Jeffrey Stop's page

The catfolk ancestry has this ability:
Land on Your Feet
When you fall, you take only half the normal damage and don't land prone.

The Trip action says:
Critical Success The target falls and lands prone and takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage.
Success The target falls and lands prone.
Critical Failure You lose your balance and fall and land prone.

Based on a strict reading, when a catfolk falls they don't go prone and all trip conditions specifically use "fall" in what happens.

Jeffrey Stop wrote:

When I ran this, I assumed the group would need to reconnoiter hexes D, E, F, and G to find the place of interest. Is this correct, or did I missing something?

That is how I understood it.

Thanks, that really makes the Vigilant Seal faction mission harder -- at least 6 days of your 16 spent reconnoitering.

When I ran this, I assumed the group would need to reconnoiter hexes D, E, F, and G to find the place of interest. Is this correct, or did I missing something?

With Cloud Jump + High Jump, does the horizontal distance change?

For example, a PC has speed of 50 ft. Jumping 40 ft. horizontally and 10 ft. up is within 50 ft. Can a PC make a High Jump to make it (1 action) or need a Long Jump 40 ft. and a High Jump 10 ft. (2 actions)?

With Cloud Jump + High Jump, it appears that you can still High Jump triple your Speed, but instead of doing it all at once, you'd need 3 distinct actions (and a place to land at the end of each of those actions). Is this correct?

I think the travel time got mixed up in editing, originally Sansorgis was in the Vast.

That would make sense, as the planets listed in the data files (C9) are all supposed to be in the Vast AND 3 are within the bounds of the current Gideron Authority or Marixah Republic territories. That doesn't seem possible, based on the way the mod reads. I think placing the planets in Near Space "fixes" the discrepancy.

I'll add my experience that it's still an issue.

So if we assume thew 1/4 inch spur from the main road complex to the D6 marker is 1/2 mile, that gives us a scale of 4 miles/inch, or roughly 2 hours of travel per inch if on foot. That looks to match both the idea that these are semi-independent settlements outside of town, and that things like the traitor's camp are far enough away to prevent being casually discovered by folks around Arwyll's Stead.

I think the math is off on this. If 1/4 inch = 1/2 mile, multiplying each by 4 means 1 inch = 2 miles.

Assuming the map is to scale, I roughly measured distances in mm and calculated the distances and travel times for the homesteads. (I used 6 mm / 1/2 mile or 12 mm / mile.)

If it's helpful to anyone, I put it up online here.

If I'm wrong, let me know so I can correct my calculations.

I assume that means they have to successfully negotiate with the axiomites. You can have 1 or fewer Phytoliths and still end up fighting them.

Right, you can have 1 or fewer phytoliths and still end up fighting them -- and apparently still get the second objective. But you can't have 2+ phytoliths and be able to negotiate with the axiomite -- it goes straight to a fight. So the only way to successfully negotiate...is to already qualify for the second objective.

I guess there's an edge case where you have 0 or 1 phytolith, fight the axiomite anyway, and then pick up another phytolith afterward in which case you fail.

It seems off that if you don't get a crit success on a check you fail the second objective. Or am I reading that wrong?

The Secondary Objective lists these as the conditions for success:

if they gather all 4 samples with no more than 1 phytolith

-- OR --

if they negotiate with the axiomites to seal the Axis portal from their side

Don't you pretty much have to already have the first condition to be able to attempt the second? If you have 2+ phytoliths, the encounter goes to combat and I don't see a way to get out of it.

E. Axiom of Abeyance says:

If the party has two or more phytoliths in the sampling sphere or on their person, this encounter moves directly into combat as the axiomite immediately identifies them as a threat to its effort to enforce the power of Axis.

I have a session that shows up without any data in it and no way I can see to edit or delete it. Can someone either make it editable so I can use it later or remove it from my event?

By reporting page, do you mean the actual website where you report sessions? 2 Reputation should be correct, but I'm not seeing the other number in the scenario.

Yes, it's on the website where I report the session. Is this a question then for the web team at Paizo?

In the scenario, under Faction Notes at the end, it says:
"If the PCs succeed, each PC earns 2 Reputation with the Vigilant Seal faction."

On the reporting page, it says:
"Viglant Seal: [checkbox] (1 prestige)"

Change in nomenclature (Reputation --> prestige) aside, which value (1 or 2) is the correct value to award PCs if they fulfill the conditions?

For A1, the mod lists a permanent alarm spell 100 feet down the stairway. It lists it as a trap and gives a Perception DC to find it.

As far as I know, alarm is not a trap (though magical traps seem to include the spell as part of their nature) and cannot be detected in this way.

And if it was truly a trap, it should have a Disable Device DC listed.

Is there a reason that Humush Mum lost a point of Dexterity in High Tier? She has 16 in Low and 15 in High. It looks like she just got some class levels, not a different build.

Maybe I'm just reading the entry for A1 wrong, but the way it reads to me is that the PCs can just Stealth past the guards at the front gate.

First and foremost, looking at the map, there is no cover in front of the estate. There is also no information leading me to believe that concealment exists (the existence of fog, for example). So, barring unusual circumstances (which many parties excel at creating), there is no way to stealth.

I guess a PC could Bluff as a distraction, but that would still mean someone needs to pick the lock, as the gate is always locked. Can you simultaneously Stealth and Disable Device? I don't think so, since both take actions and Disable Device/Open Lock is a full round action or longer. I think with no Stealth, even if there's a distraction, the person opening the gate will be seen.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Also, in the guards' tactics it says: "If necessary, the Blackjackets drop their halberds and attack with their rapiers."

Halberds aren't reach weapons, so why would it be necessary to drop them?

EDIT 2: It seems very unlikely, given the setup of the A1 encounter that the guards will actually be able to perform their Before Combat action of drinking a potion of bull's strength. The PCs would have to be far away and screaming their intent to make a full frontal assault. Otherwise, as soon as the guards reach for their potions, the PCs would be reacting.

Paizo made the bold decision to take that choice out of the narrative and put it back in the players' hands, essentially saying, "No, if they choose to do this, let them. They'll see what it gets them." On one hand, wow, that "boon" is harsh. On the other hand, it made me laugh out loud. I think it's daring and brilliant on Paizo's part. I've NEVER seen a chronicle sheet with such bold consequences before. And yeah, you're Pathfinders, you made an oath above your oaths to the PFS and to your own gods. Maybe next time, Paizo seems to say, don't do that.

They may have put it in the players' hands, but I don't think they provided enough information to let them know this is a bad decision. This is what the mod says if PCs ask the Tempest Monarch what's entailed in swearing fealty to it:

(this space intentionally left blank)

There is no answer provided to what I think is a perfectly reasonable question -- a question that would probably leave no doubt about what the best decision is for most PCs, given your answer above, where they're putting the Tempest above all else -- PFS, country, and even god(dess). Though I saw nothing in the mod that indicates swearing fealty to the Tempest overrules any other oaths a character has sworn, especially to one's deity.

Though it's not mentioned (that I'm aware of), I think it's reasonable that a loyal subject from Taldor (especially one who has earned a noble title boon) has sworn fealty to the crown of that nation and nowhere is it mentioned that this trumps an oath to the PFS or one's own deity. If fact, given that one of the boons for Taldan nobility is in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, it should be more than acceptable. I don't see an oath fealty as being so restrictive, though maybe history buffs with real world examples could set me straight.

The mod goes on to say this about the Tempest Monarch:
While the Tempest Monarch treats the area around the anomaly as a lair and throne room, the truth is that the dragon was swept into the cave and trapped by the currents, just as the PCs were. They rely upon the sea creatures that the current washes into the cave for sustenance.

How is this trapped creature going to "take pains to ruin your reputation"? I assume that he wants/needs the scroll of teleport to get out of the cave. Is he going to sully the PCs' reputation to the next group of Pathfinders who enters the cave to study the planar anomaly but only if they, too, forswear their oaths to the PFS and their deities?

And a quibble: If you're going to include an out to a bad boon, make it reasonable. Based on Mike Bramnik's post about the availability of scrolls of teleport on chronicles, the alternative really isn't much of an alternative.

I don't have a problem with negative boons on chronicles, though I do not care for how it was implemented in this mod as it seems more like a trap and the negative consequences seem to come from a plot hole.

On the contrary, I wish there were more consequences for bad (especially "kill 'em all, let the gods sort 'em out") choices in PFS. (Like, say, if a paladin wants to keep an evil ioun stone for a free feat and just pay for an atonement. Yeah,

I ran this on Tuesday and came across an interesting question. As I understood it, the combat with the crab swarms takes place in 1-2 feet of water. The crabs can swim and unless a reason I can't fathom is given, would mostly remain under the water. How does this effect alchemist bombs, alchemist fire, or acid flasks as they would either be ineffective or reduced in this condition?

If what's in Emerald Spire can considered accurate (from a rules perspective), room E3 in the Drowned Level (p. 58), says this:

Except for the refuse pile in the southwest corner, this room is flooded to a depth of 2 feet and counts as difficult terrain for anyone on foot.

and this about the combat with a crab swarm:

Because crabs can swim, any combat in this room other than on the refuse pile is underwater. The water protects the swarm from alchemist's fire in any flooded square, though alchemical attacks using acid, cold, or electricity can still harm it, as can magical attacks (though the water counts as cover, providing the swarm a +2 bonus on saving throws against area attacks originating from above the water).

What happens if PCs try to destroy the final blade?

I found this description of its destruction:
Although the final blades are minor artifacts, they can be destroyed by damage. The exact defenses of each vary, but all have hardness 20 and 200 hit points. When one is destroyed, the trapped souls explode in a wave of necromantic power- some of these souls manifest as incorporeal undead and immediately attack all living creatures in sight. The number and nature of these angry souls varies, but should usually consist of at least a CR 12 (or higher) encounter.

[Source: Final Blade]

I think you'd be well within your rights to call it outside the scope of the scenario, since its destruction immediately causes another (un-statted) encounter. You can't make up another encounter in PFS, which means the undead released will wreak havoc on Isarn as the PCs can't really fight them. Since the undead are incorporeal, containing them would be very difficult. Would it be an evil act if the PCs unleashed a horde of incorporeal undead on Isarn, whether that was their intention or not? I think you could argue intent doesn't matter. I mean look at Colson Maldris...

Based on the description -- unless there's another one -- I don't see a way around the final blade's destruction releasing the undead.

Thoughts?

I am getting the following error trying to download digital content:
Not Found
The requested URL /download/135744/v5748aid7pjbv/v5748btpy9zk0/PathfinderSocietyScenario9-17O athOfTheOverwatchedPDF.zip was not found on this server.

Apache Server at remote1.paizo.com Port 80

It appears that this is happening for PFS Season 9 scenarios 9-09 through 9-17. A sampling of earlier season scenarios and even earlier Season 9 scenarios seems to be OK.

I am scheduled to run this tonight, so any expedient resolution would be greatly appreciated.

The description of the hellfire rod (page 12) says this:
"This black rod inlaid with silver Abyssal script curves slightly, ..."

While the Conclusion (page 12) says:
"If any of the PCs are capable of reading or speaking Infernal, ..."

Given the name of the item, I'm assuming Abyssal is a typo and should be Infernal.

The art for the item seems off, too, given the description of the item as black with silver script and the picture shows neither. In this case, I'm assuming the description trumps the art, but if there's any clarification on this very minor quibble, I'd appreciate it.

That is absolutely a correct interpretation. The wrench is if they don't manage to recover that particular book and do not have access to that mortification ritual. It is also not viable for a low tier party that may not be able to stay conscious through the entire ritual.

Thanks!

Question on the ritual: When we played this, very poor rolls combined with CN (x2) and LN (x2) penalties for our 4-person party led to to some not good results leading up to the ritual. When it came time to do the mortifications, someone suggested we all just bleed and if it's bad, have the cleric channel. We chose this so we wouldn't have to rely on our ice-cold dice. (I don't think we should have known there was no check -- just the damage -- at least for the first phase, but we did. And whether the cleric could actually have channeled during the ritual...)

Taking 6d4 damage each was easy enough for our level 4-5 PCs and we called it a wrap.

I assumed there would be controls the GM missed to prevent this "easy victory", but maybe that's how it was intended as reading the scenario I'm not seeing any stipulations that:
1. The PCs must each do a different mortification.
2. A PC can do a mortification only once during the ritual. (In fact, the opposite; the scenario specifically says a PC may change mortifications after/before each phase.)
3. Each phase lasts any longer than a single round. (Meaning the bleed damage was really negligible, at least for Tier 4-5.)

Did I miss something or is this a correct interpretation of the mechanics of the ritual?

The PCs have a chance to take a rest and use their spells etc. to deal with any adverse effects shortly after those encounters, after leaving the heavy gravity area and after getting into the more temperate camp.

Hmm...when I ran this, I didn't allow the PCs to rest in the camp. My reasoning was based on the later encounter with Jathune, in which he openly greets the PCs. It seemed to me that if there are outsiders in his camp, Jathune would eventually seek them out. It doesn't make sense to me that Grave Treader's tent is in a spot that is outside of sight of both the guards and the main camp -- i.e., that she's completely isolated from the rest of the Sundered Stone -- but I suppose that could be the case. Since it's a day's travel to the Temple of Brigh, I'm not sure it matters too much, since that's when the group I ran rested (just before entering the temple).

In my reading of the scenario, it seemed like the PCs could tackle the Temple of Brigh and Jathune in any order they chose -- I didn't see a limitation or reason for one encounter to take place before the other.

The Acrobatics check to jump to the platform in C2 was not listed, but I assumed that the landing where the stairs turn was 10 ft. up, since it seems halfway to the platform. Therefore, the jump from the landing to the platform is 10 ft. up and 10 ft. over, which is really difficult, especially considering that it looks like a standing jump.

I think that Grave Treader should have been statted out since she's present during a combat and could be affected.

Kyrand wrote:

Not sure if it's run as part of the same process, but these scenarios appear to have not yet dropped to Venture-Officers either (or, at least, not to me).

I'm not seeing it, either. It's making the coordinator of a local con that's happening this weekend more than a little nervous, since it's on the schedule. Any updates or ETA?

Got it, now. Thanks!

Not sure if it's run as part of the same process, but these scenarios appear to have not yet dropped to Venture-Officers either (or, at least, not to me).

I'm not seeing it, either. It's making the coordinator of a local con that's happening this weekend more than a little nervous, since it's on the schedule. Any updates or ETA?

Question about assigning teams to tasks

I have the same problem, every time i load the dates or i add a new date it changes all old dates back one day.

And cancel does not cancel the entries but saves them.

I see the same issues.

If the PCs want to break into the manor through the windows, there's not a lot stopping them other than perhaps the fact that the manor itself is intended to go on the auction, and that the PCs are supposed to do as little damage to the manor as they can.

Looking at the map, I don't see any windows. Nor do I remember seeing any mention of them in the text. There are several fireplaces, though. Am I missing something?

Questions...

EDIT: Added spoiler tags just in case.

It does not matter if the excluded targets would or would not be affected. The only condition is that the channeler excludes targets, which are actually in the area.

You gain by the feat up to CHA-bonus x2 plus 6 (half tier including the feat) to damage. With a CHA of 22 you look at 17 damage, if you are tier 10. Which is ... not much, seeing the damage from melees and nukes.

Dead creatures are objects. Unattended non-magical objects to boot :)

@Jeffrey
1) Excluding 3 is all that is required by the feat to work. So they would grant you a grand 6 damage.
2) Would be 4 for 8 damage.
And the target of all that effort can save for half, so it will end up as being 3 and 4 bonus damage.

I wouldn't spend a mythic feat on that ability tbh, it is like most channeling feats wasted.

Thanks for the reply, Vatras. I'm not sure how you got 4 and 8 from the second example, because 3 people are being excluded; of those 3, 2 are dead -- unattended non-magical objects. :-)

Unless the cleric and the PC's are undead, they're not going to be harmed by the positive energy. So since they aren't valid targets of the channeling to begin with, there is no damage boost to gain.

So here are a couple healing situations for Selective Channeling (Mythic):

1. Cleric selectively channels, excluding 3 PCs who are not hurt. Do they count for adding points? (My take: Yes, they're valid targets.)

2. Cleric selectively channels, excluding 3 bad guys who have fallen. 2 of the 3 are actually dead and can't be healed, but the cleric doesn't know that. How many points does he add to the healing? (My take: Based on LazarX's response, 2 points -- for 1 creature who can be targeted. I don't believe dead creatures are valid targets, but I could very well be wrong on that.)

{ snipped for brevity }

Part 2 of the research becomes impossible as the God Fount's death triggers automatic hostility with the Council of Shadows.

Thanks!

Serisan wrote:

[[Research questions]]

** spoiler omitted **

Is there anything preventing PCs from skipping the research initially and coming back to it later? I didn't see anything that would indicate research done after getting to the professor would be any less effective. Did I miss something?

This question is more out of curiosity than any in-game effect, but I can see what happened to all of the Riftwardens' arcane foci, but Jahani's. (Gerrard's staff is broken in C2, Imaga's parrot is partially dissected in C3, and Mikael's ring is a small lump of silver in C2.) Did I miss the weasel's location or is it not covered in the mod?

Here are some things I found while prepping:

Does Fighting Defensively improve your CMD? What about Total Defense?

RAW, it doesn't appear to, but RAI, I would think so.

** spoiler omitted **

Old thread and may have been clarified elsewhere, but I think the confusion comes from using d20pfsrd as the source of truth. d20pfsrd does not list a type for the bonus granted for fighting defensively as a standard action, while Paizo's PRD and the Core Rulebook both list it as a Dodge bonus.

And as noted elsewhere, a Dodge bonus to AC will apply to CMD as well. Fighting Defensively -- as a Standard action or a Full-round action -- appears to provide the exact same benefits.

- Firstly, her attitude at the high tier is worse (unfriendly), while Badru remains indifferent regardless of tier. Furthermore, her Charisma is higher than Badru's, making Diplomacy harder on her.

This is true, but keep in mind that Badru's only Indifferent as long as he believes that the PCs are jewelled sages. The mod says:

The soulbound construct has a starting attitude of indifferent, though he initially assumes that the PCs are Jeweled Sages—who else could have unsealed the archive?

and

If he discovers the deception, his attitude becomes Unfriendly.

I don't really like how this makes the assumption that the PCs are trying to fool him into believing that they're actual Jewelled Sages. What if the PCs are honest from the get-go? I would imagine he'd be better disposed to them than a group of liars (i.e., those that tried to Bluff him and failed). Even if they're honest, though, I'd put Badru's attitude to Unfriendly because they're not Jewelled Sages.

However, this helps the PCs influence Badru, too:

He is fiercely loyal to the Jeweled Sages, and so long as he believes they are working for the Jeweled Sages, the PCs gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy checks to influence him.

I think he'd be a lot less likely to believe that the PCs are working for the Jewelled Sages if they've already been caught lying about being Jewelled Sages. I'd probably nix the +4 bonus to Diplomacy in that case.

Thanks for the great recommendations, Doug!

I do have a comment on something:

The important thing about setting up this fight is you want the players to see the opposing sides at the same time. If they look down the corridor from A1 (after figuring out the illusion) and see one side bottle-necked at the intersection, they'll just initiate their attack algorithms without further thought.

The scenario says:

Illusory stone walls conceal every door (Will DC 20 to disbelieve in Subtier 7–8 and DC 22 in Subtier 10–11), and arcane locks seal them (Disable Device DC 20 to open).

Emphasis mine. Based on this and the map, the PCs should have clear line of sight to A2 (which is shrouded in fog, so no line of sight to the combatants) because there is no door there. (They should also have a clear line of sight down the hallway to the south.)

Hallway A2 says that there are illusions over the open doors to the north and east (A5 and A3, respectively), but not to the west where A1 is. (This is really just a re-iteration of what's in the general description of the area, from what I can tell.)

There is no boxed text description of A2, just the map. Looking at the map, there are 2 alcoves, each 10 feet from the corridor to A1. Depending on the placement of the bad guys and considering the fog effect of guards and wards that makes it impossible to see more than 5 feet away, it's possible that the PCs are not even able to see the alcoves to know that there are precious treasures getting consumed by the elementals' heat. I think it's crappy for players to lose out on Preservation Points without a chance to know that's going on, so I'd at least give a Perception check to hear the crackling of papers lit on fire.

Now, if I missed something I'd appreciate it if someone corrects me before I run this and look foolish...

Congratulations, Alex! You're truly one of a kind. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication at Mainstreet and throughout the Detroit metro area. Great job!

How tall are the ceilings in the rooms of level 2? I ran this over the weekend and there was a large + flying mount. I assumed enough ceiling for it to fly everywhere, but the maze section. With 5 ft. wide corridors, I assumed the maze section had a 5 ft. tall ceiling.

How far apart are the sections? It matters for spells that are up. For example, if shield other is cast on player A by player B in room 2 and then either player steps through a portal to room 3 or 4, will the spell still be in effect? (shield other, a Close spell, ends if the 2 people are separated by more than the spell's range.)

Congratulations, Xath! You've been a veritable juggernaut in the Detroit area since you came on the scene -- GMing and organizing and just generally leading the Detroit area PFS group to expand and expand some more. It's always a pleasure to game with you, no matter which side of the GM screen either of us is on.

She shouldn't. She has Undetectable Alignment up.

I missed this on my read through, then went back after looking at this post. Shirin has undetectable alignment on her spell list, but no where that I saw does it say she has it up. It would be stupid for her to have it on her spell list and not cast it, since it's a 24 hour spell, but the mod doesn't mention it. She'll certainly have it up when I run this tonight. :-)

Meh, I have a hard time throwing out insincere compliments to a murderous, character-killing GM. (Play up, he says. You'll be fine, he says. Pfeh.)

Seriously, though, the most memorable session I've had in PFS play is thanks to Doug and is one in which my PC died -- twice! The second time was deemed unrecoverable and poor Aldarric is no more. (Actually, I believe his undead body still serves his new master far underneath Cassomir...) A funny and ironic twist for a character whose backstory was that he was a veteran of the crusades at the Worldwound -- years before the PFS had an interest in it -- and had started out as a level 1 ex-paladin because he'd died so many times and lost his faith in Iomedae along the way. (I must have been channeling a previous edition to think he'd lost actual levels from dying and being raised... :-) )

There's little I can add to the thread about Doug's GMing that hasn't already been said and in a manner better than I can. Congratulations, Doug -- it's always been quantity AND quality in your judging and not in that order!

From day one Doug has been an amazing and tireless champion of PFS in the Detroit metro area. Before anyone can get behind the GM screen, someone has to step up and organize the games. Doug's efforts have seeded many regular game days and have brought a metric ton people in this area to the gaming table. It's because of his efforts, and those of his disciples (LOL), that PFS is so strong around here. His positive impact on our local gaming area can't be overstated. Thanks Doug!

A minor point, but is Naleth female or male? In the beginning of C3. Hundredfingers Hideout, this is said about Naleth:
When Naleth (N female halfling commoner 1/rogue 1), the oldest cutpurse of the Hundredfingers gang heard the story, she knew it sounded suspicious.

Later, in the Development section for the same encounter, it says this:
Once Naleth Hundredfingers believes the coast is clear, he emerges from his hiding spot, greets the PCs, and asks if they’re friends of the scarred man. He requests that the PCs either escort him to Grandmaster Torch to deliver a message or deliver the message for him.

In each section, Naleth's gender is consistent, but the two sections contradict each other.

I also prerolled all of the knowledge checks, and made little cards to pass out with the various things they figured out, giving each to the character who passed with the highest roll.

So, did the players need to do anything ("I inspect <thing_to_inspect>") to make the knowledge checks or did they just get the information when they hit the encounter? (Or, as soon as something triggered it, like for the name check.)

I like the idea of the information cards and will use that idea.

I have a couple questions about the mod:

Jeffrey, on your first question, the linguistics check is for people who cannot read Thassilonian. If a character has the language, he can read it without a check. If it were somehow both in Thassilonian and exceptionally cryptic or encoded, the scenario would call out something like "... can be translated with a DC 25 Linguistics check (give a +5 bonus to characters that can read Thassilonian)..."

Thanks for the confirmation.

** spoiler omitted **

Right. Here's why I asked:

I assume that this statement, which references the inscription in B2:
The Thassilonian inscription, which a PC can translate with a DC 20 Linguistics check

means:
A PC who can read Thassilonian OR who makes a DC 20 Linguistics check

not:
A PC who can read Thassilonian AND who makes a DC 20 Linguistics check

It was run the latter way for me, but on reading it, I interpreted it as the former.

Also in B2:

Good thing that's not even remotely close to what I said, then.

Ah, well, then again I apologize. It's not the first time I've been wrong and, sadly, it won't be the last.

So apparently it's okay for someone to openly criticize people who play the "prepared field agent" concept, but to defend oneself or others with "We're not having badwrongfun" constitutes calling other people idiots or poor players.

That wasn't my intent, but given that I misconstrued your post it's a fair criticism of my post.