrain, but more often than not, probably not. :)

I agree that is seems more like a GM call than an FAQ item.


Which means it is either your perception, or the "grasp on the english language" of everyone who disagrees with you that is flawed.

I like my odds. :P

(Apologies, but your post seems to be a thinly-veiled way to say "if you disagree with me, you obviously don't have a firm grasp of English.")


thorin001 wrote:

Then it is your contention that this rule

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

can be interpreted to mean that your attack bonus with a melee weapon is actually 'level + Wisdom modifier + size modifier. Since the words have no meaning.

And that, my friends, is as close to a white flag as you'll ever see on the Internet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.

Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The kicker is that monsters don't actually follow the rules for characters, because whenever a designer wants to fudge the numbers, he simply throws in a "racial bonus."

Besides, why would monster design require the same level of detail character design does? Do we really care whether the blacksmith has knowledge (local)? No, we don't. We only care about craft (blacksmith). Do I care whether that orc has X ranks of stealth? Nope. All I care about is the final #, not how you got there.

Designing monsters using character rules is crazy talk.

Also, assumed bonuses need to die in a fire. :)


Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, no one here is arguing anything but RAW.

This. Attempting to treat the RAW (as you perceive it) as some sort of moral high ground is in poor taste.


Writing is often ambiguous. Observe:

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on a train on the back of an envelope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GMPCs are the devil's work.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.

Agreed. Things like the 5E shield spell are amazing cool uses of the immediate action.


kaisc006 wrote:

Over 200 posts and still none citing rules text that links with Finesse Training to support no 1.5 Dex...

Triune wrote:
See my above posts for an example of this standard not being applied in other cases. Another quick example.

Look at CRB, Combat Champter, Damage. Since Finesse Training applies to the damage roll, it follows rules listed within this section.

Wielding a Weapon in Two-Hands: When you deal damage with a weapon the you are wielding two-handed, you add 1 1/2 times your Strength bonus (penalties are not multiplied).

So, Str bonus = A positive Str modifier & Str penalty = A negative Str modifier

Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(Str bonus)

Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(A positive Str modifier)

Finesse Training means Replace Str Modifier with Dex Modifier

So, Str bonus = A positive Dex modifier

Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(Str bonus)

Two-Handed Damage = 1.5(A positive Dex modifier)

You are changing what Str bonus initially means, but not the rest of the equation.

You know what? I'm sure you making this argument for the 16th time will totally work better than the last 15. SURELY IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't see a Pathfinder revisions going too far afield, especially with there being so much potential for improvement without doing so.


p-sto wrote:
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.

I disagree. Part of what I pay Paizo for is clear rules, because I don't want to think through the balance implications myself.

In essence, making these decisions is what being a game-designer is about.


Berinor wrote:
My goal is also to say that it's unclear.

One would think that at this point that would be self-evident. :-/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
It's the internet. Pretty sure that's what it was invented for.

Perhaps. But I keep coming back to this thread to see if any developers have chimed in, but instead all I see are the same arguments being rehashed. Doesn't make for a helpful signal-to-noise ratio.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone actually somehow believe that restating their perspective for the 15th time is suddenly going to convince everyone?

Spoiler:

It's not going to happen!

Clarification is plainly required. Or do you guys enjoy arguing? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.

Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF 2 is not inevitable. Neither is humanity living to see tomorrow.

Both are quite likely, however.

And let's face it, that's really what this thread is about: People who don't want a new edition -- ever -- arguing that, despite how this has gone every other time, it will be different this time.

Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but...good luck with that.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want this thread to be about a new edition, rather than D&D 5E.


So...is it clear that this isn't clear yet? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...this is a multi-page argument about whether it's clear or not; I'm pretty sure the question has answered itself...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It doesn't say that it replaces the strength modifier. Its, raw, a bonus equal to your dex bonus to damage instead of your strength modifier. That would be 1x dex on an elven curve blade, and 1x dex on something for two weapon fighting.

Interesting; I hadn't considered that.

Hopefully this will make it to the top of the FAQ list.


Unless clarified otherwise, I'm aligning with the Agile weapon property: No 1.5x Dex to dmg.

Undoubtedly this makes me irredeemably evil, utterly moronic, or both. ;-)

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

That...is awesome. Thank you!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chocolate Thief wrote:
Unfortunately as a public sector worker here in the UK where a new Conservative government has just been elected I am getting poorer all the time. I'll have to cut at least one sub. Oh well, with a sense of perspective that is not what I call hardship.

I wouldn't expect things to get better. Stateside conservative ideology pretty much views public sector employees as being welfare recipients. :-(


Andrew Betts wrote:
I run all my games online and any higher res for the maps would make it unplayable. The files are already plenty big enough that it takes players and me too long to download.

I can't imagine why they couldn't continue to offer a low res version. Or you could make one yourself before uploading the map to your VTT of choice. Throwing away data is easy, after all.


Abraham spalding wrote:

I wonder if talent costs are a sigificant part of this.

One of the ironies of helping people make it in a field like this is they can then charge more for their work for you (as the work is more in demand).

Actually, adding more people to the labor pool doesn't increase demand; it increases supply, pushing down the equilibrium price (i.e. salary) of game designers.

While I'm sure the cost of labor in RPG design is very significant, my guess is that this particular change is largely driven by increased printing costs.


avr wrote:
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.

Only if you still believe RPGs are (or are intended to be) comprehensive world simulators.

Spoiler:

Hint: They aren't.


Skeld wrote:

It's funny you say that because I originally had something to that effect in my post, but I edited it out.

A revised CRB would be nice, the problem is that a revision would require a change to the pagination and that is something Paizo has been hesitant to do because it would break the CRB references in every other thing they've published. That's a value judgement on Paizo's part: is a revised CRB worth breaking references everywhere else?

The problem with PF2e (at least right now) is that everyone has a different idea of what it should be, what constitutes too many changes, and what isn't enough. It's a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of risk.

-Skeld

Re-pagination is a definite concern. Personally, I would gladly suffer it for a cleaned up book; then again, I'm more about saving time/ease of play than I am saving money on books. I completely get that that equation is different for each of us.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually like to see the return of the PHB/DMG split.

That would allow things like archetypes and traits to be added to the Core Rules (aka the PHB) without making the book even larger. Between re-organization, re-writing, and trimming the GM stuff, they should be able to get the Core Rules down to 384 pages (or even 320) pages (and maybe even down to $39.99).

Sure a separate GM's guide would mean a higher barrier to entry for GMs, but it would probably be a win for most players. It would certainly make for a stronger binding. ;-)

1 to 50 of 7,451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.