Well, it seems I've been wrong this whole time; silly me. TBH, I wasn't aware there were spells that stated the spell is "centered on you", such as Screech. That particular spell is an Area spell instead of targeted, but the verbiage for WotB does seem to support the claim that the point of origin is selected somewhere within the spell's Range. Counter intuitive and against common sense, but I find nothing in the RAW besides those two words: "you emit" which is admittedly weak in the light of evidence to the contrary.
Interesting list (looking at Diego's list too). Confusion comes closest to what I mean but none of them really quite do it. None of them actually say anything about a point of origin specifically which Wail does. All of them do use "Area" language while being "Target(s)" spells that have no Area line. Except for Confusion they are also all "centered of the caster" (which is in actuality the point of origin gone unmentioned). Any more in addition to Confusion that aren't centered on the caster?
Not quite sure where I'm going with this or if it's even important, more just thinking out loud.
Oops missed the various Mass Inflict (that big pink elephant in the middle of his post :p) which do actually have the words "point of origin". All the spells (mentioned so far) that use the words "point of origin" are also spells with "instantaneous" durations.
Quote: I said in my OP I didn't want to debate this crap. You don't have the magical right answer. Mark the damn thing for an FAQ and let the powers speak. Yes, but without the discussion following you would probably have less hitting the "FAQ" button.
Diego Rossi wrote: Kayerloth wrote: Q: Are there some (not Wail but less confusing :p) spells that are targeted that also have a Point of Origin? Most that am I thinking of off the top of my head do not. Or is this another somewhat unique bit to Wail of the Banshee? From the CRB:
Confusion - Targets all creatures in a 15-ft.-radius burst
Inflict light wounds (it is buried in the spell text)
PRD wrote: Inflict Light Wounds, Mass
School necromancy; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will half; Spell Resistance yes
Negative energy spreads out in all directions from the point of origin, dealing 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25) to nearby living enemies.
Like other inflict spells, mass inflict light wounds cures undead in its area rather than damaging them. A cleric capable of spontaneously casting inflict spells can also spontaneously cast mass inflict spells.
Cloak of Chaos - Targets one creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you
Holy Aura - Targets one creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you
Shield of Law - Targets one creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you
Unholy Aura - Targets one creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you Excellent examples that really hit the nail on the head.
Cruel Kindness wrote: Well, it seems I've been wrong this whole time; silly me. TBH, I wasn't aware there were spells that stated the spell is "centered on you", such as Screech. That particular spell is an Area spell instead of targeted, but the verbiage for WotB does seem to support the claim that the point of origin is selected somewhere within the spell's Range. Counter intuitive and against common sense, but I find nothing in the RAW besides those two words: "you emit" which is admittedly weak in the light of evidence to the contrary. Two words: it's magic. Ventriloquism is a Level 1 spell and a a trained skill in real life. I don't think it's a big stretch that you can "throw your scream" with Wail of the Banshee, a Level 9 spell. Magic doesn't follow the rules of physics.
Kayerloth wrote: Yes, but without the discussion following you would probably have less hitting the "FAQ" button. You misunderstand. I just didn't want another huge stinking debate and fighting about it. I'm not having trouble understanding the problem, I notice that the problem is that the spell isn't written very well.
Of course, now that a consensus seems to be within reach, at least we have something to play by if the developers ignore it again. I assume that if they mark it answered again, that this interpretation (targeted, point of origin wherever you want within range, 10/level/creature) is the correct one.
It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.
Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cruel Kindness wrote: It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.
Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.
I think you're the only one left who thinks that.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote: Cruel Kindness wrote: It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.
Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.
I think you're the only one left who thinks that. Not exactly. RAW the spell is a mess, but the the target line dominate, so it is a targeted spell with that entail.
I am still using in a way more similar to its roots (2nd edition and then the 3.X books), i.e. as a Area spell with a spread and whose point of origin you chose at a range.
With a damage of 10/hp level on each target.
It is not RAW but it is how I see this spell.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote: Cruel Kindness wrote: It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.
Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.
I think you're the only one left who thinks that. Okay then, if you get to choose which targets are affected, why does it say "Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first"? There are only two interpretations of RAW that this line isn't completely useless.
1) The spell only does 100 HP/level total.
-or-
2) You only get to choose the origin.
No, it isn't, and that has been pointed out several times Cruel Kindness. You not agreeing with us is one thing but don't claim things we've already shown to be untrue.
I made an example with Contingency a few pages back but there can be many others.
Okay then, why does the spell say "one living creature" instead of enemies?
Is it some new argument going on here now? I have no idea what you're talking about.
*Sigh*
If the spell allowed you to choose targets, it wouldn't say "creature", it would say "enemies" because you'd never choose a friendly target.
Since the spell says "creature", it's implied that the spell will target anything in the radius until the max creatures/lvl is reached, in order from closest to the Origin.
Citing corner cases in which this or that COULD be useful isn't how 3.X/PF writes their rules, as I pointed out before.
Show me a spell or ability that has similarly worded corner cases written into it like you're suggesting they've done with WotB.
Not if the amount of targeted enemies aren't voluntary. If you're 17th level and have 15 enemies and 4 allies there, at least two of your allies are gonna get fried (unless they make their saves).
Show me a spell or ability that has similarly worded text where it's a target spell that doesn't target.
But, let's for a second assume that the "why does it say "Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first"?" argument is valid. I agree that it's only relevant in pretty specific circumstances (though there are a lot of specific circumstances where it would matter - contingencies, readied actions, a bunch of special abilities etc).
Then my counterquestion is, if it's not a target spell but an area spell, why does it say it's a target spell?
Because you Target the Point of Origin, perhaps? Maybe because creatures are still getting Targeted, but being Targeted by the spell's effect rather than by the caster directly?
And, yes, the amount of affected creatures IS voluntary. "The spell affects up to one creature per caster level". And even then, you can always cast at a lower Caster Level to limit the number of potential creatures affected.
Cruel Kindness wrote: Okay then, why does the spell say "one living creature" instead of enemies? Because undead and constructs aren't valid targets.
Like Charm person has:
Target one humanoid creature
or Haste
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
No spell that I recall limit you to "enemies".
Ilja wrote: Not if the amount of targeted enemies aren't voluntary. If you're 17th level and have 15 enemies and 4 allies there, at least two of your allies are gonna get fried (unless they make their saves).
AFAIK, nothing in a targeted spell force you to pick all the targets you have available.
What would you do if there aren't enough targets?
You cast haste on friend of foes you your level is too high?
Cruel Kindness wrote: *Sigh*
If the spell allowed you to choose targets, it wouldn't say "creature", it would say "enemies" because you'd never choose a friendly target.
Since the spell says "creature", it's implied that the spell will target anything in the radius until the max creatures/lvl is reached, in order from closest to the Origin.
Citing corner cases in which this or that COULD be useful isn't how 3.X/PF writes their rules, as I pointed out before.
Show me a spell or ability that has similarly worded corner cases written into it like you're suggesting they've done with WotB.
Beside Charm person, Hold person and so on?
Here we are:
Horrid wilting: Targets living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
and
Halt undead: Targets up to three undead creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Hold monster: Target one living creature
Just to muddy the waters some :p
While I can't think of any that mention only enemies, Prayer and probably some others I can't think of right off the top of my head do mention "foes" along with "allies"
From Prayer's Area line wrote: Area all allies and foes within a 40-ft.-radius burst centered on you And there are a couple of magic items as well -> Rod of Enemy Detection and Rod of Alertness that make the decision without player input if you will, it's typically left to the GM.
That said I think, in general (and in the case of RAW? with Wail), they avoid saying allies or foes or similar words in the vast majority of 'target'/'targeted' spells simply because the spell/GM isn't making that decision the player/caster is. The only exception is in spells like Prayer where the effect is different depending on whether the target is a foe or ally. And I've certainly seen some conversations revolving around that topic as well. (How does the spell decide it's a foe, ally or other, What qualifies as 'hostile intent', What if it is a spy or traitor not yet uncovered, etc.?).
RAW the spell is letting the caster decide. Or for those like Cruel it doesn't care whether the targets are allies or foes or neutrals, which while not strictly RAW (some argue anyway :))seems to be a common 'houserule'.
Well, I guess I must be completely wrong in the way I interpret RAW.
The Pathfinder team must be complete morons (or blind) since they didn't realize the last line of text had any effect on the spell mechanics at all. Now, that line is just a fanciful bit of "left-over" from the 3.X "Area" casting of the spell and can be ignored completely.
Don't worry about hitting your friends, you can SELECT who gets hit!
Don't worry about targets around a corner, Spread spells don't work the same anymore!
Similarly, we don't have to worry about blinding allies with the Flare Burst spell since it's Targeted. Color Spray, Fire Breath, Burning Hands, Web, Cloudkill, Fire Snake, Shout & Greater, Crushing Despair, Ice Storm, and Rainbow Pattern are all completely safe to use in a "Danger Close" scenario since they're all Target spells and will NEVER hit an ally unless the caster CHOOSES to (just to name a few).
Actually, Rainbow Pattern is a great comparison to WotB. They're both Target spells with a Spread. They both affect from closest to Point of Origin first. They both have an upper limit on number of creatures affected. Not sure where I'm going with that...
Cruel Kindness wrote: Because you Target the Point of Origin, perhaps? Maybe because creatures are still getting Targeted, but being Targeted by the spell's effect rather than by the caster directly?
And, yes, the amount of affected creatures IS voluntary. "The spell affects up to one creature per caster level". And even then, you can always cast at a lower Caster Level to limit the number of potential creatures affected.
A point of origin is not a valid target of a target spell. Target spells explicitly target objects or creatures. You're thinking of an area spell (that has an area line). Why does WotB have a target line, rather than an area line? You're claiming that the target line acts identically to an area line, rather than a target line - so why was it changed to target from 3.5, if works like an area spell?
Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ilja wrote: Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation. Actually, this is a problem with the English language. Affect and Effect do not mean the same thing. To affect (a verb) something means to interact with it , even if that interaction is forcing a saving throw. Effect (a noun) is what it does.
Flare Burst is an effect spell. It does not have a target line. Claiming it has is a lie.
Color Spray, Fire Breath and Burning Hands are area spells. It does not have a target line. Claiming they have are is a lie.
I don't care for going through all the spells you've posted because honestly, if you want to continue arguing, you have to stop posting simple lies. I don't usually call someone lying but that's what you're doing now and have done repeatedly throughout the thread. Stop with that dishonesty.
Cruel Kindness wrote: Well, I guess I must be completely wrong in the way I interpret RAW.
The Pathfinder team must be complete morons (or blind) since they didn't realize the last line of text had any effect on the spell mechanics at all. Now, that line is just a fanciful bit of "left-over" from the 3.X "Area" casting of the spell and can be ignored completely.
Don't worry about hitting your friends, you can SELECT who gets hit!
Don't worry about targets around a corner, Spread spells don't work the same anymore!
Similarly, we don't have to worry about blinding allies with the Flare Burst spell since it's Targeted. Color Spray, Fire Breath, Burning Hands, Web, Cloudkill, Fire Snake, Shout & Greater, Crushing Despair, Ice Storm, and Rainbow Pattern are all completely safe to use in a "Danger Close" scenario since they're all Target spells and will NEVER hit an ally unless the caster CHOOSES to (just to name a few).
Actually, Rainbow Pattern is a great comparison to WotB. They're both Target spells with a Spread. They both affect from closest to Point of Origin first. They both have an upper limit on number of creatures affected. Not sure where I'm going with that...
PDF wrote:
Flare Burst
School evocation (light); Level bard 1, druid 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect 10-ft.-radius burst of light
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Not targeted
PDF wrote:
Color Spray
School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (red, yellow, and blue powder or colored sand)
Range 15 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
Not targeted
PDF wrote:
Burning Hands
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 15 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
Not targeted
etc., etc.
to end with:
PDF wrote:
Rainbow Pattern
School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V (bard only), S, M (a piece of phosphor), F (a crystal prism); see text
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect colorful lights with a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration Concentration +1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
Not targeted.
So, there is something in your outburst?
Ilja wrote: Flare Burst is an effect spell. It does not have a target line. Claiming it has is a lie.
Color Spray, Fire Breath and Burning Hands are area spells. It does not have a target line. Claiming they have are is a lie.
Ok, ok, I blame this site and a lack of fact checking on my part... can't trust websites these days...
Yanno what, frag it. I'm clearly wrong in EVERYTHING I fraggin post in this thread and you fraggers are WAY too fast to point this out.
This isn't even Rules Discussion anymore. It's just finger pointing. I'm done. I'm out. I don't even fragging care anymore.
I'm telling my GM that I'm re-rolling as a Fighter. I clearly don't understand how magic works since Pathfinder changed so much from 3.X.
Cruel Kindness wrote: Ilja wrote: Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation. Actually, this is a problem with the English language. Affect and Effect do not mean the same thing. To affect (a verb) something means to interact with it , even if that interaction is forcing a saving throw. Effect (a noun) is what it does. It depends on interpretation. But with that interpretation, augmented baleful polymorph turns any target - even if it makes all saves - into small or smaller animals. Just as an example.
Affect is used kind of loosely in descriptions and is not a word with a defined single meaning in pathfinder.
Ilja wrote: Cruel Kindness wrote: Actually, this is a problem with the English language. Affect and Effect do not mean the same thing. To affect (a verb) something means to interact with it , even if that interaction is forcing a saving throw. Effect (a noun) is what it does. It depends on interpretation. But with that interpretation, augmented baleful polymorph turns any target - even if it makes all saves - into small or smaller animals. Just as an example.
Affect is used kind of loosely in descriptions and is not a word with a defined single meaning in pathfinder. Right....
So now I don't even know the difference between a Verb and a Noun. Clearly, I need to stop speaking the English Language.
/thread
Actually, no. I'm not going to let that one go....
This is a a discussion on the Rules As Written. By the Rules As Written, that is EXACTLY what that means. Don't believe me? Look up the definition of Affect and compare it to the definition of Effect. Then re-read the Augmented Baleful Polymorph.
According to RAW, any creature AFFECTED by the Augmented Baleful Polymorph is subject to the spell's EFFECT. And why not? It's a Mythic spell, after all.
Besides, actually reading the description... "A creature that succeeds at the Fortitude save is partially transformed into the intended animal." So, yes, my point is still valid here.
Ilja wrote: Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation. If you target 17 creatures and 12 of them make their save, all 17 are AFFECTED by the spell but only 5 suffer the EFFECTS. There is no "interpreting" the English language, nor is it up for debate.
I know the difference between affect and effect. "To have an influence on or effect a change in". If using this definition, it is VERY valid to say that a spell that was saved against and thus did not "effect a change in" the character, did not affect the character.
I'm not saying it's the only possible interpretation, but it IS a valid definition of the word and a valid interpretation. I think it's more likely that the spell is supposed to target only enemies and that the lack of an "up to" on the target line is an error, but as written, this interpretation would as I see it be the only one that did not make any words in the spell strictly superfluous and did not break any rules.
Any other interpretation would make it have either completely unnecessary words or break the rules on target spells.
And for baleful polymorph, it'd be pointless to have a mystic ability that both made the spell harder to resist and made it impossible to resist. Why make it harder to begin with then? If everyone is fully affected by the spell, then the line stating the partial effect would be pointless. Also check the witch's nightmare hex - it would basically be a will negates ability where the effect still happens even if they save.
And there are other examples. One of your main arguments for the target spell WotB not being a target spell has been that some wording would have marginal/no meaning as a target spell - are you really saying that all these other spells and abilities have loads and loads of unnecessary wording just for teh lulz or something, just so your specific definition of "affect" should rain supreme over the other ones in the dictionary?
Well, we've gotten to grammar. Now all we need is for someone to liken somebody else to Hitler and I think we've exhausted the gamut of outcomes for internet-based arguments.
Ilja wrote: I know the difference between affect and effect. "To have an influence on or effect a change in". If using this definition, it is VERY valid to say that a spell that was saved against and thus did not "effect a change in" the character, did not affect the character.
I'm not saying it's the only possible interpretation, but it IS a valid definition of the word and a valid interpretation. I think it's more likely that the spell is supposed to target only enemies and that the lack of an "up to" on the target line is an error, but as written, this interpretation would as I see it be the only one that did not make any words in the spell strictly superfluous and did not break any rules.
Any other interpretation would make it have either completely unnecessary words or break the rules on target spells.
And for baleful polymorph, it'd be pointless to have a mystic ability that both made the spell harder to resist and made it impossible to resist. Why make it harder to begin with then? If everyone is fully affected by the spell, then the line stating the partial effect would be pointless. Also check the witch's nightmare hex - it would basically be a will negates ability where the effect still happens even if they save.
And there are other examples. One of your main arguments for the target spell WotB not being a target spell has been that some wording would have marginal/no meaning as a target spell - are you really saying that all these other spells and abilities have loads and loads of unnecessary wording just for teh lulz or something, just so your specific definition of "affect" should rain supreme over the other ones in the dictionary?
What....? No, seriously, are you even reading? If a spell forces a creature to make a saving throw, the spell is interacting with the creature. Any other "interpretation" is simply wrong.
Augmented Baleful Polymorph wrote: The saving throw changes to Fortitude (partial) and Will (partial). A creature that fails the Fortitude save automatically fails the Will save. A target with the shapechanger subtype that fails its save can't use its shapechanging to shift out of its new form. A creature that succeeds at the Fortitude save is partially transformed into the intended animal. For 1 minute per level, 84 it takes on cosmetic features appropriate to that animal and becomes one size category closer to the animal's size.
Augmented (9th): If you expend four uses of mythic power, the spell affects all other creatures with 8 Hit Dice or fewer in a 1-mile radius.
Affected creatures transform into Small or smaller animals appropriate to the local environment. You can select a number of creatures up to your tier to not be affected.
Emphasis mine. The ability you're referencing SPECIFICALLY DOES have an effect on creatures EVEN IF THEY MAKE THEIR SAVING THROW. Thus, creatures you use this augmented spell on will suffer partial effects EVEN IF THEY MAKE THEIR SAVE.
As for the Witch's Nightmare hex, you're wrong yet again (or are we still calling being wrong lying?). According to RAW, Nightmare AFFECTS a creature without any saving throw. Only once they try to go to sleep do the hex's effects become apparent, as per the Nightmare Spell which has no effect on creatures until they try to sleep. Once the creature tries to sleep, they'd need to make a saving throw to avoid it's effects.
My main argument for Wail of the Banshee's Target line being overridden by it's text and wording, is because of it's text and wording. Historically, SPECIFIC rules override GENERAL rules (see how we're back at this argument again?). In this case, WotB has a SPECIFIC clause that tells you which Targets are affected first. This overrides the GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work. Going by your interpretation of WotB, the last line of text has no meaning or can only be used in specific cases such as Contingency; nowhere else do spells get worded to make exceptions for such special scenarios.
The longer I debate this with you, the more I'm starting to think you're just trolling...
fretgot99 wrote: Well, we've gotten to grammar. Now all we need is for someone to liken somebody else to Hitler and I think we've exhausted the gamut of outcomes for internet-based arguments. Thanks for the contribution. Your input was really insightful and totally on topic....
/sarcasm
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Perhaps my "It appears we've taken this discussion about as far as it can go" point was too subtle ...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cruel Kindness wrote: Thanks for the contribution. Your input was really insightful and totally on topic....
/sarcasm
This is apparently the first time you have ever participated in a rules debate on the Paizo forum.
Cruel Kindness is right about the grammar and effect/affect.
Aside from that, it is completely and utterly off-topic, so let's return to the discussion at hand. Unless, of course, there is nothing left to discuss. In that case, mark it for FAQ and hope for the best. If they don't answer, we can assume that you pick targets and it does 10/level/target.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote: Cruel Kindness is right about the grammar and effect/affect.
Aside from that, it is completely and utterly off-topic, so let's return to the discussion at hand. Unless, of course, there is nothing left to discuss. In that case, mark it for FAQ and hope for the best. If they don't answer, we can assume that you pick targets and it does 10/level/target.
Except to assume such is a fallacy, as I continue to point out. Also, I'd mark it for FAQ material at this point just to settle the debate, but the first post is virtually a wall of text. FAQ candidates need to be concise and easy to read. Maybe post a new thread with a question such as "What effect does Wail of the Banshee's change from an Area spell to a Target spell have? Can we select targets (as a Targeted spell), or can we only select the Point of Origin (as an Area spell)?" Not the best wording, I admit... but hopefully you get the idea.
CruelKindness wrote: My main argument for Wail of the Banshee's Target line being overridden by it's text and wording, is because of it's text and wording. Historically, SPECIFIC rules override GENERAL rules (see how we're back at this argument again?). In this case, WotB has a SPECIFIC clause that tells you which Targets are affected first. This overrides the GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work. Going by your interpretation of WotB, the last line of text has no meaning or can only be used in specific cases such as Contingency; nowhere else do spells get worded to make exceptions for such special scenarios.
That's what this thread was for. I don't think I should make a third thread. If the developers can't figure out what the question is when it's so clear, I don't trust them to give a valid ruling.
DGL, you've already made it clear that you think rather lowly the Pazio staff. Besides, if you really wanted an answer you'd just repost the question...
Maybe you should check out World of Darkness.
Cruel Kindness wrote: DGL, you've already made it clear that you think rather lowly the Pazio staff. Besides, if you really wanted an answer you'd just repost the question...
Maybe you should check out World of Darkness.
Can you not read?
THIS WAS THE REPOST OF THE BLOODY QUESTION!
I don't think lowly of Paizo, but I get angry really freaking easy and it bothers me that something this sloppy went unnoticed and continues to go unanswered.
Now knock it off with your condescending BS and pot shots. If you don't want to play nice, go away.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote: Cruel Kindness wrote: DGL, you've already made it clear that you think rather lowly the Pazio staff. Besides, if you really wanted an answer you'd just repost the question...
Maybe you should check out World of Darkness.
Can you not read?
THIS WAS THE REPOST OF THE BLOODY QUESTION!
I don't think lowly of Paizo, but I get angry really freaking easy and it bothers me that something this sloppy went unnoticed and continues to go unanswered.
Now knock it off with your condescending BS and pot shots. If you don't want to play nice, go away. Yeah, but questions buried in a wall of text usually don't do so well. Furthermore, your question isn't the only question on their plate, so don't expect them to immediately jump just because you tell them to.
It's only a "wall of text" for people who have ADHD, are lazy, or don't know how to read. The post is pretty short. The questions are concise. I don't pander.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote: It's only a "wall of text" for people who have ADHD, are lazy, or don't know how to read. The post is pretty short. The questions are concise. I don't pander. Well that's certainly a winning attitude.
This thread has gotten so far off topic and contains such vitrol it's not even worth continuing. New thread is here for anyone still interested in getting this answered via FAQ or just polite debate over the topic.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
