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. 7,705 posts (7,822 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,705 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Katina Davis wrote:

So sorry we missed this thread! I've taken a look, and the pawns in the Beginner Box are all medium-sized except for the few Large monsters. No smaller pawns for lil' guys like goblins. And there are no markings to denote that they are from the Beginner Box.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if there are any further questions or concerns that you may have and I'll be glad to help out.


Yup; just what I wanted to know. Thanks!

Arufets of Canada wrote:
Once I have mine I'll make a note if someone else doesn't.


No one who has received the latest printing of the Beginner Box is willing to comment, eh? :-/

anneth42 wrote:

Just got mine today.

Thank you and I have been nothing but impressed with how all of this has been handled.
Keep up the good work!

I appreciate the updates and info as they came out.

Out of curiosity, does the newest printing have different sized pawns for small creatures (goblins, etc.), and do the pawns have a symbol to indicate they came with the BB?

Thanks! :)

the Haunted Jester wrote:
I doubt the pages are as thick as the Core Rulebook which may help in the longevity of the product.

I dunno...thickness of the book overall looks the same in the pictures.

Interesting question. Even though it may mean going to print with "outdated" copies of the pocket edition, perhaps they'll keep the reprints based on hard-cover stock? Or maybe potentially introduce a new printing whenever the stock of either version runs out?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that it will be modestly successful and not really affect Pathfinder much.

But of course that's just that...a guess.


Adamantine all the way.

Personally, the best way I've found to keep pawns organized and easily accessible is to keep them in the cardboard "sprues" in which they come.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
That's... unexpected.

Agreed. I did NOT see that coming.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Like I said, I understand that feeling. But his work on Iron Gods (and Eberron back in the day) is very good...

No is pretty darn subjective. I know many people like WAR. I just think a different game should look different, right down to art style. YMMV.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
I'm not impressed by the art though. Please get WAR front and centre. ;)

No's past time for a new direction in RPG art. Besides, a distinct game deserves a distinct look.

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.

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.

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).

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

1 person 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. >:(

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.

1 to 50 of 7,705 << 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.