| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternate Title: Hey, You Missed A Spot
So I think we need a thread to point out all the things the errata hasn't broken yet.
To start off, I think Paizo forgot to remove the slayer's ability to wield magical weapons. This is clearly a mistake—a slayer being able to use magic weapons completely invalidates the wizard's ability to create magical effects, and I trust that the second errata will fix this error.
Second, and much more concerningly, I noticed that the Martial Master was completely untouched by the errata. I hope Paizo remembers to come back to this one. I'm worried no one will want to play a default fighter if this archetype exists.
The errata to Mask of Stony Demeanor (a magic item) refers to a Mask of Stony Demeanor spell, which does not exist in the ARG.
Clearly, this apparent mistake is part of Paizo's plan to keep the mask overpowered while pretending to nerf it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm worried they'll do away with the Adventure Path logo :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was surprised that swashbuckler continues to be allowed to wield swords, rather than a leg of smoked meat.
I just hope the mods are getting paid time and a half this week, since the decision was made to detonate two sewage tanks one after the other.
I'm just waiting for the spammers to show up at the exact same time, like an I Love Lucy episode.
Oh, hi, spammers!
Have fun, mods!
Oh, hi, spammers!
Have fun, mods!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They did not break the ability to play a character of venerable age, in fact they made it even easier! Just play a dhampir and say "I want to be maximum starting age based on the die roll" and you too can be 80 yea... oh crap.. wait what? My maximum age is 75 cause you rolled a 5 on my 1d20+70 roll? Aw, man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For probably the 10th time.Oh, hi, spammers!
Have fun, mods!
..Does jack s~@+ against real people, which these spammers are.
They still haven't made me want to buy it, and I'm a contrary sort of person, the more I'm told not to do something, the more likely I am to do it :-)
..Does jack s&@% against real people, which these spammers are.For probably the 10th time.Oh, hi, spammers!
Have fun, mods!
Does it? It still increases the amount of effort required to create a bogus account (a process I suspect *is* automated). And how do we know the spammers aren't bots, exactly? Why wouldn't they be automated?
In any case, the current situation is untenable. They must do something.
Literally 80% of the recent threads on the front page are spam.
Guys, come one. If not CAPTCHAs, how about requiring folks to activate their account by e-mail before use? Or better yet, how about both?
Neither of these are silver bullets...nor are they intended to be. Rather, they're intended to push the amount of effort required to spam high enough to make the spammers look elsewhere for easier targets.
Bugleyman, you're assuming the mods are just watching idly. Don't you think the mods are doing their level best to end the situation?
Email activation is meaningless. So are CAPTCHAs. A few seconds' delay doesn't stop anyone. These people are getting paid to do this.
If you want to continue posting suggestions, head over to Website Feedback.
Bugleyman, you're assuming the mods are just watching idly. Don't you think the mods are doing their level best to end the situation?
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the solution to the problem isn't moderation.
Email activation is meaningless. So are CAPTCHAs. A few seconds' delay doesn't stop anyone. These people are getting paid to do this.
And yet other sites, some more popular, that employ these strategies do not have this problem. Again, a "few seconds delay" can and does make people, paid or not, look for easier targets.
If you want to continue posting suggestions, head over to Website Feedback.
Now that makes sense; I'll do that.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the solution to the problem isn't moderation.
I didn't say it was. I said the mods are doing their best. They have been working this entire time on implementing changes, as you'd have seen if you hung out on the Website Feedback forum. :P
Also, with regards to your bolded text—Paizo is more than a "hard target", Paizo is a fruitless target. These spammers are not very practical to begin with.
Unless, of course, they're getting paid by the number of posts they make.
Oh, it might work out fine for the employees themselves, just not the people paying them. ;P
It all depends. Day in and day out as I wander around Spokane doing my various errands I see outdoor advertising signs. A significant percentage of the ones on the backs of benches located by bus stops read, "You just proved that these signs worked" and give contact information for the ad company that placed the signs.
Personally I think they are using a different definition of the term "worked" than either one of us would. But the advertising company is paying to put those signs up, and if their definition of their sign "working" is simply that somebody looked at it then it's arguably not too much of a stretch to see a spam campaign using a similar philosophy. And if as a potential case in point they were paying somebody a penny for every spam message that was posted then the cost of their advertising campaign might not be that unreasonable.
Just a supposition on my part that may or may not bear any resemblance to reality.
In fairness, Slaad, the sole goal of a sign company is for the signs to work well enough to be read, so that's a pretty damn good ad campaign. :P
But this spam campaign isn't trying to get us to read the messages. It's trying to up a count on Google—a count which does not rise because, as my link stated, Paizo took its count thingies off Google for just that reason.
Oh well, unless one of us goes to work as a spammer I guess we won't know for sure. And if somebody who regularly posted on these boards was a spammer, would they admit it? :-)
At any rate the number of spam messages being put on the boards here seems to have dropped off over the past few days. Hopefully things will stay relatively quiet that way for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh well, unless one of us goes to work as a spammer I guess we won't know for sure. And if somebody who regularly posted on these boards was a spammer, would they admit it? :-)
I'm a spammer!
Oh well, unless one of us goes to work as a spammer I guess we won't know for sure. And if somebody who regularly posted on these boards was a spammer, would they admit it? :-)I'm a spammer!
I've had a can for years, can't bring myself to open it, let alone ingest it.
I had Spam, once.
I think that's when I had it, was at a potluck, my mom despises Spam:-)
