Quote from: J Arcane;311399I liked Windjammer's point in the ENWorld thread the best.

If you don't like the fucking rust monster, don't fucking use it.

There's 300+ monsters in the damn book, it's not like you're required by law to have a rust monster in your game.

:ditto:

Quote from: jrients;311403J Arcane, that's not a credible criticism if you're a player in someone else's rust monster infested campaign.

What I'd like to honestly know is how many times some of these people have actually encountered a rust monster in play.  Is this simply theoretical bitching or did they lose their favorite imaginary penis substitute to a monster or are there really oodles of DMs with campaign worlds where rust monsters are as common as orcs?  What the hell is really going on here?

Dude, I knew this one guy's cousin in high school had a DM that threw them on a planet made entirely of rust monsters.  They had rust monster trees that sprouted rust monster fruit, and bushes with rust monster berries.

And I think those four mentions are about the absolute outlier maximum that any two average groups combined have ever seen a rust monster.

Quote from: jrients;311403What I'd like to honestly know is how many times some of these people have actually encountered a rust monster in play.

Rust monsters were fairly common in my early OD&D campaigns. There was a slightly less than 1% chance of one showing up on the first or second level of a dungeon. They were really only dangerous the first time a party encountered one (as they did not know its special power) or if some intelligent being used them in a trap.

Otherwise they were beaten to death with wooden clubs by the party thieves and wooden staves by the party's magic-users. Those fighters and clerics with metal armor either stayed out of the room or held them back with those ten-foot poles. Or the party just slammed the door on the room the rust monsters were in and ignored them.

Also, in early versions of D&D, they were far less likely to be encountered for the first time when everyone had lots of permanent metal magic items to loose as such magic items were far less commonly possessed by lower level characters. As characters advanced much more slowly, even that 0.8% of encountering a rust monster on the first two levels of the dungeon meant that most parties would encounter their first before they had a whole lot to lose.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;311338Seriously, if I were Paizo, I would have secretly contacted the competent people, hand them a NDA, pay them a wage, and ignore 99% of the dross posted on the playtest forums.

That is what they did, didn't they?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;311426That is what they did, didn't they?

Seanchai

By contracting Monte Cook as "rules consultant", that is indeed what they did, in essence.

Quote from: StormBringer;311356Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I'll be here when they turn the lights out. Someone has to keep trolls like you and Hairfoot in line, after all.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311466I'll be here when they turn the lights out. Someone has to keep trolls like you and Hairfoot in line, after all.

It's odd how people with ideas that are bereft of content see trolls everywhere.

Quote from: StormBringer;311484It's odd how people with ideas that are bereft of content see trolls everywhere.

Is that meant to be self-reflective? Let's not forget your wild fantasies of legions of 4e fans e-persecuting you earlier on this very thread.

Quote from: StormBringer;311484It's odd how people with ideas that are bereft of content see trolls everywhere.

Are you making a metaphor in analogy to how Senator Joseph McCarthy and many others during the 1950's, were "seeing" communists everywhere and anywhere in America?

Quote from: ggroy;311505Are you making a metaphor similar to how Senator Joseph McCarthy and many others during the 1950's, were "seeing" communists everywhere and anywhere in America?

He's just annoyed that I (accurately) called him a troll. Don't read too much into it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311506He's just annoyed that I (accurately) called him a troll. Don't read too much into it.

Yeah, because you're not the one who posted to search for a fight, calling other people "trolls" and this board a "shit basket" in the first place, right?
Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;311509Yeah, because you're not the one who posted to search for a fight, calling other people "trolls" and this board a "shit basket" in the first place, right?
Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

"Search for a fight"? Have you read the previous 700+ posts in this thread? It's an ongoing flamewar that people cycle in and out of.

Edit: Also, while I certainly am belligerent, I am sincere in the positions that I hold and I hold them because I think have good evidence for them. Stormbringer in particular has shown many times that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and a sophist who will advocate a position in one argument simply for tactical advantage. You might notice, for example, earlier in this thread the great kerfuffle about me calling him "Stormy".

Except that a short time later, when Dan Davenport referred to him as "Stormy" in this thread it didn't seem to bother him at all. There are further examples of this sort of behaviour (condemning swearing, then swearing at CavScout). They are what cause me to call Stormbringer a "troll" - he's dishonest. His reasons for believing something are constantly changing, and he will disavow a position only to adopt it later, when he thinks it will get him ahead in the argument.

Quote from: ggroy;311505Are you making a metaphor in analogy to how Senator Joseph McCarthy and many others during the 1950's, were "seeing" communists everywhere and anywhere in America?

Sure, that is a legitimate interpretation as well.

My intent, however, was more straightforward.  I was really just calling him a douchebag.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311511Edit: Also, while I certainly am belligerent, I am sincere in the positions that I hold and I hold them because I think have good evidence for them.

Sincerely holding a bankrupt position doesn't lend any legitimacy to it.  Flat earthers hold their positions sincerely because they think they have good evidence as well.  No one presents them with kudos for sincerity.

QuoteStormbringer in particular has shown many times that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and a sophist who will advocate a position in one argument simply for tactical advantage. You might notice, for example, earlier in this thread the great kerfuffle about me calling him "Stormy".

Except that a short time later, when Dan Davenport referred to him as "Stormy" in this thread it didn't seem to bother him at all.

That you are wholly unable to recognize hypocrisy is a sure sign that you shouldn't be accusing others of it.  Dan Davenport is a close associate, whom I have known on a more or less personal level for a number of years.  Friends have any number of nicknames for each other that strangers or others whose relationship is not of a friendly nature are discouraged from using by social agreement.  Much like a recent poster's  argument that the n-word used by one means it can be used by all.  I will re-iterate why that is incorrect:  one guy that calls his wife 'sugartits' is not free reign for everyone and anyone to refer to her as 'sugartits'.

But you are not so socially inept that you didn't know that.  You know full well that certain people can call me Stormy and others cannot entirely because of the relationship.  You are also fully aware that this standard applies to everyone.  Hence, you are arguing in bad faith, because you have absolutely no belief that one person using a nickname is exactly the same as anyone else using that nickname.

QuoteThere are further examples of this sort of behaviour (condemning swearing, then swearing at CavScout). They are what cause me to call Stormbringer a "troll" - he's dishonest. His reasons for believing something are constantly changing, and he will disavow a position only to adopt it later, when he thinks it will get him ahead in the argument.

I have condemned swearing in an argument before, but I have never excluded myself from that.  Therefore, not hypocrisy.  On occasion, the only response is in kind.  Not the best method, but when the discussion is nothing more than a stream of vulgarities, I am more than capable of engaging in that manner as well.  I have no qualms about this, and have no illusions that I may come off badly in such an exchange.  Nor have I ever pretended that my doing so is not as bad as the other.  Therefore, again, not hypocrisy.  You may want to brush up on the meanings of some of these words you bandy about.  I really don't think they mean what you think they mean.

As far as dishonesty, I have not seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Except that, when I easily poke holes in your bankrupt theories or simplistic points, that isn't dishonesty.  So, it's more like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is brand new, and not black in the least.  As you seem to have problems following these things, the kettle in this instance is me.

Quote from: Seanchai;311439*snip*

No. They did not do this AT ALL. Closer to the opposite but I honestly believe that the whole design process behind Pathfinder was random - essentially throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.

Quote from: Benoist;311439*snip*

I like Monte Cook and think he did a great job with the Book of Experimental Might but he's not someone I feel can objectively look at the system and make the necessary changes to fix some of the underlying problems. That and I believe his influence over the final product was marginal at best. If he had more influence, I think Monte would have at least told off Jason and a lot less WTF things (i.e. the Fly skill) would show up in PF.