Osric Stonebrook's page

Freehold DM wrote:

Gendo wrote:

Just found out that a woman who misses a ton of work for "stress", has been caught sleeping on the job, and never takes responsibility for her fouls-up got one of the top ratings and raises. Hmmm...I must have a different standard for what one has to do to get a good eval and raise...like work, don't slack off, meet and exceed all goals, don't miss work, don't treat work like it's a social event, go the extra where possible whenever possible.

we talked about your job in a now locked thread. I'm sorry to hear things haven't improved, but I'm also concerned about how you go about your job. Something is up with either how you describe yourself or how you describe your coworkers or the job itself if this is going on.

I just had a sit-down with my Supervisor over this. The gist of what I was told is that while I do an "exceptional" job - his word not mine, my lack of social interaction beyond purely what is needed puts me on the bottom of the "plays well with others" section of reviews. He even showed me some complaints about my terseness with my coworkers. My response, "Thank you for showing me that my efforts of the last 6 years are completely meaningless." I got up and went back to work. I am in the process of seeking new employment.

Gendo, this was really painful to read. However, FDM and BNW are unfortunately correct in their assertions. In my opinion, the main issue for you is that you view work ethic in the more traditional "merit-based" sense whereas the business world cares less and less about that by the day.

This is compounded by a number of factors:

-The requirement of extroverted traits within the business construct
-The rampant use of social media and the baggage that comes with it
-A businesses inability to fire people based on clouded legal structures
-The overall collectivist viewpoint within the business structure as it pertains to social paradigms (i.e. people treat work like they treated HS/College - as an extension of their social circle rather than as a separate portion of their existence)

Good luck to you, and I hope you can find better employment with an employer that can help you maximize your potential without having to sacrifice some of your principles. However, as my wife's father is oft to point out: "If you expect work to be a Shangri-la, you will be disappointed every time."

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.

First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.

Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.

Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.

Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just...

Okay so I wrote about 3 responses, and here's about the best one I can find that won't come across as condescending or derail things further:

*ahem*

Osric, in the interest of not having false assumptions about my personal character being drawn, I will have to disagree with those statements. I am actually an introvert. I don't even consider myself the most optimistic person and I don't see why you felt the need to insinuate optimism is essentially tied to...

magnumCPA, I am grateful that you took the opportunity to let me in a bit on your actual personality. It clears things up regarding parts of my response. Additionally, you did answer the question to my satisfaction based on your experiences and I chose to rebut them in the best way I could. I intended no offense.

To be fair to you, the question was open for everyone who was contained in that micro-discussion, but was more meant for DMUTT as he/she was the initial poster to declare that somehow misanthropes are the intellectual equivalents to adolescents. I disagree, and wanted some clarification on what he/she meant.

As to why I tied optimism neatly with collectivism - well that stems from living in a world where meetings, synergy, and group-organization are coveted more-so than allowing individuals to be individuals and work alone. Group oriented people tend to also be extroverted in nature, preferring to pool their social dynamics and intellectualism together in a cohesive way that they believe is more beneficial than working alone. While not all extroverts are happy-go-lucky people (because that would be a gross exaggeration on my part), many of them are because their work environments are parallel to their personal lives. Any attempts to provide criticisms or point out the negatives and the possibility of) their worlds tend to fall apart.

The more the world pushes individuals to be "part of the larger collective" in more ways than one, the more misanthropes and introverts shoulders bunch up to their heads.

Sidebar: As someone who apparently suffers from RBF (Resting B@~$~ Face), I get tired of having to defend my resting face or contemplative face from people who think everyone should be walking around with a $10,000 smile. Just my 2cp.

Edit: I am going to end this here as I do not want to derail the thread any further out of respect for everyone else. Thanks for your response.

Well, I partially hate my job. I'm a cable technician. I go around people's houses, setting up cables and installing boxes and modems. And that is the part of the job i really like.

I meet various, very interesting people and get to see many beautifully arranged apartments and houses.
The part of the job I hate is dealing with HR back at the company and with a few members of the dispatch team who are all obnoxious cretins picking on terrain technicians. Also, they think that you have no life so they call you in the middle of the night to say that a customer is complaining about a lack of signal.
Listen jerkbag, just because you're stuck in night shift doesn't mean I have to suffer with you. Call me in the morning, or better yet, send me an email so I don't have to listen to your horrid, nasal voice.
Whoever invented that "a customer is always right" maxim should be flayed alive. And if they are dead, they should be brought back and flayed alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Well there's a lot of kind of, whiny, angry, melodramatic teenage subcultures. You know, like goth kids. They dress in black, sneer at practically everyone. They're young, and they hate their peers, their town and their parents and if humanity just choked on its own greed and cruelty, that'd that'd be a-ok with them. They say this sort of gross over-generalization about the world being destroyed by the human virus because it's a quick and easy way to look like they have some deep...

As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.

First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.

Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.

Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.

Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just waiting to be re-born like a butterfly.

So, while you may take the rantings of a teenager, or in DMUTB's life, 20-something hipsters - as melodramatic, angst, or juvenile in fashion, there are plenty of people out there who tend to face, and sometimes embrace the darker parts of humanity. As I once told a good friend of mine, life should never be expected to be (this will come across a bit condescending): An ABC after school special, Disney Movie, or Episode of MLP.

Icyshadow wrote:

Implying my personal view on the condition of our species is just a phase that will pass is pretty rude, you know. I find the people who think we're the best thing to ever come to existence rather obnoxious myself, but rather than mock them by claiming their view to be a phase (which is an ad hominem anyway), I instead present arguments to counter their views. I also find it hilarious when some people get upset about the fact that humans are animals too, and not this chosen glorious master race some random God handpicked as the rulers of this world and those beyond. Aside from the way our brain is structured and our capacity for destruction (both towards the environment as well as towards animals of all kinds), we're not really that different from the rest of the beings living on this planet.

Perhaps, but Odraude isn't the only one who has gone through this phase, and got over it. Adolescence gets old after a while.

I am really trying to understand what adolescence has to do with Icyshadow's personal philosophy. Care to elaborate?

Yeah I know it's mostly wishful thinking. But as far as I know, they are at least looking into it after the success of the TNG reissue. Werthead just mentioned that in a blog entry about X-Files in HD.

This post is pretty interesting because the author even states that Warner Bros. is looking at doing the same for Babylon 5. Sure, it's not an absolute, but it is a beginning.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Orcs are dumber.

This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.

NO NO NO NO NO. Orcs are not Africans! Orcs are monsters. Orcs are not portrayed as violent and lazy...they are violent and lazy becuase that is how they are designed by the game system. It is not a matter of humans misrepresenting or misunderstanding orcs. Orcs are murderous thugs who would happily kill all other sentient species on the planet in a gigantic genocidal bloodbath and then likely kill themselves as well when there was no one else left to kill.

One of the problems that cropped up in 3rd edition and was passed on to pathfinder was the idea of mostrous races as PC's. This humanized creatures that were originally designed solely as oppoents. Thus leading to the concept of the rare non-evil evil monster.

D&D is a game deisnged around killing evil monsters and taking their stuff which it is assumed they have stollen from its righful owners/creators.

Killing evil monster = good.

The game has evolved a lot since then but it still runs smoothest when this is the underlying logic accepted for the game.

That being said if you want to run a Pathfinder game where orc are misuderstood and hatred of orcs is racism then go for it! But it is not the game as designed or intended.

Mike, I'm just going to save you the time and advise you against any further attempts at trying to convey any mechanical points about the game. Unfortunately, much like similar threads brought up in the Gamer Talk section, there are people who prefer to play this game as some sort of arm-chair real-world morality/Roddenberrian/U.N. Representative schtick. Any attempts at stating otherwise will be met with emotional counter-arguments and splitting-hairs to ensure that the cart comes before the horse.

Don't believe me, ask Adamantite Dragon, Cirtose, and Knightnday.

It will be significantly less exciting that we'd imagined a hundred years earlier.

I like you.

No one thinks Tim Curry would make a good Asmodeus?

I see what you did there, and I do agree he would be a good Asmodeus. But only because of this

I like Worgen da best.

Then Dranei...

I would have preferred that they organized the whole Worgen thing better as well. I was really excited about Gilneas until they basically destroyed any pretext of it retaining its greatness.

I too, was disappointed in how they handled Genn Graymane. The one person I thought would bring a certain level of grit to the Alliance in that game, and Metzen just dashed the character across their philosophically relativistic stone slab. C'est la vie.

The only thing that could save the Warcraft franchise now would be to cut away everything after TBC with some weird time loop thingy, and have a Warcraft 4 RTS.

I would have taken it a step further and gone back in time to before the announcement of TBC and punched Chris Metzen in the face when he started penning his retcon for the Eredar/Draenei honestly.

No Chris! Bad Chris! Put that pen down! Ah, ah! Put it down. Now go to your room and re-read your own lore.

Brave Starr

I'll just leave this here

TOZ wrote:

Intelligent ravens can speak Common.

Familiars I believe. As a supernatural ability. I could be wrong.

Most PC races can speak common because...you know...they are PC races.

So a specific bird, as a supernatural ability in a specific set up can speak a language therefore pony wizard or you are closed minded.

I don't know why she swallowed the fly...

Relevent.

You are half right Ciretose. According to the CRB, it states the following:

"Empathic Link (Su): The master has an empathic link with his familiar to a 1 mile distance. The master can communicate empathically with the familiar, but cannot see through its eyes. Because of the link's limited nature, only general emotions can be shared. The master has the same connection to an item or place that his familiar does."

However, it also states the following later:

"Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.

Speak with Animals of Its Kind (Ex): If the master is 7th level or higher, a familiar can communicate with animals of approximately the same kind as itself (including dire varieties): bats with bats, cats with felines, hawks and owls and ravens with birds, lizards and snakes with reptiles, monkeys with other simians, rats with rodents, toads with amphibians, and weasels with ermines and minks. Such communication is limited by the Intelligence of the conversing creatures."

It appears that the wording dictates the familiar can only speak any languages directly to its master, not to other creatures or persons. However, I could be wrong.

Thanks for all of the suggestions guys. It is a tough situation, since I have known him for so long.

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but the reality is that his pessimism is not just during the game - it is outside the game as well. Furthermore, I never advocated that the OP drop his friend like a bad habit - if I did, then I clearly sent the wrong message here.

What I am advocating is a little tough friendship in terms of the gaming environment itself. Likewise, I only advocated this action in the event that the OP's friend gets aggressively argumentative as to his perceived actions.

I will re-iterate here that I believe the OP's friend is either suffering from gaming burnout, or feels that the use of the Golarion landscape is too 'boring' for his tastes. It may be time for him to take a step back and re-evaluate if he even still enjoys gaming to begin with.

I didn't read it the way others did and I understood what you were trying to get at. As for your first comment though, I think that is exactly where this is all stemming from. Some outside influence that has been bothering him, and it has finally found its way to the table.

As for being blunt with him, because I know him so well, I know that he will take it as a personal assault on him, and will not be pleased. I really don't want to hurt the friendship, so taking it to that extreme may not be the best solution.

Maybe reiterating why we are testing Golarion in the first place is really all that is needed. Nobody has made any final decisions on this yet. We have 6 people in the group including myself, 3 of the others are GM's as well (including the player in question). We've each always run things with our own creations. There was never cohesion between games because the worlds are always too different, and that is something that we wanted to explore with everybody using the same world. The other players are liking the new direction, and the other two GM's agreed that this is probably the...

Daring, thanks for addressing my response. I would just like to point out that you know this guy better than any of us can possibly hope to, and that realistically whatever course of action you take will be the most objective.

I would like to stress to you that his mood will inevitably affect the other players. Address this in a way that you feel is best, be blunt if you feel it is necessary. As a player myself, I would not want to try out a new system/world and have one player always nay-saying or just being negative for the 4 to whatever amount of hours we had time to play. After a while I might end up informing you that I do not want to keep playing if I have to deal with continuous negative chatter from my left or right.

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

Dug wrote:

Hate to say it, but you have to be blunt with him, get straight to the point. I know we hate to hurt feelings nowadays, but it needs to be said, "You're bringing our game down. Get into it or get out.."

Okay, maybe TOO blunt.

Actually, try to be more diplomatic, do tell him he's bringing the game down, that if he doesn't enjoy it anymore, that maybe there's another pursuit he'd like to try. Try some other types of games. I don't know. I know it's tough when you've known him for so long.

Actually, I do not feel that you were being too blunt. As a matter of fact, in the event that said player blows up over trying to resolve the issue - your approach is warranted.

I'll never understand this approach to resolving interpersonal issues, it fixes nothing. This is a guy whose company they enjoy outside of the game, there is no reason to burn bridges simply because of a game. There is no indication that they never want to speak with this person again.

Should you make it clear that this is the direction that the gaming group is going in? Yes. Should you make it clear that his constant criticism of the Golarion setting is unappreciated? Yes. However there are other ways to handle it. 3pps provide adventure paths as well, invite him to research some of their products to bring to the table.

I understand what you are saying, but the reality is that his pessimism is not just during the game - it is outside the game as well. Furthermore, I never advocated that the OP drop his friend like a bad habit - if I did, then I clearly sent the wrong message here.

What I am advocating is a little tough friendship in terms of the gaming environment itself. Likewise, I only advocated this action in the event that the OP's friend gets aggressively argumentative as to his perceived actions.

I will re-iterate here that I believe the OP's friend is either suffering from gaming burnout, or feels that the use of the Golarion landscape is too 'boring' for his tastes. It may be time for him to take a step back and re-evaluate if he even still enjoys gaming to begin with.

Hate to say it, but you have to be blunt with him, get straight to the point. I know we hate to hurt feelings nowadays, but it needs to be said, "You're bringing our game down. Get into it or get out.."

Okay, maybe TOO blunt.

Actually, try to be more diplomatic, do tell him he's bringing the game down, that if he doesn't enjoy it anymore, that maybe there's another pursuit he'd like to try. Try some other types of games. I don't know. I know it's tough when you've known him for so long.

Actually, I do not feel that you were being too blunt. As a matter of fact, in the event that said player blows up over trying to resolve the issue - your approach is warranted.

For my part, which is not as extensive as yours in terms of experience, it sounds like he is burnt out or just feels like the hobby he used to enjoy has gone stagnant.

My suggestion, have a talk with him about why he has been so pessimistic lately. It could be personal issues devolving into other areas of his life, such as his gaming. If the root of the issue is lacking complexity, then perhaps, for the sake of your other players, it is time to ask him to bow out until such time as he can bring a much less abrasive attitude to the table.

I can see the next PF novel:

Ser Desnok of Egorian is a young, rookie Hellknight with a sharp sword and a sharper temper.

Ser Arbshin is a highly respected, by-the-book Hellknight who is three days from retirement.

THEY FIGHT CRIME!!!

"In the Hellknight Justice System the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups. The Hellknights who investigate crime and the Vicarius who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."

Doink - Doink!

Makes me grin every single time.

Too funny.

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

Wife: So, do you still looking stunning in purple?

Green!

Purple!

When I went to MegaCon 2012 in Orlando, I had the awesome opportunity to meet Peter Jurasik, Stephen Furst, and Bruce Boxleitner.

My wife walks up to Peter's table:

Wife: So, do you still looking stunning in purple?
Peter <in Londo's voice>: I don't know my dear, and I sincerely doubt I could still fit in it if I tried.

Stephen Furst was so enamored with my 5 year old daughter that he gave her a free B5 collectible trading card game card of himself from his table.

It was an awesome day.

Londo: Have I ever told you that you are very cute for a Minbari?
[He crawls over to Garibaldi.]
Londo: Oh! And you are cute, too, in an annoying sort of way. Everybody's cute. Everybody's cute! Even me. But in purple, I'm stunning!
[He passes out on the table.]
Vir Cotto: Ah! He has become one with his inner self!
Michael Garibaldi: He's passed out.
Vir: That too.

Calybos1 wrote:

Bodhizen wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

I'm having trouble accessing the Guide on Google Docs. I can't download it, Save As, or even print it. Is something broken?

No. Please read my previous posts on the matter in this thread.

Thank you for your interest.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the answer. You've posted it as a PDF, but it's not behaving as one--as I said, I can't even print it.

Hope you can get it working soon.

My sincere apologies. It appears as though I was under the impression that I had answered that question in this thread. I answered that question in the Guide to the Class Guides thread. To expand upon my comments there...

When I created the Guide, I noticed some problems while reading through it. I wanted to correct those problems (such as the one just recently pointed out by Mangon). However, I have hit a major road-block. I no longer have the original .indd file for the Guide due to a complete hard-drive failure and not being able to locate the backup. It has appeared to be a rather daunting task to rebuild the guide from the ground up using Indesign, and so I have not undertaken updating the guide.

However... If anyone has any suggestions on how I can edit the existing .pdf file and reconstruct it as an .indd without having to copy/paste/edit the text (which took a rather extensive amount of formatting in the first place), it would be incredibly useful in my goal of having a master file that I can easily edit and update with new information.

Thank you for your time and interest.

Thank you for responding. I am sorry to hear about that issue. I really like your guide - especially the layout, formatting, et-cetera. Not sure if it helps, but have you ever thought of using Foxit to redesign the document?

Bodhizen wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

I'm having trouble accessing the Guide on Google Docs. I can't download it, Save As, or even print it. Is something broken?

No. Please read my previous posts on the matter in this thread.

Thank you for your interest.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the answer. You've posted it as a PDF, but it's not behaving as one--as I said, I can't even print it.

Hope you can get it working soon.

I must be blind as well. Other than an issue with his computer, I do not see where it says why I cannot download or print the file.

I find it curious that it seems to be implied by several posters that if you don't use these "honorifics" you're somehow an impolite, rude, uncivilized person and even socially lazy and a jackass.

Funny how that contrasts with the implication that those who DO use them are the opposite...

I noticed that you stated that things are done quite a bit different in Sweden. If so, then do you also avoid the honorifics in your organizational dealings? If this is true, then there appears to be no one who is ever given respect because there appear to be no guidelines. Are the reasons for earned respect entirely subjective? I am a bit curious.

As I was leaving my military career behind, all service-members are required to take a class known as the TAP (Transition Assistance Program). One of the topics that came up relates directly to this discussion: when and where to use sir/ma'am or Mr./Mrs. The instructor advised us that the former should only be used during interviewing or while employed in locations in the Southeastern US or the Midwest. If located anywhere else, use the latter.

Thankfully I live in the Southeastern US, so transitioning with those terms was easy. The use of sir/ma'am is so ingrained in you from day one of basic training, that it is hard to really shake.

In our current game, we have a "no cell phone during play" rule. We had one player that up until recently thought he was slick and would not get caught. He was wrong of course, because, as our DM put it - "Everyone who is trying to hide the fact they are on their smartphone has the same stupid semi-hunched pose."

Needless to say, the DM called him out on it and subsequently had a conversation with him privately later that evening.

If you cannot live without your smartphone for 5-8 hours, then you have a problem.

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

So, at 6th level a Fighter can only make 3 attacks as a full-attack action? Or four? Thanks for the clarification here. All of you are being really helpful.

A vanilla fighter at 6th level gets two attacks. This applies to any weapon combination including two-handed weapons.

If you have no feats, you still can get up to three attacks at 6th level by using an off-hand weapon. And you will really suck with them.

If you have the Two Weapon Fighting feat, you will have three attacks and suck less.
If you have the Improved Two Weapon fighting feat (which you can get at BAB +6) you can get a fourth attack. (And at BAB +11, you can take Greater Two Weapon Fighting which gives you yet another attack.)

The confusing thing is that you don't need the Two Weapon Fighting feat to be able to pick up a dagger in your off hand and swing it wildly. The feat, however, enables you to do it effectively. A first level wizard could wave a pair of daggers around and get two attacks. A 6th level fighter could get three attacks under the same circumstances. A 6th level fighter with TWF will actually be able to hit some of the time with the third attack.

Sounds good so far. I guess my last question is this. Utilizing all the feats you have listed above with a Fighter and having 4 attacks per turn - Would a full attack action look something like:

Main hand
Off hand
Off hand
Off hand

OR

Main hand
Off hand
Main hand
Off hand

Thanks again for the clarification.

Osric Stonebrook wrote:

Lathiira wrote:

Yes, if you have two-weapon fighting you can engage that full-attack action with both hands. The number of attacks you gain from using your off-hand is based on how far along you are on that feat tree: one off-hand attack with Two-Weapon Fighting, plus an additional attack for Improved, one more for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (total of 3 for the off-hand at that point).

Thanks for the quick response. So, when a Fighter reaches +6BAB how many attacks can he make provided its a full-attack action?

A fighter with +6 BAB gets two attacks at +6/+1

A fighter with +6 BAB who is using a light weapon in her off hand gets a third attack, but at a substantial penalty, effectively -4 to the attacks with the primary weapon and -8 to the attack with the secondary weapon. So it would be +2/+2/-7 in the best case.

A fighter with +6 BAB and the two weapon fighting feat who is using a light weapon in her off hand reduces the penalties to -2 across the board, so the attacks would be at +4/+4/-1.

So, at 6th level a Fighter can only make 3 attacks as a full-attack action? Or four? Thanks for the clarification here. All of you are being really helpful.

Yes, if you have two-weapon fighting you can engage that full-attack action with both hands. The number of attacks you gain from using your off-hand is based on how far along you are on that feat tree: one off-hand attack with Two-Weapon Fighting, plus an additional attack for Improved, one more for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (total of 3 for the off-hand at that point).

Thanks for the quick response. So, when a Fighter reaches +6BAB how many attacks can he make provided its a full-attack action?

taking a full attack basically means you do nothing other than attack that round, and there are several reasons why you would want to do that, even with a BAB<6

someone with two weapon fighting only gets the off hand attack when full attacking

I'm confused here. If I have two-weapon fighting, I should be able to engage a full attack action with both my main hand and my off hand right? Not just my off hand. Otherwise, the full-attack action explanation seems off kilter.

Weapon Focus (Poop)

Throw Anything feat would go well with that. <grins>

Create a bard-specific magical cloak loosely based on Thom Merrilin's multi-patched one from the Wheel of Time.

Image link for graphical representation below:
http://atreacherousmemory.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/thommerrilin.jpg?w=23 9&h=300

Go!