noretoc's page

My opinions any why below.

So these two feats provide a few odd interactions with different abilities.

The feats read as follows
** spoiler omitted **
So the important two lines between them are "you can make melee attacks with the chosen weapon as if it were a heavy mace" and "you can apply any feats and class abilities you possess that modify your ranged attack rolls and damage rolls with the chosen weapon to melee attack rolls and damage rolls made with that weapon."

Question 1: Can you use both Deadly Aim and Power Attack on melee attacks with your 'chosen weapon'? - Yes, as deadly aim is a feat that modifies attack rolls.

Question 2: Can you use feats like rapid shot to melee attacks with this line? - No, while there is a component in feats like this that may modify the attack rolls, the main part of the feat is an extra attack. The style calls out attack roll and damage roll modifiers.

Question 3: If you have weapon training with both Heavy Mace and Bows then do you get to apply both to melee attacks? No - You can use both, but the bonuses would not stack. Its effectively the same source.

Question 4/5: Can you take both Weapon Focus Longbow and Weapon Focus Heavy Mace and apply them both to melee attack rolls? Would the same apply to the rest of the Weapon Specialization and Weapon Focus line? - no As above with stacking.

David knott 242 wrote:

I rather favor the Narnian definition of cannibalism -- you don't eat anything that you could have held a conversation with.

Tends to be my personal opinion for when it matters.

As far as this case, though... I'd look at how the same characters treated non-enemy human/humanoid corpses. If they'd respectfully cremate an elf they found murdered, or similar, generally showing respect for humanoid dead, and they know unicorns are sentient and usually Good, then I wouldn't change their alignments, but I would let them know it wasn't very nice of them and point out any relevant deities who might disapprove. (I imagine Desna rather likes unicorns, for example.) As far as the using it for dragon bait, I'd consider it somewhat justified as long as it was in the spirit of "for the greater good" and not just for the lulz, and they actually thought it was their best idea, but still a gray area unless it's their general opinion on how to treat bodies.

(Also, would the dragon even want its meat pre-cooked? I'd think they'd generally be a little weirded out by that, unless they were expecting it as a tribute.)

This. A unicorn is a sentient creature, just like any other. More good then most. If the players had come across a group of orcs, trussing up a bunch of elves, would the party think it is a good idea to cook one up to lure a dragon? Then while discussing it, think about eating said elf.

I'll add an opinion. What is the point of this discussion. Someone got banned. If that person has an issue, then they should discuss it with the mods. Why should I care, it has nothing to do with me. His rights weren't violated. He doesn't have a "right" to state his opinion on this forum in any way he wants. This isn't a street corner. His Ban doesn't affect me, and it doesn't really affect anyone else here that wasn't involved in the situation. If I have a post deleted, or I am banned and I have an issue with it I will contact the mods to find out why.
The whole purpose of this public display seems like it is an to rile some people up into making some bad decisions. My opinion, is to see to your own house. If you have an issue take it up with the mods. If they don't listen, find another playground, this is the internet, there are plenty our there. It is not like you are getting kicked out of your house. Stop trying to gather the peasants to grab pitchforks and go after you perceived adversaries. Be an adult, handle your business, let people handle theirs.

I totally disagree with this philosophy, as a DM I'm trying to run a game my players enjoy if me handwaving their abilities away impedes that then thats my problem not theirs. They aren't roleplaying characters in my novel, if their character can do something then they can do something simple as that.

Also this logic "If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here." when applied to the scenario the player has described basically equates to. Do your best to enjoy being railroaded.

Quote:

Now if you are playing with a DM who is always making errors on the way things work, then it is time to step in and ask. But if it's a new DM, Start with that trust first. It's only a game after all, no one really gets hurt. If he squanders that trust, oh well, now you know better wjen playing with him later.

It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.

Wow, talk about entitlement. So it's the DM's job to plan the game, run the game, handle all the NPCs, know every rule, rearrange the entire story, throwing away all the work he did, if a player feels that he is not having enough fun. Would you like the DM to pick you up, bring you home, provide a meal and pay you $35 a session for the pleasure of running a game for you. Also do you feel this way about just yourself or every player? What if you want to kill the king, and another player want to save him. Is it the GM's job to somehow appease you both, or are you ok with you getting what you want and the other player not having a good time.

I think how I would react to a situation like this depends on how much I trust my GM. I am the most rules knowledgeable in our group, so situations usually work like this:

Me: I cast acid arrow at the large metal man that I failed to identify!
GM: It slides off the creature as if it were nothing!
Me: You know that golems are only immune to spells that allow spell resistance, right?
GM: ummm... the creature, that is most certainly not a golem, is burned by the acid.

However, I have a lot of trust in that GM, so if he responded to my rules reminder with an "I know." Then I would try to figure out what was different about the situation, or just roll with it. We had a boss fight where the villain had multiple forms. When she transformed, she pushed everyone around her back with no save. My response was "that's pretty weird, there should be a save for things like that. Especially since one of us got pushed into the spiked walls in the room." He just said that this was part of the plan I dropped it, and the fight was really fun.

I've played with another GM where I had a character with scent and he took every opportunity to either deny its usefulness or to shaft me with terrible smells making me nauseated. Predictably I would rarely give him the benefit of the doubt when I thought he was wrong.

Long story short: if you are GMing you have to earn your players trust before you can throw curve-balls like this and not have players get upset.

There are lots of strategies for doing this. First of all, you should know the rules well. Second, don't depart from the rules too often; variety is the spice of life, but not the whole meal. Third, when players are confused about something you could clue them into information their characters know to demonstrate that you are on the ball. Consider the comprehend languages example:

Player: I cast Comprehend Languages.
GM: It fails.
Player: What?
GM: Wally the wizard knows that comprehend languages fails on codes and ciphers. It is not a perfect system, it is...

I agree with this except for one thing. If you are playing in someone's game he should not have to earn your trust first. He is the one going through the time to build the game and run it for you. You should give him the benefit of the doubt, that he knows what he is doing. If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here."

I can't believe that this is an issue at all. Should the DM provide all the monster stats, and puzzles so the player can have a satisfactory explanation on why they beat the challenge is three turns instead of two. The DM doesn't owe anyone any explanation. If this question came up in my game my answer would have been "Hmm, yes it didn't work, strange huh?" You aren't entitled to any explanation. If it bothers your character, have him take a rubbing and try to find out why. Then the DM can make it part of the game. If it bothers you a a player, well, then be bothered.
I give the DM props for trying to give you an explanation that you had no right to, even if it was clumsy.

Now before I start getting replies of "well the spell says" or "You can't arbitrarily change the rule". Yes I can. In fact it is my duty to change things up and make things not work the way you expect. Otherwise you are playing a board game.

Out of no were the newest player begins chiming in interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away.

There were a lot of thing that could have been done better, but I will give advice on this. My answer when someone comments on the actions of my monsters or npcs is "You would think that huh? hmm..." And they leave it at that. You don't need to explain. If their character thinks its strange or they should have acted differently, let them.

Devil's advocating is probably one of the smartest ways to examine an issue. It pushes it into a slightly different perspective to force one's self, and others to look at it from a different perspective. <The Devil's Advocate was originally a position intended to force priests and such to think about their decision before taking their vows or making laws, essentially arguing the worst case scenario or what other issues something might lead to. In a lot of ways like an interactive psych exam.>

That is, to actually think about it and see if the original assumptions you had actually hold water, and also to understand why other sides may think the way they do.

Refusing to do so really just shows that you have made up your mind, and you are making a choice to not allow yourself to learn or change despite the possibility or existence of evidence.

Here is my issue. Why do I need to be open to other opinions. This isn't law where you are determining guilt or innocence. It is a game. If a poster asks about a rule, and I give them my interpretation, why do you (figuratively) need to give me other options? I am not asking for your input. I am answering the original post, whit what I feel is the best answer I can give. You should do the same, with out even involving me. Now if I get something that is obviously wrong about something else, I understand you wanting to correct me. If the original question was about best uses for power attack and I say with a light weapon as it double damage. I can see you coming in and saying "sorry, but light weapons don't provide double damage". That way undisputed errors are not passed around. But if I say its only good for two handed. Why do you feel the need to show all the options and engage me directly about it. If you have a different opinion that you think the OP might be interested in, just state it, and let them decide. Obviously I am ok in my opinion, I am having fun with it, and I think it is fine, otherwise I wouldn't be telling the OP about it. I don't need or want someone to come in and play devils advocate to get me to explore other options. I'm not the one who posted the original question. Let me tell my side, you tell yours, and we will both happily play our way, while the OP get a few different opinions to see which is best for him.

Not really my circus or my monkeys, but one positive side I can see for a Rules Questions Subforum is I'd know right where to go to get a question answered.

If you can get an answer... Half the time there are twenty page of one guy saying yes and another saying no, or, if you have a simple question everyone tells you anything but your answer. I'll paste my opinion of the latter from another thread.

OP: Hi all, I want to create a pet bird for my monk, Anyone know where I can find a stat block for a owl?

P1: If you want a pet go ranger
p2 A monkey would be better for a monk
p3: You could take one level in synthesist and become a bird
p4: Moneys can use quarterstaves
p5: Why would you want a pet for your monk, they don't add anything to flurry, and monks suck.
TOZ:monkey brains are good with ketchup
p6 ask you DM for a fiendish velocoraptor. If he doesn't give it it you create a synthisist/alchemist and create one yourself.
p7 if you think monks suck, it because you aren't using the right archetype...
p8 I like ketchup
p9 Mustard!!!
p10 About monks and flurry of blows being broken...
etc...etc...etc...

Somewhere on page 5 someone will link to a animal stat collection, but by that time the OP has stopped looking at the thread.

Cheap pre-baked pizza with chorizo sausage and corn.

CORN on pizza?!?!?! WTH?!? Are you an alien?

Someone on FB posted a picture of a leaf impaled on a thorn...

"I'm a leaf on the...oh..."

How would you suggest voicing displeasure in the result? Vic is saying, afterall, that to get the fixed print version, you must buy it twice, essentially. It's a gun to the head scenario. "Give us what we want or else you don't get updates to the product you already paid for." He simply couched in terms of needing to get rid of existing product. That's a poor policy in general no matter how reasonably it is communicated. Secret Wizard's wording could have been better, but it's a perfectly valid complaint.

You are looking a this wrong. There is your individual point of view and the publisher's point of view. While yours may be better for you, the publisher's point of view is what is more important. Why? because they control the printing, AND they need to do what is best for business, or else you will not be getting any second, third or even first printings (If they end up losing too much money).

From their point of view they have 2000 books left. Why are they going to order more when they still have plenty to sell. Why would they trash those or sell them for less than top value instead of selling them for what their worth.
You may think they are not worth full value, or that they are not usable "as is" but you would be wrong. I know that for a fact as I use them just like they are with no issues.

I was gunning for him, but I did so reasonably, I think.

If it ever comes to this. My suggestion. Stop running games. Learn how to talk to people to prevent getting in this situation or let a DM who can handle it the right way run the game.

And instead of using the Thrawn trilogy, and digitally de-ageing the stars, he chose to disregard 30+ years of extended universe. Nice job. JJ. You putz.

This is actually the BEST DECISION EVA! Most of the Extended Universe is crap.

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

noretoc wrote:

Welcome to the Paizo Boards, where you ask how to help with a story idea and instead everyone instead decides to give you advice on what you did wrong, how things don't work like that, or how to not do what you already planned on doing instead of trying to help answer the question you asked.

And if you completely ignore a mechanic, which your players know about, which leads them to entirely erroneous conclusions, is that good GMing? Thus our providing the information about Bards not being allowed to use Silent Spell seems like useful information. When Brian sees Silent Spell being used, and he concludes, "well it can't be a Bard" you've just hosed the players, in no less of a way then if you were to arbitrarily change some other rule on the fly when it is disadvantageous to the PCs.

Sorry for the threadjack but what make you and wraithstrike think he needs the helps dealing with this more than what he asked? It's his game, give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing and maybe try to help with the piece that he is asking about, instead of assuming that he needs to be rescued by a bunch of unknown people on the internet. So what if a few rules are wrong, this isn't the rules forum and he is asking for story advice, not your rules suggestions.

Welcome to the Paizo Boards, where you ask how to help with a story idea and instead everyone instead decides to give you advice on what you did wrong, how things don't work like that, or how to not do what you already planned on doing instead of trying to help answer the question you asked.

Time travel is a really cool idea, especially if you go with the theme that you have to avoid you old selves or there could be consequences. Trying to stop yourselves without letting yourselves know that you are there can be interesting.

If the bad guy used an item or ritual, there is always finding a counter item/ritual to undo the damage. Since this is a magic utopia, it might be fun to play with the idea that only magic uses loyal to him survived through the years and now magic is unknown for anyone not a part of his cabal. Expect of course the characters which can make interacting with the regular folk troublesome. (distrust, fear, etc). Maybe throw in an underground resistance...
Heck if the PC were well known maybe there is a cult or group that has been trying to free them for the last so many years...

Hmm, I see the Paizo Voice mail with 28 messages each one angrier than the first, and a dude stalking the closed building on a BMX bike yelling "Where's my order"

Something is bothering me. What kind of player makes his character walk into the woods to go pee. Was there some strange rule that the character had to check to see if he was doing the pee pee dance? Did the DM tell him "Hey you have to pee" and then he decided that even though he has killed with these folks, he didn't want them to see his unit, so he had to go by himself into the woods while he knew he was being stalked by assassins.

Something fishy here.

Let us say you pick the elf subtype for bane, which is also your biggest favored enemy. You run across a non-favored enemy and cast instant enemy and suddenly they count as an elf for you, including your bane weapon. Totally legit.

Def don't agree with this. The spell says "you" may treat the target. The magical properties of your Bane weapon is not considered "you". Even reading the Bane weapon, it doesn't say "you" deal extra damage, it says "it" deals extra damage, meaning the weapon.

Well, If I was Paizo, I would be the one feeling like I got slapped in the face. I work hard for 12 months every year to get you what you want, and make a mistake just once, and everyone comes knocking telling me how dissapointed they are, and betrayed they feel. Good Grief. If a 2-3 week delay on a GAME order is a big enough issues in your life to take time to whine about it publicly, than consider yourself lucky.
Paizo, I was affected by this, and I had stuff in my order that I was waiting on hoping to play this weekend that I missed, but that is ok, because you guys have done fine by me in the past. Thanks for letting us know what happened, when most places would say "The was an issue with your order, estimated delivery time 1-2 weeks"

Instead of all the talk about getting the book, and scannign the pages, why not buy the PDF and print it.

I'm pretty certain the creature counts as a "material body" and you can't have the fireball wait until it gets 10 feet into the huge-sized creature and wait to detonate until it reaches the middle back square in order to control it's area of effect. It would detonate the moment it touches the creature, whatever edge that is.

Given that, it could also detonate when it comes into contact with any creature that happened to be in the way.

What makes you think the bead of the streaking fireball can make turns or change directions?

You asked for answers, they have been given. The reasons have been given. Yet you are dismissing them. Do you want people's opinions or just someone to agree with you?

I respectfully request that the Ice Tomb hex not receive any faq attention or Errata. As it has been one of the main topics of this thread, giving it attention will only encourage more threads like this one. Something we don't need. I am a DM, I can rule how it works for my players. When I play in someone else's game, I can ask the DM to make a ruling. I'm an adult and can live with whatever decision a DM makes about a mechanic in a game.
Please leave Ice Tomb just like it is.

WRoy wrote:

If you fail the Arcobatics check, you not only provoke an attack of opportunity but end the move action. Sometimes it's more important to suck an AoO for a guaranteed chance of movement, particulary if you have the Mobility feat and/or a high AC.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen another GM enforce that. Most think you get to keep moving just fine. Of course, when the GM is letting my fellow players get away with it, I'm certainly not going to point it out...

That because it doesn't. You only lose the move if you are moving through their space, not their threatened space. also, if your speed is reduced due to armor on encumbrance, you can't make the check, it is not allowed.

I am not a huge poster, but I do read a lot, and I do want to add a little bit. The moderation is pretty good, but I have noticed some mods who participate in some touchy threads. They have strong feelings about certain subjects and because of that moderation in that thread by that mod can seem very uncool. Even is the mod is doing their best to remain neutral, when it comes to some threads (Especially in the off topic forum), if a mod wants to participate in a thread that they are passionate about, they really should not be moderating that thread.

Note with things like gaming rules, or play tests, it is different, but for things like off topic threads, it is way to easy to seem like you are deleting posts that you don't agree with, if you are moderating and posting opinions.

Well , as long as the guy made himself useful , i dont mind.

But if someone comes up with some crazy concept that does not help and wants to be protected during fights ... well , he better pray , cause there is 0% chance im risking myself for him.

Better dead and making a more useful char next time.

Here is my take. I want you to play what is going to be most fun. If I had to pick between two new players.. One with a fighter that kills everything in one round. (Oh look you got him again, yea we beat the bad guy and get the foozle) or a player playing a gnome chef with no redeeming combat or social value, but has everyone laughing their buts off all night, then good bye fighter. I'm not in it for the win. There are video games for that. I here for the good time with friends or strangers, and the person that is best at that gets to be at my table, even if they can't make a character that manages to tie his shoes right.

Rocheworld by Robert L Forward.

Wow, well rather than give you another post that has nothing to do with what you are asking I'll highlight a couple of good responses you got and give you something to think about.
Tank is not a class. Its a video game term, and it doesn't work in pathfinder all that well. There is no magic number that you can get your damage to, that pulls agro, so you can use the rest of your points to buff AC. Think of it more like a real fight. What makes your players go after one monster above the others. Have your AC guys learn from that. There were some great suggestions up there buried in the ... I don't even know what to call it....
Magic spells that force them to attack the big AC guy. That is one way to help get the bad guys there. Also learning a bit about your opponent and what might get him to pay attention to you. Maybe know his language, and call him terrible names. Make it personal, wear a cologne that makes him crazy... Last, adjust the build. It is nice to have a huge AC but your players have found the problem with it. Walls made of stone are great, but really do nothing when the door is open. One way to make sure your AC guys are getting the attention they deserve is to make sure they are deadly enough if they are not focused on, that they are going to lay on the hurt badly. No one is going to ignore the guy that is hitting them for 25% of their hp at a whack even if he is wearing a titanium turtle shell.

Unfortunately as much as I like the company and the people that work here, I also find the board to be of little value. They are fun to come check out for a bit, but in my experience anyone looking for real information has to go elsewhere. From experience, it seems most post go like this.
OP: Hi all, I want to create a pet bird for my monk, Anyone know where I can find a stat block for a owl?
P1: If you want a pet go ranger
p2 A monkey would be better for a monk
p3: You could take one level in synthesist and become a bird
p4: Moneys can use quarterstaves
p5: Why would you want a pet for your monk, they don't add anything to flurry, and monks suck.
TOZ:monkey brains are good with ketchup
p6 ask you DM for a fiendish velocoraptor. If he doesn't give it it you create a synthisist/alchemist and create one yourself.
p7 if you think monks suck, it because you aren't using the right archetype...
p8 I like ketchup
p9 Mustard!!!
p10 About monks and flurry of blows being broken...
etc...etc...etc...

Somewhere on page 5 someone will link to a animal stat collection, but by that time the OP has stopped looking at the thread.

Can a thief use disable device to lock a door, rather then unlock?

I think this is impossible to attempt because this class as presented is unplayable.

I'm pretty sure I could play it. Yup, just wrote in on my sheet. Nothing caught on fire. It's playable.

I would take standard feats. PA or Dodge tree. If its a playtest, might as well see how it is without anything special.

Greetings Paizoans,

I just read an article on Cracked.com which indicated that only .002% of people who look at a Forum/Chatroom/Message Board on the Internet ever actually post anything there. At all. This included repeat traffic and readers who peruse webpages of interest to them on a regular basis.

I actually think that number is high. In fact I am pretty sure 99.9% of the posters on this board are all alias's of a single paizo intern who may have gone mad after being locked in the warehouse and the remaining two are you and I. (And honestly, I'm not so sure about me).

It's not meant to be "fun". It's meant to be a creature using its strengths to destroy its enemies.

sigh

This is a terrible idea. Thje last thing I hope anyone would want if for a four hour session to turn into an hour of "But here it says this, and there this guy said that, and on this date this was posted, but over here it means.... and so on and so on. The DM is there to make these decisions. If you don't like that, then I put this very bluntly. Go play another game. If you can't deal with the fact that you are not always going to have things go your way exactly, you need to do something else. The point of playing is to have a good time with people. If you cant do that because a DM rules against you, play something else. I know I say that harshly, and three times times, but I mean it seriously. Don't waste you time and the other play's time by arguing, posturing, pulling out rules, etc. Go with the flow, enjoy the game, and if you can't, play something else.

Thanks Tact, and everyone else who responded. Soem great ideas here. I think I am going with most of yours you made some great suggestions.

I think that any item that is crafted or enchanted in a way that makes it easier to hit or damage someone, turns that item into an official weapon, rather than an improvised one. The minute the crowbar maker, crafts the crowbarbar masterfully in a way to make it eaiser to hit people, he has just turned it into a masterwork club.

Now if he made it masterwork for its intended use (opening up crates) then it would not give its bonus to hit, and would still be improvised if using it as a weapon.

Because I didn't write the rule for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes.
Because I didn't develop the rule for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes.
Because there is a lot in the book that's not clear.

Sean says it's Jason's fault.

I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying.

Does anyone think it's ironic, this is being argued by a guy who works and supports a company that copied Dungeons and Dragons?

I really, really think you guys need to revisit ammunition and give it some serious consideration as a way to increase fun, provide a wide range of tactical options and increase the flexibility of classes. Just put one resource on it for the next PF release. Trust me, your customers will love it.

Please don't. It is fine the way it is. I'm a customer. I would not love it.

Dont see anything worng at all with bringing back an old thread either. Why start all over again, regardless of how old the original was?

MY approach is always to hit him in the hand with a hammer as hard as you can. Then leave the hammer on the table. It reduces the number of future rules lawyering attempts.

What do you all think about this?

i think for 5ed to succeed big, wizards really need to decide what it is going to be. That I feel was a problem with 4ed. They started out trying to make it more video gamey. (People may yell at this, but there is no doubt in my mind. Things like daily powers for all classes, marks, etc are staples of a multiplayer video games.) They were trying to pull some of the market which is understandable, because it is huge. The problem is that they cant compete with a video game. While there are definite overlaps, most video game players are visual. When they hear about D&D it will sound cool, and they will want to try it, because of a lot of the shared elements, but most will go back for the visual stimulation.

4ed also jumped on the card market. Not because they were trying to get card players, I don't think, but because it is a good revenue stream. That though turned some people off and made the game a bit harder to get into for anyone that was of the "Gotta have the best" mentality. They try to have a huge online presence with promises of VTT and the work on the character builder, but support items are only going to go as far as the base game goes.
So they are not pulling the people they want and figure, they need a change and go essentials. Easier, better for new people etc. That of course doesn't help the situation cause it does fragment the market a bit. Then people start realizing that it is really just another game. A bunch of elements thrown together and start looking around for other things. It is like D&D never had a chance to define itself.
5ed needs to go back and look at the people who play. They should not go after the online market, because online games do that better. They should not go after the collectable people because there are better collectable games out there and they compete with themselves. They should not go after the tactical game people because those that play tabletop tactical really are dying out. I mean, why go to the table when you can have games like that online that do the figuring for you and look beautiful. (Now 1st ed did a good job going after the tactical market, but remember that there weren't real alternatives to war games back then. D&D was a perfect mix during that time, but today the online options are too great. Who does that leave...

The best bet is to go after the readers. The people who already read the stories and imagine the people and places in their head. Give them a way to put themselves in the story. Make it just complicated enough to be fun, but here is the big thing. Focus on being part of the story. Make reasons for the abilities and powers that make sense in the context of the game. Then follow up with adventures. I don't think Wizards can get along and make a good 5e if they just focus on the rules and rule books. They need to draw people in with good narratives and keep giving them reasons to want to imagine themselves as whatever they are playing. I really think that is the secret to wizards coming back strong.

Well, just my opinion.

So the fact that the part of the players didn't like 4E is their fault rather than designers not determining right what their audience expects/wants?

The world according to Scott. You don't like the new game? Clearly you are in the wrong. You think Wizards may have have made a mistake? No, that just means you don't understand them.

I am taking that a bit too far, but honestly, Zmar you have hit it on the head. When your product turns off customers, it is not the customer's fault. When your actions turn off customers, again it is not the customer's fault. This isn't a person saying the wrong thing and then saying "Well, f' em if they cant take a joke". This is a business whose existence is reliant on those customers. You don't do stuff and hope they go along. You find out what they want and give it to them. Sometimes you do it well, sometimes your don't, but it is never the customers fault if your stuff isn't good enough for them.

Why can't WotC create adventures that outshine Paizo? People are saying paizo does so well because the numbers take the adventure paths into consideration... Well, why can't wizards create awesome adventures and compete? Or is that the customers fault too for not giving their adventures enough credit?

That's not at all what they were saying. It's really sort of mind-boggling that people believe that they did.

And, again, there wasn't really any badmouthing going on. Just things like, "We heard a lot of feedback that grappling was too complex, so we made it easier in 4e!"

I know this is from a few days ago, but you are 100% wrong. There was badmouthing, and it boggles me that you didn't see it. Making a video of players of 3rd edition trying to understand the grapple rules and getting mad and looking like they were going to throw their dice means one of two things. They had little respect for the players and were showing them as people who couldn't grasp the rules (which is not what I think they were doing) OR showing that the rules were too hard to follow and did not work. That is what they tried to do, then they said "don't worry, we fixed it for you".

You can't get much clearer than that. It also made those of us who had no problem understanding the grapple rules wonder why we were wrong for liking them/ According to the video they did not work.

Hope it is ok to put this here, but if you are using this map, and need the quick contents of a crate, barrel etc Wizards has a real good randomizer for this. It's at Crate, Barrel, and sack contents Gen